[{"pubDate":"Wed, 07 Oct 2026 14:05:07 +0200","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2018/09/root-root-root-regions","titre":"Root, root root for the regions","source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","id":3201877,"description":"Root, root root for the regions lfair September 24, 2018 | 2:03PM Root, root root for the regions By Andrew Smith, Director, FTC Bureau of Consumer Protection T his year eight major league baseball teams are celebrating milestone anniversaries – and so are the FTC’s regional offices. In 1918, the Commission opened the first three of its regional offices. Today, eight regional offices continue to knock it out the park on behalf of America’s consumers. So it’s only fitting that on this momentous day we acknowledge the regional offices’ century of pennant-winning performances. According to the Commission’s 1918 Annual Report, “In order to expedite the greatly increased work of the Commission . . . small branch offices were established in New York, Chicago, and San Francisco.” Over time, the FTC has added other locations for a current total of eight offices in seven regions. Regional staff work with the Bureau of Consumer Protection and the Bureau of Competition on investigations and litigation. But they are in a unique position to host roundtables and workshops in their communities; to coordinate with local, state, and cross-border law enforcers; and to build partnerships with consumer groups and small business organizations within their region. According to the scouting report, there isn’t a pitch they can’t hit. Here’s a brief look at each region’s box score with a focus on just a few of their many MVP contributions to the FTC’s consumer protection mission. East Central Region . In 1918, the Cleveland Indians finished just out of pennant contention, but the FTC’s Cleveland-based office works hard to bring home the W for consumers and small businesses. For example, ECR has brought a number of cases over the past two decades to protect small businesses in their area and around the country, including cramming, business directory, and unordered merchandise scams. Recently, ECR played a central role in Operation Main Street, the FTC’s recent initiative against scammers targeting small businesses. Midwest Region . Chicago fans may be divided in their loyalty to the Cubs and the White Sox, but consumers who lost money to scammers who used the services of a major money transfer company are united in their appreciation for the FTC-DOJ settlement that returned $586 million back to them. And just recently, MWR hosted the Commission’s workshop on cryptocurrency scams and took a lead role in Operation Tech Trap, a coordinated state, federal, and international effort to shut down tech support fraudsters. Northeast Region . Given New York’s connection to names like Huggins, Houk, Stengel, Berra, and Torre, it’s no wonder the FTC’s Northeast Region has particular expertise in coaching. But in NER’s case, it’s about companies that make deceptive “coaching” and money-making representations. The New York-based office also has been one of the FTC’s power hitters in addressing misleading practices in the affiliate marketing industry. And from their Big Apple location, NER has been a leader in educating consumers, particularly older Americans and small businesses. Northwest Region . Like their hometown Seattle Mariners, the FTC’s Northwest Region has a proven record of navigating the complexities on the field of play. NWR coordinated Operation Donate with Honor, a nationwide crackdown on fraudulent charities alleged to have conned consumers by falsely promising their contributions will help veterans and servicemembers. In addition, our team in Seattle regularly coordinates with Canadian counterparts to combat cross-border fraud. And they’ve been ahead of the curve on tech issues, bringing one of the FTC’s first internet cases in the 90s and more recently, an early online influencer action. Southeast Region . The Atlanta Braves boast a national fan base – and due to their expertise in fighting fraud, the FTC’s Southeast Region can be proud of its coast-to-coast impact,"},{"id":3201052,"description":"First FTC ROSCA case challenges bogus BOGO and \"free\" claims wfg-adm109 October 21, 2014 | 12:02PM First FTC ROSCA case challenges bogus BOGO and \"free\" claims By Lesley Fair It’s called ROSCA – the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act – and it prohibits marketers from charging consumers for an online transaction unless the marketer has clearly disclosed all material terms of the deal and received the consumer’s express informed consent. Your e-commerce clients will want to know about the FTC’s first ROSCA case , filed recently in Nevada. According to the lawsuit, Health Formulas, LLC and a tangle