The legal library gives you easy access to the FTC’s case information and other official legal, policy, and guidance documents.
2401005 Informal Interpretation
2401009 Informal Interpretation
Chase Nissan/Manchester City Nissan
The Â鶹´«Ã½ Trade Commission and the State of Connecticut are taking action against auto dealer Manchester City Nissan (MCN), along with its owner and a number of key employees, for systematically deceiving consumers about the price of certified used cars, add-ons, and government fees.
The complaint alleges that the dealership, in addition to deceiving consumers, regularly charges them junk fees for certification, add-on products, and government charges without the consumers’ consent, sometimes costing them thousands of dollars in unwanted and unauthorized charges.
BurgerIM, U.S. v.
The Â鶹´«Ã½ 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.
2401001 Informal Interpretation
2401007 Informal Interpretation
Vision Online Inc. and Ganadores IBR, Inc., FTC v.
Under the terms of proposed federal court orders, several defendants in the case—including the companies behind Ganadores, the companies’ owners and managers Richard and Sara Alvarez, and an employee who played a key role in the marketing of the scheme, Bryce Chamberlain—will be permanently banned from selling ecommerce or real estate coaching services and will be required to turn over substantial assets to the FTC, which will be used to provide refunds to consumers harmed by the scam
Lanier Law, LLC
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.
Rule on the Use of Consumer Reviews and Testimonials; Notice of Informal Hearing
Syngenta and Corteva, FTC v.
The Â鶹´«Ã½ Trade Commission and state partners have filed a complaint in federal court alleging that pesticide manufacturers Syngenta Crop Protection and Corteva, Inc. have used so-called “loyalty†programs to block and restrict generic competition from pesticide markets, leaving farmers to pay elevated prices for crop protection. The complaint seeks to bar Syngenta and Corteva from continuing these programs and from entering into any similar arrangements in the future, and to restore competition to affected markets.
2401002 Informal Interpretation
CafePress, In the Matter of
The FTC alleged that CafePress failed to implement reasonable security measures to protect sensitive information stored on its network, including plain text Social Security numbers, inadequately encrypted passwords, and answers to password reset questions. The Commission’s proposed order requires the company to bolster its data security and requires its former owner to pay a half million dollars to compensate small businesses.
The FTC is sending payments totaling more than $370,000 to consumers who were harmed by the data security failures of online merchandise platform CafePress.
Epic Games, In the Matter of
Consumer Defense, LLC, et al.
The U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada has ruled in favor of the Â鶹´«Ã½ 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.