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.
Vision Path, Inc., d/b/a Hubble Contacts, U.S. v.
In January 2022, New York City-based Vision Path, Inc., the online seller of direct-to-consumer Hubble lenses, agreed pay penalties and redress totaling $3.5 million to settle FTC charges that it violated the Contact Lens Rule in several ways, including by failing to obtain prescriptions and to properly verify prescription information, and by substituting Hubble lenses for those actually prescribed to consumers. The FTC also alleged the company violated the FTC Act when it failed to disclose that many reviews of Hubble lenses were not by unbiased consumers but were written by reviewers who were compensated for their reviews, and, in at least one instance, by one of its own executives.
Statement of Chair Lina M. Khan, Joined by Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter and Commissioner Alvaro M. Bedoya Regarding the Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2022-2026
Concurring Statement of Commissioner Christine S. Wilson regarding Federal Trade Commission Report to Congress on COPPA Staffing, Enforcement and Remedies
Kushly Industries LLC, In the Matter of
In May 2021, the FTC filed a complaint against Kushly Industries LLC and its CEO, Cody Alt, for allegedly marketing products containing cannabidiol (CBD) using unsubstantiated health and establishment claims. According to the complaint Kushly sold a variety of CBD products to the public through its website, kushly.com, and social media platforms from January 2019 to August 2020. The FTC order announced at the same time as the complaint banned the company and Alt from the alleged illegal conduct. The Commission approved the final order in July 2021. In August 2022, the FTC announced it was returning almost $21,000 to defrauded consumers.
Student Advocates Team, LLC, et al.
In September 2019, the FTC announced a complaint against the operators of two student loan debt relief schemes, and a financing company that assisted them, with bilking millions of dollars from consumers. The FTC alleged Manhattan Beach Ventures and Equitable Acceptance Corporation and Student Advocates Team, and the financing company that assisted them illegally charged upfront fees that the companies led consumers to believe went towards their student loans, and falsely promised that their services would permanently lower or even eliminate their loan payments or balances. On August 18, 2022, the FTC it was sending more than $822,000 back to defrauded consumers.
LendingClub Corporation
The Federal Trade Commission is returning more than $10 million to consumers who were charged undisclosed fees by online lender LendingClub Corporation. The FTC is distributing refunds directly to more than 15,000 LendingClub customers and encouraging additional LendingClub customers to apply for refunds.
The FTC sued LendingClub in April 2018, charging that the company falsely promised loan applicants that they would receive a specific loan amount with “no hidden fees,” when in reality the company deducted hundreds or even thousands of dollars in hidden up-front fees from the loans. The FTC also alleged that LendingClub told consumers they were approved for loans when they were not and took money from consumers’ bank accounts without authorization.
The Federal Trade Commission is sending payments totaling more than $9.7 million to 61,990 consumers who were charged hidden fees by LendingClub Corporation.
These payments are the result of a claims process conducted by the FTC in February 2022. It is the second distribution of funds in this matter and brings the total amount refunded to consumers to more than $17.6 million.
Statement of Chair Khan Regarding the Commercial Surveillance Data Security Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
Statement of Commissioners Noah Joshua Phillips and Christine S. Wilson in the Matter of ALG-Health
Buckeye/Magellan, In the Matter of
The Federal Trade Commission required energy pipeline and storage companies Buckeye Partners, L.P. and Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. to divest to U.S. Venture, Inc. petroleum terminals in the two states as a condition of Buckeye’s $435 million proposed acquisition of 26 Magellan terminals. The complaint alleged that without a remedy, the acquisition would harm competition for terminaling services both for all LPPs, and for gasoline specifically, in North Augusta, South Carolina; Spartanburg, South Carolina; and Montgomery, Alabama. The complaint alleged that in all three geographic markets, the acquisition would eliminate the close competition between Buckeye and Magellan, increase the likelihood of collusive or coordinated interaction between the remaining competitors, reduce the number of terminaling options for third-party customers, and increase prices for terminaling services. On Aug. 9, 2022, the Commission announced the final consent agreement in this matter.
ARKO/GPM Investments, In the Matter of
The Federal Trade Commission required ARKO Corp. and its subsidiary GPM to roll back anticompetitive provisions of their acquisition of 60 Express Stop retail fuel outlets from Corrigan Oil Company last year. The complaint alleged that as originally proposed, the agreement not to compete that ARKO and GPM required Corrigan to sign as part of the acquisition harmed customers in local retail gasoline and retail diesel fuel markets throughout Michigan and Ohio. The order required them to amend a non-compete agreement they imposed on Corrigan, agree to obtain prior approval from the Commission before acquiring retail fuel assets under certain circumstances, and return to Corrigan five retail fuel outlets, among other provisions. On Aug. 9, 2022, the Commission announced the final consent agreement in this matter.