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.
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.
Lyft, Inc., U.S. v.
The FTC is taking action against rideshare operator Lyft for making deceptive earnings claims about how much money drivers could expect to make per hour and how much they could earn in special incentives.
Lyft has agreed to a proposed settlement that would require its claims about drivers’ pay to be based on typical earnings. In addition, Lyft has agreed to back up with evidence any claims it makes about drivers’ pay, clearly notify drivers about the terms of its “earnings guarantee” offers, and pay a $2.1 million civil penalty.
The U.S. Department of Justice filed the lawsuit and proposed settlement upon notification and referral from the FTC.
Statement of Commissioner Andrew N. Ferguson Concurring in Part and Dissenting in Part In the Matter of Lyft, Inc.
Dissenting Statement of Commissioner Melissa Holyoak In the Matter of Lyft, Inc.
Jim Iree Lewis, In the matter of
RivX Automation Corp., et al., FTC and State of Florida v.
The Federal Trade Commission is sending more than $222,000 in refunds to consumers harmed by a deceptive mortgage relief operation known as Lanier Law. The scheme collected thousands of dollars in upfront fees from homeowners by promising to lower their monthly payments but then failed to deliver. As a result of a lawsuit filed by the Federal Trade Commission and the State of Florida, a federal court has ordered so-called “trucking automation” company RivX to cease its operations over allegations the firm has scammed consumers out of millions of dollars with deceptive promises of trucking industry investment opportunities.
The complaint filed by the FTC and the Florida Office of Attorney General alleges that RivX, along with its owner Antonio Rivodo and company executive Noah Wooten, have used deceptive claims of guaranteed income to entice consumers to pay $75,000 dollars or more to buy trucks that they often never received.