of related California- and Nevada-based companies and individuals – consumers may know them as Simple Pure Nutrition – pitched a variety of products for weight loss, muscle building, virility, and skin care. The defendants advertised diet supplements like Pure Green Coffee Bean Plus and RKG Extreme as a shortcut to drop the pounds: “Burn fat without diet or exercise,” “Extreme weight loss!” “Shed pounds fast!” “Super concentrated double fat burning,” etc. Among the defendants’ more colorful business names: Weight Loss Dojo, Longhorn Marketing (sorry, Texas fans), Black Bull, and Unleash the Thunder. But unsubstantiated weight loss claims were just the start. The FTC says the defendants lured people in with bogus promises of a “free” trial or deceptive buy-one-get-one (BOGO) offers. Then they tricked consumers into giving their credit or debit card information with the false implication that consumers had to “just pay shipping.”   Digits in hand, the defendants really went to town, allegedly signing consumers up without their authorization for a negative option program that billed their accounts over and over again, to the monthly tune of between $60 and $210. The FTC says the defendants violated ROSCA by using a negative option feature without providing clear and conspicuous disclosures, getting the consumer’s express informed consent, and offering a simple mechanism for stopping the recurring charges. The FTC’s complaint also cites the defendants’ hard-to-find and hard-to-understand fine-print “terms and conditions,” which consumers could reach only by scrolling through the equivalent of two printed pages and clicking on an obscure hyperlink. Assuming they found it – and that’s a big if – the typical “terms and conditions” document was 10 pages long. On some websites, consumers had to scroll down the payment page to see further fine-print disclosures about the cost of the products. The first sentence reiterated what consumers generally understood (“You must pay a shipping and handling fee of $4.95 for us to send you a full 30 day supply of Garcinia Cambogia Extract”) but it wasn’t until the middle of the paragraph that the defendants mentioned that the trial period lasts only 14 days, that it began when the items were shipped (not delivered), and that consumers would be charged after that. Other websites didn’t even include that information. According to the lawsuit, consumers who attempted to take the defendants up on their money-back guarantee were met with a series of undisclosed roadblocks. In addition to the ROSCA counts, the FTC says the defendants’ practices violated the Electronic Fund Transfer Act by debiting consumers’ accounts on a recurring basis without their prior written authorization. What’s more, the complaint charges that the defendants continued to call people after being told to cut it out, in violation of the Telemarketing Sales Rule’s entity-specific Do Not Call provisions. The FTC says they also violated the TSR through a series of deceptive upsells. A federal judge has entered a temporary restraining order and the FTC is seeking to put a permanent stop to the defendants’ illegal practices. If your clients have ROSCA questions, the","source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","pubDate":"Wed, 07 Oct 2026 08:05:50 +0200","titre":"First FTC ROSCA case challenges bogus BOGO and \"free\" claims","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2014/10/first-ftc-rosca-case-challenges-bogus-bogo-free-claims"},{"pubDate":"Tue, 06 Oct 2026 08:06:24 +0200","titre":"FTC recaps consumer complaint data for 2017: Who’s on the list?","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2018/03/ftc-recaps-consumer-complaint-data-2017-whos-list","source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","id":3199077,"description":"FTC recaps consumer complaint data for 2017: Who’s on the list? lfair March 1, 2018 | 5:17PM FTC recaps consumer complaint data for 2017: Who’s on the list? By Lesley Fair Once bitten, twice shy. That fundamental principle of human behavior is why reputable businesses that work hard to earn consumers’ confidence should support the FTC’s ongoing efforts to fight fraud. According to the FTC’s 2017 Consumer Sentinel Data Book , consumers reported losing a total of $905 million to fraud last year. That’s close to a billion bucks people won’t be able to spend on legitimate products and services from credible companies. That figure is up $63 million from last year, although the total number of reports received from consumers is down from 2.98 million in 2016 to 2.68 million in 2017. Topping the list that no industry wants to be on is debt collection, making up 23% of the total number of complaints. But there are two caveats: 1) that number is down from 2016; and 2) the high number of debt