The legal library gives you easy access to the FTC’s case information and other official legal, policy, and guidance documents.
2401005 Informal Interpretation
2401009 Informal Interpretation
2401001 Informal Interpretation
BurgerIM, U.S. v.
The Federal Trade Commission has filed suit against fast-food chain Burgerim, accusing the chain and its owner, Oren Loni, of enticing more than 1,500 consumers to purchase franchises using false promises while withholding information required by the Franchise Rule.
In a complaint filed on the FTC’s behalf by the Department of Justice, the FTC alleges that Burgerim and Loni recruited potential franchisees by pitching the opportunity as “a business in a box,” that required little to no business experience, downplaying the complexity of owning and operating a restaurant. According to the complaint, many consumers paid Burgerim between $50,000 and $70,000 in franchise fees, and the company targeted veterans with discount programs to lure them into the business. The complaint also alleges that although BurgerIM pocketed tens of millions of dollars in such fees, the majority of the people who paid them were never able to open restaurants.
2401007 Informal Interpretation
Rule on the Use of Consumer Reviews and Testimonials; Notice of Informal Hearing
2401002 Informal Interpretation
Consumer Defense, LLC, et al.
The U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada has ruled in favor of the Federal Trade Commission in a case against the operators of a scheme that deceived financially distressed homeowners by falsely promising to make their mortgages more affordable. The defendants also charged consumers illegal advance fees and unlawfully told consumers not to pay their mortgages to or communicate with their lenders.
In January 2024, The FTC sent more than $1.2 million in refunds to consumers who lost money to Consumer Defense.
2401004 Informal Interpretation
SBLA Beauty
2401006 Informal Interpretation
2401008 Informal Interpretation
XCast Labs, Inc., U.S. v.
The FTC sued to stop a Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) provider, XCast Labs, Inc., that continued to funnel hundreds of millions of illegal robocalls through its network, even after receiving multiple warnings.
On January 2, 2024, XCast Labs, Inc., agreed to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that it funneled hundreds of millions of illegal robocalls through its network, even after receiving multiple warnings about the unlawful conduct.
Under the proposed court order, XCast Labs will be required to implement a screening process and end its relationships with firms that are not complying with telemarketing-related laws. The Department of Justice litigated the case and filed the proposed order on the FTC’s behalf.