Tag: Consumer Protection

In a complaint issued in November 2024, the FTC charged that Sitejabber deceived consumers by misrepresenting that ratings and reviews it published came from customers who experienced the reviewed product or service, artificially inflating average ratings and review counts. Under a proposed order settling the agency’s complaint, Sitejabber will be prohibited from making such misrepresentations and from making other misrepresentations about consumer ratings or reviews. 

The Federal Trade Commission is taking action against online cash advance app Dave for allegedly using misleading marketing to deceive consumers about the amount of its cash advances, charging consumers undisclosed fees, and charging so-called “tips” to consumers without their consent.

Dave describes the consumers it targets as being “financially vulnerable” or “financially coping,” including those whose spending exceeds their income, who have minimal savings, and who overdraft their bank accounts frequently.

Dave’s advertising is dominated by claims that consumers can receive “up to $500” by using Dave, and that they can do so “instantly.” According to the FTC’s complaint, though, Dave’s service failed to live up to its promises.

The Federal Trade Commission is taking action against a Georgia-based debt collector that tricked consumers into paying more than $7.6 million in bogus debt by threatening them with jail time, harassing their family members, and other unlawful actions.

In response to a federal court complaint filed against Global Circulation, Inc. (GCI) and its owner, Kenneth Redon, III, the court agreed to temporarily halt the company’s operation and ordered it to turn its assets over to a court-appointed receiver.

The Federal Trade Commission is taking action against personal finance app provider Brigit, alleging that its promises of “instant” cash advances of up to $250 for people living paycheck-to-paycheck were deceptive and that the company locked consumers into a $9.99 monthly membership they couldn’t cancel.

Brigit, also known as Bridge It, Inc., has agreed to settle the FTC’s charges, resulting in a proposed court order that would require the company to pay $18 million in consumer refunds, stop its deceptive marketing promises, and end tactics that prevented customers from cancelling.

In November 2024, the Federal Trade Commission sent more than $17 million in refunds to consumers harmed by online cash advance provider Brigit, which the agency says deceived consumers with false promises of “instant” cash advances and locked consumers into a monthly membership they couldn’t cancel.

As a result of a Federal Trade Commission lawsuit, a federal court has temporarily shut down the operations of a business opportunity scam that has taken more than $12 million from consumers with false promises of big returns selling goods through Amazon and Walmart.

According to a complaint filed by the FTC, since at least 2022, the scheme operated under the names Lunar Capital Ventures, Ecom Genie and Profitable Automation, and before that as the now-dissolved company Valiant Consultants Inc. Under each of these names, the scheme has made enticing but bogus claims that consumers could earn lavish profits by paying tens of thousands of dollars to start online e-commerce businesses. The promised earnings rarely, if ever, materialize, and most consumers lose substantial amounts of money.

The Federal 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.