collection reports was due in part to reports submitted by a data contributor who collects complaints via a mobile app. Second on the list is identity theft at 14%. The injury to consumers came in two equally unpalatable flavors. Credit card fraud was the most common manifestation. Tax fraud was next, but the glimmer of hope there is that the total number of tax-related identity theft complaints fell by 46%. Winners of the dubious bronze medal were imposter scams , with consumers reporting financial losses of a whopping $328 million. Imposters wear many masks: “I’m with [big-name tech company] and your computer is riddled with viruses,” “Help, Grampa! I’ve been arrested and need bail money,” and “We’re from [government agency] and we’ll arrest you if you don’t pay us today.” Nearly one in five consumers who reported an imposter scam said they lost money to the fraud. For the first time, the Consumer Sentinel Data Book breaks out fraud losses by reported age groups and here’s a result that may surprise you: Consumers in their 20s reported losing money to fraud more often than those over 70. Among 20-somethings who reported fraud, 40% said they lost money. Compare that with the over-70 crowd, only 18% of whom reported a financial loss. But there’s a troubling aspect to that surprising factoid. When older adults did report losing money to a scammer, the loss was much greater. For example, people 80 and older reported median losses of $1,092 compared to $400 for those in their 20s. Wire transfers continue to be scammers’ preferred payment method and in 70% of the complaints we received, the fraudster contacted the consumer by phone. The top states for reporting fraud were Florida, Georgia and Nevada, while Michigan, Florida and California had the most reports about identity theft, per capita. Stats cats tell us that they find our state-by-state data dive helpful, so we’ve created a new webpage to make it easier to evaluate the information. The bottom line for business people: Educate.   Use your status in the community to spread the word to employees, industry colleagues, and friends about the latest forms of fraud. One way to stay in the know: Sign up for scam alerts from the FTC. Cooperate.  If people you know suspect that their identity has been compromised, send them to identitytheft.gov to create a personal recovery plan. (And remember that your company may have a legal obligation to provide identity theft victims and law enforcers with transaction records related to ID theft.) Report.   When you spot a scam, report it to the FTC . We’re talking about fraud directed to consumers and questionable promotions targeting small businesses. Your reports have helped the FTC and other law enforcement agencies put together cases against the con artists behind bogus business directories, office supply flimflams, and other forms of B2B fraud. Consumer Sentinel is an online database available to civil"},{"source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","id":3199074,"description":"Planning a social media marketing campaign? Read this first. lfair November 13, 2018 | 12:24PM Planning a social media marketing campaign? Read this first. By Lesley Fair It started as one of those “run it up the flagpole” ideas to enlist big-name gymnasts to promote a brand of mosquito repellent just as news stories about the 2016 Brazil Olympics were sounding warnings about the Zika virus. Public relations firm Creaxion Corporation and specialty sports magazine publisher Inside Publications used a variety of digital strategies on behalf of the brand: athlete endorsements, social media posts, “advertorials,” and consumer reviews. But according to the FTC’s complaint , their efforts violated established FTC advertising principles. Which of those strategies are you using? And are you avoiding legal pitfalls by making appropriate disclosures? Creaxion – an Atlanta-based marketing and PR company – was approached by client HealthPro Brands to help launch its mosquito repellent. They agreed Creaxion would produce a “strategic media relations campaign” that would be “tied to the worldwide outbreak of the Zika Virus.” Creaxion then contacted Inside Publications, publisher of magazines like Inside Volleyball , Inside Cheerleading , and Inside Gymnastics , to broker a partnership with HealthPro. You’ll want to read the complaint for details about the “Social and Digital Media Activation and Athlete Engagement” agreement between HealthPro and Inside Publications, but here are some of the things HealthPro paid for: endorsements by leading gymnasts, magazine “articles” featuring the repellent, the product’s placement in “Good Luck” gift baskets from Inside Gymnastics to top U.S. gymnasts, and social media posts touting the product by Inside Publications and athlete endorsers. According to