The Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) rulemaking crusade suffered a serious blow this week, when Judge Ada Brown of the Northern District of Texas set aside the agency’s Final Rule that made most employment-related non-compete agreements unenforceable. The court found that the rule exceeded the FTC’s authority and was arbitrary and capricious. Absent appellate intervention, the decision will prevent the rule from taking effect nationwide.

Although the rule arose from the FTC’s competition mission, the rationale of the decision has larger implications and highlights some of the challenges the FTC faces in its effort to regulate broad swaths of the economy, including as part of its consumer protection efforts.

In a surprising ruling, a federal district court in Arizona has held that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) cannot prosecute claims under the FTC Act against a nonprofit educational institution.

Late last year, the FTC filed a lawsuit against Grand Canyon University (GCU) and its president. Among other claims, the agency alleged GCU made deceptive representations concerning its status as a nonprofit institution and doctoral programs. GCU is owned by a corporate entity, Grand Canyon Education Inc. (GCE). GCE purchased GCU and operated it as a for-profit institution from 2004 to 2014. In 2014, GCE chartered GCU as an Arizona nonprofit institution. GCE executed a master services agreement with GCU that provided GCE would act as the sole provider for GCU’s operations.

This summer the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has turned up the heat on two companies that provide extended car repair coverage, CarShield and American Auto Shields, for deceptive and misleading advertising and telemarketing activities. The agency also named and shamed certain celebrity influencers and professional athletes for endorsing false statements in their advertisements.

The companies sold vehicle service contracts that they advertised as protecting consumers from unexpected repair costs after the manufacturer warranty expires. But the FTC alleged that many consumers could not use the repair facility of their choice, repairs were not covered, and consumers  did not receive a rental car as promised.

In July, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) brought a complaint against Career Step LLC for targeting servicemembers with misrepresentations concerning Career Step’s ability to match its customers with jobs in the healthcare industry.

Career Step claimed to offer career training and certification programs that will find its participants the perfect job, but the FTC alleges that the company in fact only provides résumé drafting assistance and forwards job listings that are otherwise available on the internet. The FTC alleged that among Career Step’s misrepresentations are claims that “more than 80% of its graduates” are successfully employed in their field of study. According to the FTC, such statistics are based on a survey that represents only 5% of enrollees and 24% of program completers, which the agency says it considers to be too small a pool to support such representations.

Last month, in a joint effort with the Department of Labor (DOL), the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) settled an action against Arise Virtual Solutions, Inc. related to charges that the company regularly used misleading advertisements concerning the earning potential from “gig economy jobs” for consumers who signed up for Arise’s platform. The FTC’s action marked the first time the agency has charged a company in the gig economy with violating the Business Opportunity Rule, which requires those offering a business opportunity for sale to give prospective buyers specific information, such as disclosures concerning earning claims, to help them evaluate the business opportunity.

In its promotions, Arise represented that consumers who signed up on its platform would have access to jobs that paid “up to $18/hour” doing remote customer service work for major companies. Instead, the FTC alleged that the actual average pay was $12/hour and that 99.9% of Arise’s customers made less than the promoted rates. When additional training, equipment, and operating costs that were often required from customers to get and maintain the job in the first place were factored in, Arise’s advertised pay for its offered positions was even more misleading.