Skip to main content

Displaying 21 - 40 of 5526

Pornhub/Mindgeek/Aylo

The FTC and the state of Utah announced a settlement with the operators of Pornhub and other pornography-streaming sites over charges they deceived users by doing little to block tens of thousands of videos and photos featuring child sexual abuse material (CSAM) and nonconsensual material (NCM) despite claiming that this content was “strictly prohibited.” 

Type of Action
Administrative
Last Updated
Case Status
Pending

Apitor

The FTC reached a settlement with Apitor Technology over allegations that its app enabled a third party in China to collect geolocation information from children without parental consent.

Type of Action
Federal
Last Updated
Case Status
Pending

Content at Scale AI

In April 2025, the FTC issued a proposed order requiring Workado, LLC to stop advertising the accuracy of its artificial intelligence (AI) detection products unless it maintains competent and reliable evidence showing those products are as accurate as claimed. Following a public comment period, the Commission approved the final consent order and responded to two comments the FTC received on the proposed order.

Type of Action
Administrative
Last Updated
FTC Matter/File Number
2323092
Case Status
Pending

Air.ai

 The FTC asked a federal court to stop Air AI from using allegedly deceptive claims about business growth, earnings potential, and refund guarantees to fleece small businesses and entrepreneurs.

Type of Action
Administrative
Last Updated
Case Status
Pending

Click Profit, LLC

At the request of the Federal Trade Commission, a federal court temporarily halted  a business opportunity scheme known as Click Profit, which took millions from consumers by falsely promising consumers that they could earn big profits through online sales.

In a complaint, the FTC alleged that Click Profit and its owners deceived consumers by promising they could make large sums in “passive income” using a proprietary system powered by artificial intelligence. The system supposedly enables consumers to sell goods through online platforms such as Amazon, Walmart, and TikTok. Click Profit also deceived consumers by claiming to be affiliated with major companies like Nike and Disney as a ploy to convince consumers to turn over tens of thousands of dollars each, according to the complaint.

In August 2025, the FTC announced that under a proposed settlement, Click Profit and its owners will be permanently banned from the industry and will be required to turn over cash, real estate, and personal property that will be used for consumer redress.

Type of Action
Administrative
Last Updated
Docket Number
1:25-cv-20973-DSL
Case Status
Pending

Arise Virtual Solutions, Inc., FTC v.

The FTC is taking action against Arise Virtual Solutions for misleading consumers about the money they could make on Arise’s platform and marketing its business opportunity without complying with the FTC’s Business Opportunity Rule.

In August 2025, the FTC sent more than $6.7 million to consumers impacted by the gig work company’s deceptive earnings claims.

Type of Action
Federal
Last Updated
FTC Matter/File Number
2223046
Case Status
Pending

Asbury Automotive Group, Inc., et al., In the Matter of

The Federal Trade Commission is acting against a large automotive dealer group, Asbury Automotive, for systematically charging consumers for costly add-on items they did not agree to or were falsely told were required as part of their purchase. The FTC also alleges that Asbury discriminates against Black and Latino consumers, targeting them with unwanted and higher-priced add-ons.

In an administrative complaint, the FTC alleges that three Texas dealerships owned by Asbury that operate as David McDavid Ford Ft. Worth, David McDavid Honda Frisco, and David McDavid Honda Irving, along with Ali Benli, who acted as general manager of those dealerships, engaged in a variety of practices to sneak hidden fees for unwanted add-ons past consumers. These tactics included a practice called “payment packing,” where the dealerships convinced consumers to agree to monthly payments that were larger than needed to pay for the agreed-upon price of the car, and then “packed” add-on items to the sales contract to make up that difference.

Type of Action
Administrative
Last Updated
FTC Matter/File Number
222 3135
Docket Number
9436
Case Status
Pending