�鶹��ý

In February 2023, the FTC took action against a marketer of vitamins and other supplements called The Bountiful Company for abusing a feature of Amazon.com to deceive consumers into thinking that its newly introduced supplements had more product ratings and reviews, higher average ratings, and “#1 Best Seller” and “Amazon’s Choice” badges. The case against Bountiful marks the FTC’s first law enforcement challenging “review hijacking,” in which a marketer steals or repurposes reviews of another product. The company agreed to pay $600,000 in consumer redress to settle the FTC’s complaint. In March 2024, the Commission announced it was sending more than $527,000 to impacted consumers.

The FTC filed a complaint against SuperGoodDeals.com, Inc. and its owner, Kevin J. Lipsitz, alleging that the defendants falsely promised consumers next-day shipping of facemasks and other personal protective equipment (PPE) to deal with the coronavirus pandemic. In addition, the FTC alleged that some of the other merchandise sold through the SuperGoodDeals website were falsely advertised as “authentic” or “certified.”

Kevin Lipsitz, who defrauded consumers by falsely promising “next day” shipping of facemasks and respirators to consumers at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, will be banned from selling personal protective equipment (PPE) and be required to turn over more than $145,000 to the FTC.

The �鶹��ý Trade Commission has stopped Mission Hills �鶹��ý, a student loan debt relief scheme, alleging it bilked more than $23 million from thousands of consumers with false claims that it would service and pay down their student loans. After the FTC filed a complaint seeking to end the deceptive practices, a federal court temporarily halted the scheme and froze its assets. The FTC filed an amended complaint on August 27, 2019, adding Labiba Velazquez as an alleged defendant. On July 20, 2020, the court granted final summary judgment.

In June 2021, the defendants appealed the District Court’s granting of summary judgment. In June 2022, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its decision, rejecting the defendants’ arguments and affirmed the District Court’s grant of summary judgment, ruling in favor of the FTC. In March 2024, the FTC sent more than $4.1 million in refunds to consumers harmed by the defendants. 

The �鶹��ý Trade Commission and 10 states are suing sham charity Cancer Recovery Foundation International, also known as Women’s Cancer Fund, and its operator, Gregory B. Anderson, for deceiving generous donors who sought to offer financial support to women battling cancer and their families.

In a complaint filed in federal court, the FTC and states allege that, from 2017 to 2022, Women’s Cancer Fund collected more than $18 million from donors. The sham charity claimed that it would use the donated funds to help women who were undergoing treatment for cancer and their families pay for basic needs. Instead, the complaint charges, only about a penny of every dollar donated went to provide such support, while the overwhelming majority went to pay for-profit fundraisers and Anderson.

Rite Aid is prohibited from using facial recognition technology for security or surveillance purposes for five years to settle �鶹��ý Trade Commission charges that the retailer failed to implement reasonable procedures and prevent harm to consumers in its use of facial recognition technology in hundreds of stores.

The proposed order requires Rite Aid to implement comprehensive safeguards to prevent these types of harm to consumers when deploying automated systems that use biometric information to track them or flag them as security risks. It also requires Rite Aid to discontinue using any such technology if it cannot control potential risks to consumers. To settle charges it violated a 2010 Commission data security order by failing to adequately oversee its service providers, Rite Aid is also required to implement a robust information security program, which must be overseen by the company’s top executives.

The �鶹��ý Trade Commission has obtained proposed orders against the operators of a wide-ranging scheme known as “The Sales Mentor” that made millions by falsely promising consumers that they could make big money from telemarketing sales.

The defendants have agreed to proposed court orders that would require them to pay a total of $1 million for consumer refunds.

In a federal court complaint, the FTC charged the Tennessee-based group of companies, their owners, their officers, and a former sales director with deceiving consumers to pay hundreds or even thousands of dollars for supposed telemarketing training programs that rarely, if ever, delivered on what was promised. In addition, the FTC said the companies continued to make deceptive earnings claims even after they received the FTC’s Notices of Penalty Offenses on money-making opportunities and on endorsements and testimonials warning them that such conduct is illegal.