FTC

Subscribe to FTC via RSS

This week, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Bureau of Consumer Protection issued 13 warning letters to rental housing management software providers focused on the display of the total advertised price of their properties. According to the FTC, the software providers do not allow rental property managers and owners to advertise a total monthly rental price that includes all mandatory fees. This in turn prevents consumers from obtaining complete pricing information on those property owner websites and platforms.

The FTC noted that such practices may be in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act, which prohibits unfair or deceptive acts and practices, as well as the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which makes it unlawful to use false, fraudulent, or fictitious statements or representations to obtain, attempt to obtain, cause the disclosure of, or attempt to cause the disclosure of customer information of a financial institution. Violations are subject to civil penalties of up to $53,088 per violation.

Continue Reading FTC Begins Rulemaking on Unfair Rental Housing Fees After Issuing Warning Letters

Last week, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a decision issuing a permanent injunction and over $7 million in sanctions against people engaged in an illegal multilevel marketing scheme. The court’s opinion in Federal Trade Commission (FTC) v. Noland sheds light on the scope of the agency’s power to obtain monetary relief after the Supreme Court restricted the FTC’s authority under Section 13(b) of the FTC Act in a 2021 case, AMG Capital Management v. FTC.

In Noland, the defendants attempted to use the AMG Capital decision to challenge the court’s ability to award compensatory sanctions for contempt and redress under Section 19 for a rule violation. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s rejection of those arguments.

Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Affirms the FTC’s Authority to Seek Damages After AMG Capital

Just days after the federal government shutdown came to an end, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) wasted no time returning to enforcement mode, announcing a major settlement with Seek Capital, LLC and its CEO, Roy Ferman. The agency’s action permanently bans the company and its founder from offering business financing, debt relief, or credit repair services, serving as an aggressive post-shutdown reminder that the FTC’s focus on deceptive small-business lending practices remains undiminished.

FTC Targets Deceptive Small Business Lending Practices

According to the FTC’s complaint, filed in November 2024, Seek advertised itself as a source of quick and easy business loans for new and aspiring small businesses, promising “lines of credit” and “cold hard cash.” Both Seek telemarketers and lead generators regularly marketed to small business owners the message that thousands of dollars were easily available and could be pre-approved in minutes.

Continue Reading FTC Bans Seek Capital in $48 Million Settlement

In her remarks at this year’s ANA Masters of Advertising Law Conference, Commissioner Melissa Holyoak of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) emphasized three areas where the agency is focusing its consumer protection enforcement mandate: the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Rule (COPPA), Made in USA claims, and price transparency.

Holyoak didn’t comment on press reports that she will soon leave the agency to become U.S. attorney for the District of Utah, with White House staffer Ryan Baasch set to fill Holyoak’s spot.

Price Transparency and the FTC’s Unfair or Deceptive Fee Rule

Regarding price transparency and the FTC’s Unfair or Deceptive Fee Rule, Holyoak stressed that while the rule’s scope is limited to ticket sellers and short-term lodging providers, all companies and their pricing practices remain subject to the Section 5 enforcement.  

Continue Reading FTC’s Melissa Holyoak Outlines Consumer Protection Focus at ANA Advertising Law Conference

Last week, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Nevada Attorney General’s Office jointly filed suit against a group of tax debt relief companies operating under the “American Tax Service” brand, alleging the defendants misled struggling consumers through deceptive telemarketing tactics and false claims of government affiliation.

FTC and Nevada AG Take Action Against Tax Debt Relief Companies

The case, filed in Nevada federal court, highlights the continued focus of regulators on companies that prey on consumers’ fears of tax enforcement and misuse of government imagery or language to lend artificial legitimacy to their claims. The court has already granted the FTC’s request for a temporary restraining order and asset freeze, halting the defendants’ operations while the case proceeds. The case is the only one filed by the FTC since the government shutdown, and the FTC has sought to stay most litigation it had already commenced.

Continue Reading FTC and Nevada AG Crack Down on Deceptive Tax Debt Relief Scams Mimicking the IRS

On Monday, the Supreme Court ruled that President Donald Trump may remove Democratic Federal Trade Commission (FTC) commissioner Rebecca Slaughter without cause while her legal challenge to the termination proceeds.

Supreme Court Stay on FTC Commissioner’s Removal

In a 6–3 decision, the Court granted the Trump administration’s request for a stay, temporarily blocking rulings from the district court and the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit that had ordered her reinstatement. As we previously discussed, both courts had ruled that Slaughter’s removal was unlawful under Humphrey’s Executor, which held that Congress could limit the president’s removal power by providing for-cause protections for commissioners at independent agencies such as the FTC.

Continue Reading Supreme Court Stay Sets Stage for Reconsidering Humphrey’s Executor

Earlier this month, the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled President Trump’s removal of Democrat commissioners from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) was unlawful. In a 2-1 decision, the panel held that the case was squarely controlled by Supreme Court precedent in Humphrey’s Executor. The D.C. Circuit decision upheld the district court’s ruling in July and sets the stage for the Supreme Court to determine whether to uphold or overrule long-standing precedent regarding removal protections for “independent” executive agencies.

On Monday, Chief Justice John Roberts granted the Trump administration’s request  and stayed the D.C. Circuit’s decision pending further orders from Roberts or the Supreme Court, which effectively removes Rebecca Slaughter (again) from her role as an FTC commissioner. The stay order directs Slaughter to respond to the administration’s appeal by September 15. During her brief reinstatement, Slaughter dissented from several FTC actions.

Continue Reading Legal Ping-Pong: D.C. Circuit Restores, Then Supreme Court Removes, Rebecca Slaughter as FTC Commissioner

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit vacated the Federal Trade Commission’s Rule Concerning Subscriptions and Other Negative Option Plans (often referred to as the “Click-to-Cancel” rule) on July 8, just days before the FTC was set to begin enforcement of the rule.

The decision resolved various consolidated petitions challenging the rule on grounds that it exceeded the scope of the FTC’s authority, was not promulgated in accordance with necessary rulemaking procedures, and was overly broad. The winning argument, though, was that the FTC skipped the critical step of issuing a preliminary analysis of the benefits and effects of the proposed rule and any reasonable alternatives, because it initially failed to treat the rule as “economically significant” to the national economy.

Continue Reading Eighth Circuit Cancels FTC Negative Option Rule: What Does It Mean?

On March 18, President Trump fired the two Democratic commissioners of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The removals of Alvaro Bedoya and Rebecca Kelly Slaughter are the latest in a series of executive actions that will limit the agency’s independence. 

They also present a direct challenge to Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, the Supreme Court’s 1935 decision holding that Congress may limit the president’s authority to remove members of the FTC without good cause. Both Slaughter and Bedoya stated that they had been “illegally fired.” If the commissioners challenge their terminations, the Supreme Court may be forced to confront the question of whether Humphrey’s Executor should be overruled—an issue the Court has avoided in several recent cases that significantly limited the decision’s application to other agencies, without overruling it. 

Continue Reading Trump Fires Democratic FTC Commissioners, Setting Up a Direct Challenge to Humphrey’s Executor