the complaint, Creaxion president Mark Pettit acted as an intermediary between Inside Publications and HealthPro. Ultimately, 2004 Olympic gold medal gymnast Carly Patterson Caldwell agreed to become a paid spokesperson. She received several thousand dollars for social media posts and an Inside Gymnastics advertorial. (She decided not to attend the Brazil Olympics because of her concerns about Zika.) Olympic gold medal gymnast Jake Dalton also signed on and was paid for promoting the repellent to his fans and followers. The two gymnasts posted endorsements of the repellent on social media without disclosing their paid promotional relationship. For example, Ms. Patterson Caldwell said on Facebook, “I was definitely bummed to have to make the decision to not go to Rio for the summer Olympics because of the threat of the Zika virus, but working on starting a family and being safe and protecting myself was way more important to my husband and me! I am so thankful to have found a safe and organic product (FIT Organic) that will ease my worries as mosquito season approaches.” Similarly, Mr. Dalton posted on Twitter, “Getting Rio Ready! Not worried about Zika. Fit Organic has my back and body covered. Love the Fit mosquito repellent.” Inside Publications also posted and reposted statements on social media about the repellent, primarily through its Inside Gymnastics account, including some featuring Patterson Caldwell and Dalton. According to the complaint, Inside Publications didn’t disclose the spokespersons’ paid promotional relationships with HealthPro or that its own posts were paid ads. Nor did it disclose that the “Caring for Carly,” “The latest on Zika” and “Move Over Mosquitos” articles were really paid ads. The FTC also says Creaxion conducted an online consumer review program that reimbursed Creaxion employees and “friends” for buying FIT repellent and reviewing the product online without disclosing their affiliation with the brand. The complaint charges that the gymnasts’ statements about the repellent were falsely represented as the","pubDate":"Tue, 06 Oct 2026 08:06:23 +0200","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2018/11/planning-social-media-marketing-campaign-read-first","titre":"Planning a social media marketing campaign? Read this first."},{"pubDate":"Tue, 01 Sep 2026 08:10:10 +0200","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2026/08/ftc-states-sue-amazon-over-secret-ad-surcharge-scheme","titre":"FTC, States Sue Amazon Over Secret Ad Surcharge Scheme","source":"Federal Trade Commission - Protecting America's Consumers","id":3127461,"description":"Today, 22 states joined the Federal Trade Commission in filing suit against Amazon, alleging that the company engaged in deceptive and unfair practices that secretly inflated prices in its online search advertising auctions. The complaint   alleges that, for over seven years, Amazon has covertly and substantially increased the prices that more than one million brands and sellers were required to pay to advertise on its platform. As a result, the complaint alleges that Amazon’s scheme has likely extracted tens of billions of dollars from its unwitting advertising customers. “When one of the world’s largest online retailers engages in unfair and deceptive conduct, the impact can be staggering,” said Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson. “Amazon has millions of advertising customers who were misled into paying significantly higher prices. These higher costs were largely passed on to American consumers. The FTC under President Trump won’t allow this deception to continue.” The FTC, along with the attorneys general of Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Vermont and Washington, allege Amazon has imposed undisclosed surcharges on its advertising customers, which include over 500,000 small- and medium-sized businesses that participated in auctions for advertising placements on Amazon.com and its mobile app. In these auctions, prospective advertisers bid to place Sponsored Product ads, Sponsored Brands ads and Display Ads alongside the results that appear when a consumer searches for a product using a keyword on Amazon’s store. Placements are auctioned to the highest-ranked bidder for each keyword. As described in the complaint, Amazon has represented to prospective advertisers for years that Amazon runs “second price” auctions where the winner of the auction would only pay “one cent more than the next highest bidder” for each successful bid for an advertising keyword. However, in practice, the complaint alleges that Amazon has charged its Sponsored Products advertisers their own winning bid close to 80% of the time and has effectively converted its nominally “second price” auction into a first price auction. According to the complaint, Amazon’s “second price” auctions have been described by Amazon, and understood by advertisers, to be run as generalized second-price, or GSP auctions, which have been the accepted industry standard for digital advertising placements. The complaint states that Amazon has made these or similar representations on its website, in training videos and in other public-facing materials, as well as in presentations made to advertisers by its hundreds of sales personnel.  