Displaying 101 - 120 of 9358
H&R Block, In the Matter of
The Federal Trade Commission is taking action against tax preparation company H&R Block for unfairly deleting consumers’ tax data and requiring them to contact customer service when they downgrade to more affordable online products, and deceptively marketing their products as “free” when they were not free for many consumers. These practices cost consumers time and money.
A proposed FTC settlement would stop H&R Block from unfairly requiring consumers seeking to downgrade to a cheaper H&R Block product to contact customer service, from unfairly deleting users' previously entered data and from making deceptive claims about “free” tax filing.
The tax-filing company has agreed to a proposed settlement that will require the company to make a number of changes for the 2025 tax filing season in addition to longer-term changes. The settlement would also require the company to pay $7 million to the FTC to be used to redress consumers harmed by the company’s unlawful practices.
In January 2025, The Federal Trade Commission finalized an order requiring the tax preparation company H&R Block to make a number of changes for the 2025 tax filing season in addition to longer-term changes. The settlement also requires the company to pay $7 million to be used to compensate consumers harmed by the company’s unlawful practices.
Stem Cell Institute of America, LLC
In August 2021, the FTC and the Georgia Attorney General’s Office sued the co-founders of the Stem Cell Institute of America for marketing stem cell therapy to seniors nationwide using bogus claims that it is effective in treating arthritis, joint pain, and a range of other orthopedic ailments. In January 2025 the FTC and AG’s Office announce two court orders in their favor settling the complaint and barring the company from the allegedly illegal conduct.
FTC v HOPE Services
In January 2025, the FTC sent more than $49,000 in refunds to consumers who paid a sham mortgage relief operation that told financially distressed homeowners it would help get their mortgages modified, but instead effectively stole their mortgage payments.
FTC, New York Attorney General Take Action Against Handy Technologies for Deceiving Workers About Potential Earnings
Handy Technologies
The Federal Trade Commission, along with the New York Attorney General, are taking action against gig economy company Handy Technologies for making a broad array of deceptive claims about how much money workers on its platform could earn.
The complaint charges that Handy, which currently does business as Angi Services, has peppered its advertisements with earnings claims that don’t reflect the reality for the overwhelming majority of workers on the platform. The complaint also charges that Handy has failed to clearly disclose fees and fines that have led to millions of dollars being withheld from workers.
Under the terms of a proposed settlement order, Handy would be required to turn over $2.95 million to be used to provide refunds to harmed workers, and make substantial changes to ensure that workers give clear consent to any fees charged by the company and that the company gives workers clear direction about how to avoid fines.
Oil Companies to Pay Record FTC Gun-Jumping Fine for Antitrust Law Violation
Statement of Commissioner Andrew N. Ferguson Concurring in Part and Dissenting in Part FTC v. Handy Technologies, Inc.
FTC Announces Refund Claims Process for Consumers Who Bought Deceptively Marketed Golden Sunrise Nutraceutical Products
Golden Sunrise Nutraceutical, Inc.
In July 2020, the Federal Trade Commission filed a complaint in federal court against the California-based marketers and promoters of bogus treatments for serious medical conditions. The defendants are two corporations headquartered in Porterville, California, and two of their executives: Huu Tieu, president and CEO of both companies; and Stephen Meis, Medical Director and board member of Golden Sunrise Nutraceutical. The complaint alleged that defendants have promoted and sold a variety of products through "plans of care" ranging in price from $23,000 to $200,000, which falsely claim to treat or cure COVID-19, cancer, Parkinson's disease, etc. On June 14, 2021, the FTC announced a proposed order barring the defendants from making bogus health claims. In January 2024, the FTC announced the process defrauded consumers can use to seek refunds.
FTC Order Requires Online Marketer to Pay $1 Million for Deceptive Claims that its AI Product Could Make Websites Compliant with Accessibility Guidelines
FTC Approves Final Order against Sitejabber, Which Misrepresented Ratings and Reviews by Consumers Who Had Not Yet Received Products or Services
accessiBe Inc.
In January 2025, the FTC announced a complaint and proposed order require software provider accessiBe to pay $1 million to settle allegations that it misrepresented the ability of its AI-powered web accessibility tool to make any website compliant with the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) for people with disabilities.
Sitejabber
In a complaint issued in November 2024, the FTC charged that Sitejabber deceived consumers by misrepresenting that ratings and reviews it published came from customers who experienced the reviewed product or service, artificially inflating average ratings and review counts. Under a proposed order settling the agency’s complaint, Sitejabber will be prohibited from making such misrepresentations and from making other misrepresentations about consumer ratings or reviews. The Commission approved the consent as final in January 2025.
Grubhub Inc., FTC and Illinois v.
Grubhub will pay $25 million to settle charges from the Federal Trade Commission and the Illinois Attorney General that the food delivery firm engaged in an array of unlawful practices including deceiving diners about delivery costs and blocking their access to their accounts and funds, deceiving workers about how much money they would make delivering food, and unfairly and deceptively listing restaurants on its platform without their permission.
Under the proposed settlement, the company must make substantial changes to its operations across a number of areas, including telling consumers the full cost of delivery, honestly advertising pay for drivers, and listing restaurants on its platform only with their consent.
FTC Refers Case Against Online Cash Advance Firm Dave Inc. to Department of Justice
Dave, Inc., FTC v.
The Federal Trade Commission has referred its federal court case against online cash advance firm Dave Inc. to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) which has filed an amended complaint in the case that names Dave CEO Jason Wilk as a defendant and seeks civil penalties.
The FTC first brought its case against Dave in November 2024, charging that the company uses misleading marketing to deceive consumers about the amount of its cash advances, charges consumers undisclosed fees, and charges so-called “tips” to consumers without their consent.
Lindsay Chevrolet, et al, FTC and State of Maryland v
The FTC and Maryland Attorney General charged Lindsay Automotive Group with systematically deceiving and overcharging car-buying consumers for years, costing them millions of dollars in junk fees and unwanted add-on products.
Displaying 101 - 120 of 9358