InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
FTC fines payment processor $2.3 million for helping online discount clubs bilk consumers
On March 10, the FTC reached a settlement with a payment processing company and two senior officers (collectively, “defendants”) whereby the company would pay $2.3 million in restitution as part of their role in allegedly helping the operators of a group of marketing entities enroll consumers into online discount clubs and debit more than $40 million from consumers’ bank accounts for membership without their authorization. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the FTC’s 2017 complaint claimed that the online discount clubs claimed to offer services to consumers in need of payday, cash advance, or installment loans, but instead enrolled consumers in a coupon service that charged initial fees ranging from $49.89 to $99.49, as well as monthly recurring fees of up to $19.95. However, the FTC’s complaint stated that “99.5 percent of the consumers being illegally charged for the ‘discount clubs’ never accessed any coupons, and that tens of thousands called the defendants to try and cancel the charges, while thousands more disputed the charges directly with their banks.” The FTC accused the defendants of providing “substantial assistance or support” in the way of payment processing services while “knowing or consciously avoiding knowing” that the actions being supported were in violation of the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR). The FTC further detailed how defendants ignored several indications of fraudulent activity, including the consistently high return rates generated by the discount club transactions and that a primary client of their services had already been the subject of previous FTC enforcement actions for engaging in similar conduct.
Under the terms of the settlement, which is pending court approval, the defendants are banned from, among other things, (i) processing remotely created payment orders; (ii) processing payments on behalf of clients whose business involves outbound telemarketing, discount clubs, or offers to help consumers with payday loans; (iii) processing payments on behalf of any client that the defendants know or should know is engaging in deceptive or unfair acts or practices or violating the TSR; and (iv) processing payments for any existing or prospective clients without first conducting a reasonable screening to ensure clients are not violating federal law.
FTC settles with online stock trading site
On March 8, the FTC announced a proposed settlement with an online stock trading site and its operators (collectively, “defendants”) for allegedly using earnings claims to mislead consumers into signing up for services, which led them into long-term subscription plans. The FTC filed a complaint in 2020 as part of an initiative called “Operation Income Illusion,” which encompasses more than 50 enforcement actions against alleged scams targeting consumers with false promises of income and financial independence (covered by InfoBytes here). According to the complaint, the defendants allegedly violated the FTC Act, among other laws, by falsely marketing investment-related services by claiming that “consumers who purchase [the defendants'] services will earn or are likely to earn substantial income.” Additionally, according to the press release, the defendants featured testimonials from purported customers claiming they made “[$]6500.00 in 20 minutes” and “$500 in 15 min[utes],” and allegedly attempted to profit off the Covid-19 pandemic, with a “guru” claiming that he could “rack up nearly $500K in profits by trading stocks related to the COVID-19 pandemic.” Under the terms of the stipulated final order, the defendants, among other requirements: (i) must pay a fine of over $2.4 million to the FTC: (ii) are prohibited from making claims regarding potential earnings without having written evidence that those claims are typical for consumers; and (iii) are prohibited from making claims misrepresenting that purchasers can be successful in trading regardless of their experience, the amount of capital they have to invest, or the amount of time they spend trading.
FTC, DOJ reach $1.5 million settlement with weight-loss companies
On March 4, the FTC and DOJ announced a $1.5 million settlement with an international weight loss service organization and its subsidiary (collectively, “defendants”) accused of allegedly using unfair and deceptive practices to obtain personal information of underage users without parental consent. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the agencies claimed that the defendants violated the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) and Section 5 of the FTC Act by collecting and keeping personal information from children under 13 without providing notice to or obtaining consent from their parents. The agencies’ settlement announcement stated that the defendants’ signup process originally “encouraged younger users to falsely claim they were over the age of 13, despite text indicating that children under 13 must sign up through a parent,” and that even after the signup process was revised, the defendants allegedly “failed to provide a mechanism to ensure that those who choose the parent signup option were indeed parents and not a child trying to bypass the age restriction.” Additionally, the defendants allegedly violated COPPA’s data retention provisions “by retaining children’s personal information indefinitely and only deleting it when requested by a parent.”
Under the terms of the settlement, unless verified parent consent has been subsequently obtained, the defendants are required to refrain from disclosing, using, or benefiting from previously collected personal information that did not comply with COPPA’s parental notice and consent requirements, and must destroy all previously collected personal information, as well as any affected work product that used illegally collected data. The settlement also orders the defendants to pay a $1.5 million civil penalty.
