The legal library gives you easy access to the FTC’s case information and other official legal, policy, and guidance documents.
Michael and Valerie Rando, et al., FTC v.
At the request of the Federal Trade Commission, a federal court has temporarily halted a bogus credit repair scheme known as The Credit Game for promoting a series of lies and deceptions. The FTC alleged the scheme’s operators lied to credit reporting agencies regarding information on consumers’ credit reports and pitched consumers a supposed business opportunity that was essentially starting their own bogus credit repair scheme.
In a complaint filed against The Credit Game and its owners, Michael and Valerie Rando, the FTC alleged that the company has illegally charged consumers hundreds and even thousands of dollars for credit repair services of little to no value and told consumers to “invest” their COVID-19 governmental benefits on their unlawful services. In some cases, the company’s “services” included filing false identity theft reports with the FTC and encouraging consumers to take actions that were unlawful. The FTC asked the court to immediately halt the company’s illegal operations, appoint a receiver, and freeze the defendants’ assets. The court issued a temporary restraining order doing so on May 3, 2022.
As a result of a Federal Trade Commission lawsuit, the operators of “The Credit Game,” a credit repair scheme that cost consumers millions of dollars, face a lifetime ban from the credit repair industry in proposed court orders filed today.
Michael and Valerie Rando and their companies, first sued by the FTC in May 2022, would also be required to turn over a wide array of property that would be liquidated and used to provide refunds to consumers harmed by the scam.
The FTC issued more than $3.5 million in refunds to consumers harmed by a credit-repair scheme called ‘The Credit Game.’
20250709: Mars, Incorporated; Kellanova
20251276: Atlantic Park Strategic Capital Fund II (Offshore), L.P.; Claranova S.E.
20251294: Trident IX, L.P.; Northlane Capital Partners II LP
20251299: United Parcel Service, Inc.; Michael Andlauer
20251320: Novo Nordisk Foundation; Septerna, Inc.
2506009 Informal Interpretation
20251284: 3G Fund VI, L.P.; Robert Greenberg
20251314: General Atlantic Partners 100, L.P.; Gravie, Inc.
20251315: Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Abeona Therapeutics Inc.
20251329: HomeStreet, Inc.; Ford Ultimate Management II, LLC
20251330: AstraZeneca PLC; Pathos AI, Inc.
20251339: IW Topco LLC; KPS Special Situations Mid-Cap Fund, LP
2506003 Informal Interpretation
Care.com, Inc., FTC v.
The Federal Trade Commission is taking action against Care.com (Care), alleging that the child and older adult care gig platform has systematically deceived caregivers who were looking for jobs while failing to give families seeking care a simple way to cancel their paid memberships.
In a federal court complaint, the FTC alleges that Care’s marketing messages about both the number of jobs available on their site and the amount workers could expect to be paid were deceptive.
Care has agreed to a settlement that will require it to turn over $8.5 million to be used to refund consumers harmed by their practices, as well as requiring the company to be able to back up the earnings claims it makes and be honest about the number of jobs available on their site.
The FTC on June 24, 2025, sent more than $8.1 million to consumers harmed by Care.com’s deceptive practices.
Statement of Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson In the Matter of Omnicom Group / The Interpublic Group of Cos.
Ascend Ecom
The FTC has filed a lawsuit against an online business opportunity scheme that it alleges has falsely claimed its “cutting edge” AI-powered tools would help consumers quickly earn thousands of dollars a month in passive income by opening online storefronts. According to the complaint, the scheme has defrauded consumers of at least $25 million.
According to the FTC’s complaint, the operators of the scheme charge consumers tens of thousands of dollars to start online stores on ecommerce platforms such as Amazon, Walmart, Etsy, and TikTok, while also requiring them to spend tens of thousands more on inventory. Ascend’s advertising content claimed the company was a leader in ecommerce, using proprietary software and artificial intelligence to maximize clients’ business success.
The operators of Ascend Ecom, an online business opportunity that allegedly cost consumers millions of dollars, will be banned from selling business opportunities and required to turn over assets to the Federal Trade Commission under the terms of a proposed court order.