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.
Virtual PC Solutions (Mikael Marczak a/k/a Michael Marczak), et al.
Lakshmi Infosoul Services Pvt Ltd.
Zeal IT Solutions Pvt Ltd., et al.
TicketNetwork, Inc.; Ryadd, Inc.; and SecureBoxOffice, LLC, et al
Resort Solution Trust, Inc., et al.
WARNING: Don't be fooled by callers asking for money who pretend to be employed by or on behalf of the Federal Trade Commission or helping to refund money recovered by the Commission. When the Commission seeks refund for consumers through its law enforcement efforts, it does not ask consumers to pay anything. It also does not authorize anyone else to collect such payments. If someone asks you to pay a fee to receive money, do not pay. Please let us know about it by filing a complaint at www.ftc.gov/complaint, or call Harold Kirtz, an FTC attorney, directly at 404-656-1357 if this concerns the alleged return of money from the Resort Solution Trust scam.
Verma Holdings, LLC and Rishab Verma
Mobilefunster, Inc.
LucasLawCenter Incorporated, d/b/a Future Financial Services, LLC, et al.
Tecnica Group, In the Matter of
The FTC alleged that starting in 2004 Marker Völkl and Tecnica agreed not to compete with each other to secure endorsements by professional skiers, in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Specifically, the FTC charges that Marker Völkl agreed not to solicit, recruit, or contact any skier who previously endorsed Tecnica skis, and Tecnica agreed to a similar arrangement with respect to Marker Völkl’s endorsers. In addition, the complaint states that in 2007, the companies expanded the scope of their non-compete agreement to cover all of their employees. The orders settling the FTC’s charges bar each firm from engaging in similar anticompetitive conduct in the future.
Marker Volkl, In the Matter of
The FTC alleges that starting in 2004 Marker Völkl and Tecnica agreed not to compete with each other to secure endorsements by professional skiers, in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Specifically, the FTC charges that Marker Völkl agreed not to solicit, recruit, or contact any skier who previously endorsed Tecnica skis, and Tecnica agreed to a similar arrangement with respect to Marker Völkl’s endorsers. In addition, the complaint states that in 2007, the companies expanded the scope of their non-compete agreement to cover all of their employees. The proposed orders settling the FTC’s charges bar each firm from engaging in similar anticompetitive conduct in the future.