Every year the FTC brings hundreds of cases against individuals and companies for violating consumer protection and competition laws that the agency enforces. These cases can involve fraud, scams, identity theft, false advertising, privacy violations, anti-competitive behavior and more. The Legal Library has detailed information about cases we have brought in federal court or through our internal administrative process, called an adjudicative proceeding.
Chegg, Inc.
In September 2025, the Federal Trade Commission announced that Chegg Inc. will be required to pay $7.5 million to settle FTC allegations that the education technology provider made it extremely difficult for consumers to cancel recurring subscriptions while also failing to honor consumers’ cancellation requests.
Disney
Disney will pay $10 million to settle Federal Trade Commission allegations that the company allowed personal data to be collected from children who viewed kid-directed videos on YouTube without notifying parents or obtaining their consent as required by the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Rule (COPPA Rule).
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.
Match Group, Inc.
The Federal Trade Commission has sued online dating service Match Group, Inc. (Match), the owner of Match.com, Tinder, OKCupid, PlentyOfFish, and other dating sites, alleging that the company used fake love interest advertisements to trick hundreds of thousands of consumers into purchasing paid subscriptions on Match.com. The agency also alleges that Match has unfairly exposed consumers to the risk of fraud and engaged in other allegedly deceptive and unfair practices. For instance, the FTC alleges Match offered false promises of “guarantees,” failed to provide services to consumers who unsuccessfully disputed charges, and made it difficult for users to cancel their subscriptions.
Vision Online Inc. and Ganadores IBR, Inc., FTC v.
Under the terms of proposed federal court orders, several defendants in the case—including the companies behind Ganadores, the companies’ owners and managers Richard and Sara Alvarez, and an employee who played a key role in the marketing of the scheme, Bryce Chamberlain—will be permanently banned from selling ecommerce or real estate coaching services and will be required to turn over substantial assets to the FTC, which will be used to provide refunds to consumers harmed by the scam
Empire Holdings Group LLC, et al. FTC v.
The FTC has charged a business opportunity scheme with falsely claiming to help consumers build an “AI-powered Ecommerce Empire” by participating in its training programs that can cost almost $2,000 or by buying a “done for you” online storefront for tens of thousands of dollars. The scheme, known as Ecommerce Empire Builders (EEB), claims consumers can potentially make millions of dollars, but the FTC’s complaint alleges that those profits fail to materialize.
As a result of the FTC’s complaint, a federal court issued an order temporarily halting the scheme and putting it under the control of a receiver. The FTC’s case against the scheme is ongoing and will be decided by a federal court.
In May 2025, EEB and its owner, Peter Prusinowski (also known as Peter Pru), agreed to a court order that bans them from selling business opportunities and require them to turn over assets to the FTC to be used for refunds to consumers.
Cleo AI, Inc., FTC v.
Online cash advance company Cleo AI has agreed to pay $17 million to settle the Federal Trade Commission’s allegations that the company deceived consumers about how much money they could get and how fast that money could be available. The complaint, filed in federal district court along with the proposed settlement order, also alleges that Cleo made it difficult for consumers to cancel Cleo’s subscription service.
B4B Corp.
The Federal Trade Commission, jointly with the Department of Justice and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, have sued a New York-based marketer of herbal tea, seeking to permanently block deceptive ads that claim its Earth Tea is clinically proven to treat, cure, and prevent COVID-19.
Career Step, LLC, FTC v.
In July 2024, the FTC announced that online career-training company, Career Step, LLC has been ordered to pay $43.5 million in debt cancellation and cash to resolve charges brought by the Federal Trade Commission that alleged the company lured consumers, specifically servicemembers and their families, with deceptive ads that falsely touted inflated employment outcomes, job placement, and partnerships with prominent companies.
In March 2025, the FTC sent more than $15.5 million in refunds to consumers who were harmed by Career Step’s deceptive advertising.
Concurring Statement of Commissioner Andrew N. Ferguson COPPA Rule Amendments
Statement of Commissioner Alvaro M. Bedoya Joined by Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter Notice of Final Rulemaking to Update the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Rule (COPPA Rule)
Statement of Chair Lina M. Khan Regarding the Final Rule Amending the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Rule
Traffic and Funnels, LLC., FTC v.
The Federal Trade Commission has obtained proposed orders against the operators of a wide-ranging scheme known as “The Sales Mentor” that made millions by falsely promising consumers that they could make big money from telemarketing sales.
The defendants have agreed to proposed court orders that would require them to pay a total of $1 million for consumer refunds.
In a federal court complaint, the FTC charged the Tennessee-based group of companies, their owners, their officers, and a former sales director with deceiving consumers to pay hundreds or even thousands of dollars for supposed telemarketing training programs that rarely, if ever, delivered on what was promised. In addition, the FTC said the companies continued to make deceptive earnings claims even after they received the FTC’s Notices of Penalty Offenses on money-making opportunities and on endorsements and testimonials warning them that such conduct is illegal.
In January 2025, the FTC sent more than $960,000 in refunds to consumers who paid a job scheme known as “The Sales Mentor” that, according to the FTC, falsely promised consumers that they would make big money from telemarketing sales.
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.
Statement of Commissioner Andrew N. Ferguson Concurring in Part and Dissenting in Part FTC v. Handy Technologies, Inc.
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.
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.
SuperGoodDeals.com, Inc.
The FTC filed a complaint against SuperGoodDeals.com, Inc. and its owner, Kevin J. Lipsitz, alleging that the defendants falsely promised consumers next-day shipping of facemasks and other personal protective equipment (PPE) to deal with the coronavirus pandemic. In addition, the FTC alleged that some of the other merchandise sold through the SuperGoodDeals website were falsely advertised as “authentic” or “certified.”
Kevin Lipsitz, who defrauded consumers by falsely promising “next day” shipping of facemasks and respirators to consumers at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, will be banned from selling personal protective equipment (PPE) and be required to turn over more than $145,000 to the FTC.
In December 2024, the FTC sent more than $114,000 to consumers who were deceived by “next day shipping” claims on badly needed personal protective equipment (PPE) by online seller SuperGoodDeals.com.