The type of auction matters to advertisers because it impacts how they bid. In a sealed first-price auction—the type of auction where winners pay the amount of their winning bid—bidders run the risk that they might overbid. So, in repetitive auctions for the same goods, they will often reduce their bid to determine what the minimum amount needed to win future auctions might be. This is called bid shading. In second-price auctions, bidders are more likely to bid higher, closer to their true value for the product, because they will only be liable to pay the least bid amount needed to win under the auction’s rules.  As alleged in the complaint, Amazon told advertisers it ran a GSP, but for years its auction pricing had “a surcharge hidden in it,” in the words of one internal Amazon document. The complaint alleges that, beginning in 2019, Amazon changed its auction rules without notice by adding an undisclosed surcharge that Amazon referred to internally as a “soft reserve price.” This resulted in advertisers paying substantially more than the price determined by the GSP auction.  According to the complaint, Amazon"},{"source":"Federal Trade Commission - Protecting America's Consumers","description":"New data from the Federal Trade Commission reveal that people reported losing a staggering $3.5 billion to imposter scams in 2025, with reported losses increasing nearly three times since 2020. FTC data also show that people reported imposter scams more than any other fraud category in 2025—nearly one in three fraud reports were about imposter scams. These scams lured consumers through text, phone, email, social media, search engine results and other means. Some of the costliest impersonation scams start with a fake security alert, often from a bank. People are convinced to move money to “protect” it, with their losses often limited only by their available funds. Last year, people reported losing nearly $1 billion to business impersonators with the highest reported losses to bank impersonators—and about $920 million to government impersonators, up from $866 million and $789 million respectively in 2024. The FTC has seen a striking increase in reported fraud losses to all types of fraud—about $16 billion was reported lost in 2025, the highest on record and an increase of about 25% compared to the 2024 figure. “Consumers derive enormous benefits from competitive markets built on truthful information. But fraud undermines that foundation, impeding the market process and preventing markets from operating efficiently,” said Christopher Mufarrige, Director of the Bureau of Consumer Protection. “The FTC will use every tool available to combat one of the most pernicious forms of fraud—government and business impersonation—and to protect the integrity of the digital economy.” The data underscore the importance of the FTC’s work with the  Elder Justice Coordinating Council (EJCC) , which is working to help raise awareness of imposter scams and other scams impacting older adults as well as other consumers. This year, the FTC, along with the Department of Justice, Department of Health and Human Services and members of the EJCC, is leading the Never Ever campaign, a public-private coordinated consumer education effort to raise awareness of government and business imposter scams. In addition to the federal agency members of the EJCC , the campaign also includes private sector representatives such as the American Bankers Association, USTelecom, Google and Microsoft. To help the public spot imposter scams, EJCC members launched the Never Ever campaign, which is aimed at promoting messaging on the key actions that government and businesses will Never Ever take. The Never Ever campaign will run from June 15 to June 26, in conjunction with World Elder Abuse Awareness Day. This first-of-its-kind public-private partnership includes participants from a wide range of organizations and is aimed at directing consumers to a website that includes information and resources to help them avoid imposter scams and what to do if they spot one. Enforcement Actions To help combat impersonation scams, the FTC in 2024 finalized the Impersonation Rule. The Rule gives the agency stronger tools to combat and deter scammers who impersonate government agencies and businesses, enabling the FTC to file federal court cases seeking to get money back