The legal library gives you easy access to the FTC’s case information and other official legal, policy, and guidance documents.
2208002 Informal Interpretation
2208009 Informal Interpretation
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.
Commercial Surveillance and Data Security Rulemaking
2208010 Informal Interpretation
Weber-Stephen Products LLC; Analysis of Proposed Consent Order To Aid Public Comment
Opendoor Labs Inc; Analysis of Proposed Consent Order To Aid Public Comment
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.
16 CFR Chapter I: Modified Ten-Year Regulatory Review Schedule and Notice of Intent to Request Public Comments
GAFS Group, LLC, et al.
The operators of a scheme that conned consumers into paying non-existent debts will be permanently banned from the debt collection business and from misleading consumers about debt in a settlement with the Federal Trade Commission.
The Federal Trade Commission is sending payments totaling more than $1 million to 1,966 consumers who were harmed by a debt collection scheme that conned consumers into paying debts they did not owe. The defendants used several names including GAFS Group, Global Mediation Group, and Mediation Services.