The legal library gives you easy access to the FTC’s case information and other official legal, policy, and guidance documents.
Displaying 2521 - 2540 of 47135
ExotoUSA LLC
The Federal Trade Commission is taking action against Florida-based ExotoUSA LLC. (d/b/a Old Southern Brass) for falsely claiming that certain company products were manufactured in the U.S, and that the company was veteran-operated and donated 10 percent of its sales to military service charities.
The FTC’s proposed order would stop the company and its owner, Austin Oliver, from making these deceptive claims and require them to pay a monetary judgment.
According to the FTC’s complaint, Old Southern Brass made many claims on its website and advertising that the products it sold were made in the United States.
Type of Action
Administrative
Last Updated
FTC Matter/File Number
232 3035
Case Status
Pending
Federal Register Notice
InMarket Media LLC; Analysis of Proposed Consent Order to Aid Public Comment
Date
2401005 Informal Interpretation
Date
Rule
802.50, 802.51
For purposes of 802.50 and 802.51, the accounts receivable should be attributed to the jurisdiction in which they were entered into.
File
2401009 Informal Interpretation
Date
Rule
801.2
Based upon the facts you have provided, A and B each have the power to remove and replace the trustees. Since they do not need to consult with one another or jointly act, that power is not “shared.”...
File
Original Image - 2401009 Informal Interpretation
(278.37 KB)
2401001 Informal Interpretation
Date
Rule
803.5, 803.6
Each filer must submit its own form and related materials: --For the buyer credit union: cover letter, affidavit (attesting to the good faith of the buyer), form, certification, and attachments...
File
Original Image - 2401001 Informal Interpretation
(215.99 KB)
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.
Type of Action
Federal
Last Updated
FTC Matter/File Number
2023057
Case Status
Pending
2401007 Informal Interpretation
Date
Rule
801.2, 801.10
Is the UPE of the entity holding the real estate the same as the UPE of the dealership that is being acquired? If it is, then the value of the real estate must be included in the overall transaction...
File
Original Image - 2401007 Informal Interpretation
(173.58 KB)
Federal Register Notice
Rule on the Use of Consumer Reviews and Testimonials; Notice of Informal Hearing
Date
2401002 Informal Interpretation
Date
Rule
802.2, 802.4
The cited informals are quite old and do not reflect our current position. “Assets incidental” are defined as “cash, prepaid taxes or insurance, rental receivables and the like.” Further, the rule...
File
Original Image - 2401002 Informal Interpretation
(318.54 KB)
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.
Type of Action
Federal
Last Updated
FTC Matter/File Number
172 3021
2401004 Informal Interpretation
Date
Rule
Item 5
You are correct that your Item 5(a) response needs to report in 2017 10-digit NAPCS codes. You can look up an appropriate 2017 NAPCS code in the “Manufacturing and Mining” tab of this spreadsheet...
File
Original Image - 2401004 Informal Interpretation
(177.79 KB)
SBLA Beauty
Date
By
Courtney A. Estep, Chief of Staff for Advertising Practices
File
Resolution Letter
(181.79 KB)
2401006 Informal Interpretation
Date
Rule
801.10
Yes, a filing can be made on that basis. The value of the non-exempt assets would not cause the HSR filing to expire. Within the year after the waiting period expires, Company A would, however, need...
File
Original Image - 2401006 Informal Interpretation
(206.49 KB)
Displaying 2521 - 2540 of 47135