to injured consumers and civil penalties against rule violators. Since then, the FTC has vigorously enforced the rule and brought a dozen enforcement actions that have resulted in halting imposter schemes and obtained over $70 million in redress for consumers. In 2025, the FTC brought law enforcement actions under the Impersonation Rule against:  American Tax Service (IRS imposter scheme);  MediaAlpha (government imposter scheme to sell health insurance);  Click Profit (business imposter money making scam);  Blackstone Legal (phantom debt business imposter scheme) and  Accelerated Debt Settlement (government and business imposter scheme that targeted older adults for debt relief). More recently, the  FTC filed a complaint against Innovative Partners in April 2026 , alleging the operators","id":2959787,"url":"https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2026/06/ftc-data-show-people-reported-losing-3-point-5-billion-imposter-scams-2025","titre":"FTC Data Show People Reported Losing $3.5 Billion to Imposter Scams in 2025","pubDate":"Tue, 16 Jun 2026 08:09:40 +0200"},{"pubDate":"Fri, 19 Dec 2025 09:48:21 +0100","titre":"Instacart to Pay $60 Million in Consumer Refunds to Settle FTC Lawsuit Over Allegations it Engaged in Deceptive Tactics","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2025/12/instacart-pay-60-million-consumer-refunds-settle-ftc-lawsuit-over-allegations-it-engaged-deceptive","id":2582987,"description":"Today, the Federal Trade Commission announced that grocery delivery provider Instacart will pay $60 million in refunds to consumers to settle allegations that the company engaged in numerous unlawful tactics that harmed shoppers and raised the cost of grocery shopping for Americans. Instacart will be required to cease its deceptive practices under a proposed FTC order, and consumers who were charged for Instacart+ without their express informed consent will receive refunds as a result of the settlement. “Instacart misled consumers by advertising free delivery services—and then charging consumers to have groceries delivered—and failing to disclose to consumers that signed up for a free trial that they would be automatically enrolled into its subscription program,” said Christopher Mufarrige, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “The FTC is focused on monitoring online delivery services to ensure that competitors are transparently competing on price and delivery terms.” The FTC has alleged that Instacart engaged in a variety of deceptive tactics that misled consumers and caused them to pay more in fees, while depriving consumers of refunds. Specifically, the FTC alleges that Instacart: Falsely advertised “free delivery” to consumers on their first order Instacart’s claims of “free delivery” are false because consumers still must pay a mandatory “service fee” to get their groceries delivered. These mandatory service fees add as much as 15% to the order cost and were not clearly disclosed to consumers. Falsely advertised a “100% satisfaction guarantee,” implying that it will provide full refunds when consumers are not fully satisfied Consumers who experience late deliveries or unprofessional service typically are not offered full refunds and instead are given only a small credit that can be used toward a future order. Instacart hid the refund option from the “self-service” menu that consumers use to report problems with their orders, leading many consumers to erroneously believe they could receive only a credit toward a future order rather than a refund. Failed to clearly disclose terms relating to Instacart+ membership enrollment Instacart’s free-trial enrollment process for Instacart+ did not adequately disclose that consumers would be charged for memberships at the end of their trials, nor did it disclose Instacart’s restrictive refund policy. As a result, Instacart has charged many consumers for paid memberships without their express informed consent. Hundreds of thousands of consumers have been charged membership fees without receiving benefits from the membership or getting refunds. Under the terms of the FTC’s proposed settlement order , Instacart will be prohibited from making misrepresentations concerning the costs of delivery services and satisfaction guarantees. Instacart must also clearly and conspicuously disclose the terms and obtain express informed consent for transactions involving subscription models where consumers are automatically charged unless they actively opt out. The Commission vote approving the stipulated final order was 2-0. The FTC filed the proposed order in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. NOTE:  Stipulated final orders have the force of law when approved and signed by the District Court","source":"Federal Trade Commission - Protecting America's Consumers"}]