Displaying 1 - 20 of 185
Panda Benefit Services, LLC., FTC v.
In June 2024, the Federal Trade Commission announced that it took action to stop Prosperity Benefit Services, a student loan debt relief scheme that the agency says bilked more than $20.3 million from consumers seeking debt relief by pretending to be affiliated with the Department of Education. The FTC also charged that the company and its operators falsely claimed that they would take over consumers’ student loans to get them loan forgiveness that did not exist. A federal court temporarily halted the scheme and froze its assets at the request of the FTC, which seeks to end the defendants’ deceptive practices.
FTC Acts to Stop Student Loan Debt Relief Scheme that Took Millions from Consumers in First Case under the Impersonation Rule
FTC Data Shows Major Increases in Cash Payments to Government Impersonation Scammers
New FTC Data Shed Light on Companies Most Frequently Impersonated by Scammers
FTC Announces Impersonation Rule Goes into Effect Today
Federal Trade Commission Warns of Scammers Pretending to be Agency Staff
Restoro-Reimage
Two tech support companies will pay $26 million to settle FTC charges that they bilked tens of millions of dollars from consumers, particularly older consumers, by duping them into buying computer repair services in violation of the FTC Act and the Telemarketing Sales Rule.
Tech Support Firms Will Pay $26 Million to Settle FTC Charges That They Deceived Consumers into Buying Repair Services
16 CFR Part 461: Trade Regulation Rule on Impersonation of Government and Businesses
Proposed Amendments to Trade Regulation Rule on Impersonation of Government and Businesses
FTC Proposes New Protections to Combat AI Impersonation of Individuals
FTC Providing Refunds to Consumers who Lost Money to Tech Support Scheme
On Point Global LLC
A court has granted the Federal Trade Commission’s request to preliminarily halt a scheme in which the defendants operated hundreds of websites that promised a quick and easy government service, such as renewing a driver’s license, or eligibility determinations for public benefits. Following an evidentiary hearing, the court held that the FTC was likely to prevail in proving that “the websites were patently misleading.”