Agencies crack down on deceptive Covid-19 treatment claims
On March 3, the FTC, along with the DOJ and FDA, filed a lawsuit against a New York-based marketer of herbal tea for allegedly claiming its tea was clinically proven to treat, cure, and prevent Covid-19. The announcement reiterated the agencies’ commitment to cracking down on companies that unlawfully market unproven Covid-19 treatments. According to the joint agency complaint, the defendants’ deceptive marketing claims that their herbal tea product is capable of preventing or treating Covid-19 (and is more effective than Covid-19 vaccines) are not supported by competent or reliable scientific evidence and pose “a significant risk to public health and safety.” Moreover, the defendants have allegedly repeatedly ignored FTC and FDA warnings that their deceptive advertising and misrepresentations violate the FTC Act, the Covid-19 Consumer Protection Act, and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. The complaint seeks permanent injunctive relief, civil penalties, and other remedies to prevent the harms caused by the defendants’ deceptive misrepresentations.
FTC bans debt relief scheme operators
On February 28, the FTC announced the permanent ban of the operators (collectively, “defendants”) of a debt relief scheme from processing debt relief payments and ordered the defendants to pay a $5.3 million fine. According to the FTC’s July 2020 complaint, which was filed jointly with the Florida attorney general in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, the defendants allegedly engaged in deceptive and abusive practices by selling their credit card interest rate reduction services to consumers in violation of the FTC Act, the Telemarketing Sales Rule, and the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. The FTC and Florida AG claimed that the defendants utilized telemarketing calls promising to reduce consumers’ credit card interest rates permanently and substantially, and, after posing as representatives or affiliates of consumers’ credit card companies, the defendants allegedly claimed they could save consumers thousands of dollars in credit card interest and enable them to pay off their debt faster. The complaint also asserted that the defendants, at times, opened new credit cards that offered low introductory interest rates and transferred the balances of consumers’ existing debt to the new cards. For that, customers paid upfront fees of between $995 and $4,995 while also paying “substantial” fees to transfer the balances.
Under the terms of the settlement, the operators are permanently prohibited from participating the debt relief industry, misrepresenting material facts in connection with any product or service, and engaging in deceptive and abusive telemarketing acts and practices, unsubstantiated claims, and other payment practices. Two individual defendants agreed to pay a $225,000 monetary penalty and the other defendant agreed to pay $200,000.
District Court approves settlement in data breach suit
On February 22, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted final approval of a class settlement and ordered a final judgment between a plaintiff class and a provider of outpatient imaging (defendant) resolving allegations that the defendant was responsible for failing to establish adequate security measures to protect their customers’ and employees’ data. According to the preliminarily approval order, a third party gained unauthorized access to the defendant’s server which stored the plaintiffs’ sensitive personal identifying information. The order noted that the security incident put the plaintiffs “at a high risk of identity theft and other cybercrimes.” The plaintiffs alleged in the complaint that the defendants violated California's Unfair Competition Law, the California Consumer Privacy Act, and the FTC Act, among other things, by failing “to adequately ensure the privacy, confidentiality, and security of employee data entrusted to it and Defendant’s failure to have adequate data security measures in place.” Under the terms of the order, the defendants are required to establish a $2.6 million settlement fund to provide monetary settlement benefits to class members within forty-five days of a preliminary approval order directing class notice. The plaintiff class will be separated into two separate tiers: a nationwide class consisting of individuals residing in the U.S. who were or may have been impacted in the data breach, and a California subclass, consisting of individuals who resided in California on July 18, 2020, who were or may have been impacted in the data breach. The order also granted $650,000 in class counsel fees and approximately $50,000 in costs and expenses. Each lead plaintiff received $1,500 as part of the settlement.
