The legal library gives you easy access to the FTC’s case information and other official legal, policy, and guidance documents.
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.
GTCR BC Holdings, LLC and Surmodics, Inc., In the Matter of
The Federal Trade Commission issued an administrative complaint to challenge GTCR BC Holdings, LLC’s acquisition of Surmodics, Inc., alleging that the deal, which seeks to combine the two largest manufacturers of critical medical device coatings, is anticompetitive. The FTC charges that private equity firm GTCR’s proposed acquisition of Surmodics would create a combined company controlling more than 50% of the market for outsourced hydrophilic coatings. These coatings are often used by medical device manufacturers and are applied to lifesaving medical devices such as catheters and guidewires.
Xlear, Inc., U.S. v.
In October 2021, the FTC sued Xlear, Inc., a Utah-based company, for violating the COVID-19 Consumer Protection Act, alleging that it falsely pitched its saline nasal sprays as an effective way to prevent and treat COVID-19. DOJ filed the complaint on the FTC’s behalf. In March 2025, the DOJ agreed to dismiss the case with prejudice.
Caremark Rx, Zinc Health Services, et al., In the Matter of (Insulin)
The FTC filed a lawsuit against the three largest prescription drug benefit managers (PBMs)—Caremark Rx, Express Scripts (ESI), and OptumRx—and their affiliated group purchasing organizations (GPOs) for engaging in anticompetitive and unfair rebating practices that have artificially inflated the list price of insulin drugs.
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.
20250987: Castlelake Group TopCo, L.P.; Castlelake V, L.P.
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.
20250968: Starboard Value and Opportunity Fund Ltd; News Corporation
20250983: General Atlantic Partners (Bermuda) IV, L.P.; Huda Kattan
20250956: Friede Springer; KKR Traviata Co-Invest L.P.
20250980: Snow Phipps Group AIV, L.P.; Velocity Financial, Inc.
20250988: KKR Traviata Co-Invest L.P.; Axel Springer SE
Statement of Commissioner Melissa Holyoak
Statement of Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson
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.
Vroom, Inc. FTC v.
In July 2024, the FTC took action against online used car dealer Vroom for misrepresenting that it thoroughly examined all vehicles before listing them for sale and failing to obtain consumers’ consent to shipment delays or provide prompt refunds when cars weren’t delivered in the time Vroom promised. The company agreed to a proposed settlement that would require the company to pay $1 million to refund consumers harmed by the company’s conduct.
In March 2025, the FTC sent more than $934,000 in refunds to consumers who were harmed by online used car dealer Vroom’s shipment delays.
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.