Â鶹´«Ã½

Skip to main content

Displaying 1 - 20 of 9382

Â鶹´«Ã½ Trade Commission Act

Mission
Competition
Consumer Protection
Law
15 U.S.C. §§ 41-58, as amended
The Â鶹´«Ã½ Trade Commission Act is the primary statute of the Commission. Under this Act, as amended, the Commission is empowered, among other things, to (a) prevent unfair methods of competition and...

H&R Block, In the Matter of

The Â鶹´«Ã½ Trade Commission is taking action against tax preparation company H&R Block for unfairly deleting consumers’ tax data and requiring them to contact customer service when they downgrade to more affordable online products, and deceptively marketing their products as “free†when they were not free for many consumers. These practices cost consumers time and money.

Type of Action
Administrative
Last Updated
Docket Number
9427
Case Status
Pending

RivX Automation Corp., et al., FTC and State of Florida v.

The Â鶹´«Ã½ Trade Commission is sending more than $222,000 in refunds to consumers harmed by a deceptive mortgage relief operation known as Lanier Law. The scheme collected thousands of dollars in upfront fees from homeowners by promising to lower their monthly payments but then failed to deliver. As a result of a lawsuit filed by the Â鶹´«Ã½ Trade Commission and the State of Florida, a federal court has ordered so-called “trucking automation†company RivX to cease its operations over allegations the firm has scammed consumers out of millions of dollars with deceptive promises of trucking industry investment opportunities.

The complaint filed by the FTC and the Florida Office of Attorney General alleges that RivX, along with its owner Antonio Rivodo and company executive Noah Wooten, have used deceptive claims of guaranteed income to entice consumers to pay $75,000 dollars or more to buy trucks that they often never received. 

Type of Action
Â鶹´«Ã½
Last Updated
Docket Number
1:24-cv-23152-JB
Case Status
Pending

Asbury Automotive Group, Inc., et al., In the Matter of

The Â鶹´«Ã½ Trade Commission is acting against a large automotive dealer group, Asbury Automotive, for systematically charging consumers for costly add-on items they did not agree to or were falsely told were required as part of their purchase. The FTC also alleges that Asbury discriminates against Black and Latino consumers, targeting them with unwanted and higher-priced add-ons.

In an administrative complaint, the FTC alleges that three Texas dealerships owned by Asbury that operate as David McDavid Ford Ft. Worth, David McDavid Honda Frisco, and David McDavid Honda Irving, along with Ali Benli, who acted as general manager of those dealerships, engaged in a variety of practices to sneak hidden fees for unwanted add-ons past consumers. These tactics included a practice called “payment packing,†where the dealerships convinced consumers to agree to monthly payments that were larger than needed to pay for the agreed-upon price of the car, and then “packed†add-on items to the sales contract to make up that difference.

Type of Action
Administrative
Last Updated
FTC Matter/File Number
222 3135
Docket Number
9436
Case Status
Pending

LCA-Vision Inc. d/b/a LasikPlus

In January 2023, the FTC issued an order requiring Ohio-based LCA-Vision, doing business as LasikPlus and Joffe MediCenter, to pay $1.25 million for using deceptive bait-and-switch advertising to trick consumers into believing they could have their vision corrected for less than $300. The order also bans the defendants from making the misrepresentations detailed in the complaint. The Commission approved the final consent order in March 2023. In October 2024, the FTC announced it was returning $1.1 million to defrauded consumers.

Type of Action
Â鶹´«Ã½
Last Updated
FTC Matter/File Number
1923157
Case Status
Pending