FTC publishes ANPR on bogus money-making opportunities
On February 17, the FTC announced an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR), which “launched a proceeding to challenge bogus money-making claims used to lure consumers, workers, and prospective entrepreneurs into risky business ventures that often turn into dead-end debt traps.” According to the FTC, a rule in this area would permit “the Commission to recover redress for defrauded consumers, and seek steep penalties against the multilevel marketers, for-profit colleges, ‘gig economy’ platforms, and other bad actors who prey on people’s hopes for economic advancement.” The FTC summarized recent actions against “coaching or mentoring schemes, multi-level marketing companies, work-from-home, e-commerce, or other business opportunity scams, chain referral schemes, gig companies and employers, job scams, and businesses purporting to offer educational opportunities,” but noted that “the recent Supreme Court decision in the AMG Capital Management LLC v. FTC has hindered the FTC’s ability to seek monetary relief for consumers under the FTC Act.” (Covered by InfoBytes here). The ANPR gives notice of a new possibility of rulemaking for false, misleading, and unsubstantiated earnings claims, and, if adopted, the FTC will have the ability to return money to consumers injured by deceptive income claims, while holding bad actors accountable with civil penalties. The ANPR also solicits public comment on: (i) whether earnings claims are prevalent among all or only some industries; (ii) how a rule addressing earnings claims should be drafted; (iii) the benefits to consumers from such a rule and the costs to businesses; and (iv) whether the potential rule should address disclaimers, lifestyle claims, or liability for agents’ claims.
FTC hits investment scheme with $111 million judgment
On February 16, the FTC and the Utah Division of Consumer Protection reached a settlement in an action taken against a Utah-based company and its affiliates (collectively, “defendants”) for allegedly using deceptive marketing to persuade consumers to attend real estate events costing thousands of dollars. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the FTC and the Utah Division of Consumer Protection claimed that the defendants violated the FTC Act, the Consumer Review Fairness Act (CRFA), and Utah state law by marketing real estate events with false claims and using celebrity endorsements. The defendants allegedly promised consumers they would (i) earn thousands of dollars in profits from real estate investment “flips” by using the defendants’ products; (ii) receive 100 percent funding for their real estate investments, regardless of credit history; and (iii) receive a full refund if they do not make “a minimum of three times” the price of the workshop within six months. Additionally, consumers who received refunds were allegedly required to sign agreements preventing them from speaking with the FTC, state attorneys general, and other regulators; submitting complaints to the Better Business Bureau; or posting negative reviews. Under the terms of the settlement, the defendants are, among other things, permanently banned from marketing or selling any real estate or business coaching programs, and are restrained from making misleading earnings claims or misrepresenting any material aspect of the performance or nature of goods or services that are the subject of a sales offer. Additionally, the defendants are permanently banned from using contract terms to suppress customers’ ability to review their products or speak to law enforcement agencies, and may not release customer information in connection with any activity related to the subject matter of the order. The settlement also includes monetary judgments totaling more than $111 million.
FTC sues weight-loss companies alleging COPPA and FTC Act violations
On February 16, the FTC filed a complaint for permanent injunction in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against an international weight loss service organization and its subsidy (collectively, “defendants”) for allegedly using unfair and deceptive practices to obtain personal information of underage users without parental consent. According to the complaint, the defendants violated the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act and Section 5 of the FTC Act by collecting and keeping personal information from children under 13 without providing notice to or obtaining consent from their parents. The complaint alleges that the defendants, among other things, failed to: (i) “provide through the App and website a clear, understandable, and complete direct notice to parents of [the] Defendants’ practices”; (ii) “make reasonable efforts, taking into account available technology, to ensure that parents receive the direct notice”; and (iii) “obtain verifiable parental consent before any collection, use, or disclosure of personal information from children.” The proposed settlement is pending court approval.
FTC seeks permanent injunction against auto warranties operation
On February 9, the FTC announced it was charging a Florida-based group of operators (defendants) with violations of the FTC Act and the Telemarketing Sales Rule for allegedly engaging in deceptive practices when marketing and selling automobile warranties. The complaint alleged the defendants, among other things, (i) misrepresented that they are affiliated with consumers’ car dealers or manufacturers; (ii) misrepresented that their warranties provide “bumper-to-bumper” coverage; (iii) falsely promised that consumers can obtain a full refund if they cancel within 30 days; (iv) used remotely created checks which are illegal in telemarketing transactions; and (v) called numbers on the do not call registry. According to the FTC, the defendants allegedly collected more than $6 million from consumers since 2018. The FTC seeks a permanent injunction against the defendants to prevent future violations, as well as redress for injured consumers through “rescission or reformation of contracts, the refund of money, the return of property, or other relief necessary to redress.”