Tag: Bureau of Consumer Protection

At the request of the FTC, a federal court has temporarily halted a bogus credit repair scheme run by a sprawling network of 17 related companies and their principals. 

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.

The FTC, joined by Utah and California, by and through Los Angeles County Counsel, today sued Hims & Hers alleging that the telehealth provider shared consumers’ sensitive health information about medical conditions with third-party advertising platforms despite claiming its services maintain consumers’ privacy and deceives users about its billing and cancellation practices.

Ticket broker Elite Events and its operators will pay $300,000 in civil penalties to resolve FTC allegations that the firm purchased millions of dollars’ worth of tickets to high-demand events by illegally circumventing measures designed to limit the number of tickets that can be purchased to a single event.

In January 2026, the Federal Trade Commission sued JustAnswer LLC and its CEO, alleging the online question-and-answer service deceives people seeking expert advice into enrolling in a monthly recurring subscription without obtaining consumers’ affirmative consent.

Alexander Mashinsky, the former CEO of cryptocurrency platform Celsius Network Inc. (Celsius), and his business partners, Shlomi Daniel Leon and Hanoch “Nuke” Goldstein, will pay a total of $16.5 million to resolve the Federal Trade Commission’s charges that they deceived users by falsely promising that deposits made to their cryptocurrency platform would be safe and always available.

Mashinsky and Leon have also agreed to a ban on marketing or selling products or services that can be used to deposit, exchange, invest or withdraw assets. Similarly, Goldstein has agreed to a ban on marketing or selling retail products or services that can be used to buy, sell, deposit, withdraw, distribute or trade cryptocurrency. 

Nevada-based Vanilla Chip LLC, which does business as TruHeight, and its two principals, Eden Stelmach and Justin Rapoport, have agreed to settle the Federal Trade Commission’s charges that they deceptively advertised the effectiveness of a range of supplements touted as supporting height growth in children and teenagers, and relied on reviews that were written by their own employees, or by consumers who were offered a free product or discount in return for writing a 5-star review. 

RentGrow, a provider of consumer reports for tenant screening, will be required to pay $2.25 million to settle Federal Trade Commission allegations that the company violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), including by failing to use reasonable procedures to ensure the accuracy of its reports, and the FTC Act.

The Federal Trade Commission, along with the New York Attorney General, are taking action against gig economy company Handy Technologies for making a broad array of deceptive claims about how much money workers on its platform could earn.

The complaint charges that Handy, which currently does business as Angi Services, has peppered its advertisements with earnings claims that don’t reflect the reality for the overwhelming majority of workers on the platform. The complaint also charges that Handy has failed to clearly disclose fees and fines that have led to millions of dollars being withheld from workers.

Under the terms of a proposed settlement order, Handy would be required to turn over $2.95 million to be used to provide refunds to harmed workers, and make substantial changes to ensure that workers give clear consent to any fees charged by the company and that the company gives workers clear direction about how to avoid fines.