The legal library gives you easy access to the FTC’s case information and other official legal, policy, and guidance documents.
Kroger Company/Albertsons Companies, Inc., In the Matter of
The Federal Trade Commission sued to block the largest proposed supermarket merger in U.S. history—Kroger Company’s $24.6 billion acquisition of the Albertsons Companies, Inc.—alleging that the deal is anticompetitive.
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.
Statement of Chair Lina M. Khan Joined by Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter and Commissioner Alvaro M. Bedoya Regarding the Non-Compete Clause Final Rule
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.
2412001 Informal Interpretation
Leader Automotive Group, et al., FTC and State of Illinois v.
A group of 10 car dealerships doing business as Leader Automotive Group and their parent company, AutoCanada, will be required to pay $20 million to settle allegations they systematically defrauded consumers looking to buy vehicles as a result of a lawsuit by the Federal Trade Commission and state of Illinois.
In addition to paying $20 million, which will be used to refund harmed consumers, the proposed settlement also would require the companies to make clear disclosures of a car’s offering price—the actual price any consumer can pay to get the car, excluding only required government charges—and get consent from buyers for any charges. The $20 million proposed monetary judgment is the largest the FTC has secured against an auto dealer.
Statement of Commissioner Andrew N. Ferguson Concurring in Part and Dissenting in Part In the Matter of Grubhub, Inc.
Concurring Statement of Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter Regarding the Final Trade Regulation Rule on Unfair or Deceptive Fees
Statement of Commissioner Melissa Holyoak Regarding Trade Regulation Rule on Unfair or Deceptive Fees
Dissenting Statement of Commissioner Andrew N. Ferguson Regarding the Unfair or Deceptive Fees Rulemaking
Statement of Chair Lina M. Khan Regarding the Trade Regulation Rule on Unfair or Deceptive Fees
Michael Hewitt, In the Matter of
Cancer Recovery Foundation, Inc
The Federal Trade Commission and 10 states are suing sham charity Cancer Recovery Foundation International, also known as Women’s Cancer Fund, and its operator, Gregory B. Anderson, for deceiving generous donors who sought to offer financial support to women battling cancer and their families.
In a complaint filed in federal court, the FTC and states allege that, from 2017 to 2022, Women’s Cancer Fund collected more than $18 million from donors. The sham charity claimed that it would use the donated funds to help women who were undergoing treatment for cancer and their families pay for basic needs. Instead, the complaint charges, only about a penny of every dollar donated went to provide such support, while the overwhelming majority went to pay for-profit fundraisers and Anderson.