InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
FTC brings first action under Covid-19 Consumer Protection Act
On April 15, the FTC announced a civil complaint filed by the DOJ on its behalf, against a St. Louis-based company and its owner for violating the Covid-19 Consumer Protection Act and the FTC Act by making deceptive marketing health claims about their products. (See also DOJ press release here.) This is the first action the FTC has brought under the new law, which makes it unlawful under Section 5 of the FTC Act “for any person, partnership, or corporation to engage in a deceptive act or practice in or affecting commerce . . . that is associated with the treatment, cure, prevention, mitigation, or diagnosis of COVID–19” or “a government benefit related to COVID–19.” The FTC’s complaint alleges that the defendants deceptively marketed their products as being an effective treatment for Covid-19 based on the results of certain scientific studies, even though they “lacked any reasonable bases” for their claims. According to the FTC’s announcement, the defendants also allegedly advertised—without scientific support—that their products were equally, or more, effective than the currently available vaccines. The FTC seeks an injunction against the defendants, along with monetary penalties and other civil remedies to prevent harm caused by the defendants’ misrepresentations.
FTC settles with sellers of antennas, signal amplifiers
On April 8, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York issued a nearly $32 million judgment against the owners and operators of a New York-based enterprise that sells antennas and amplifiers (collectively, “defendants”) for allegedly misleading customers about the quality of their products. The agency alleges in its complaint that the defendants violated the FTC Act by “making deceptive performance claims for their over-the-air television antennas and related signal amplifiers, using deceptive consumer endorsements, and misrepresenting that some of their web pages were objective news reports about the antennas.” Under the terms of the order, the company is barred from making misleading claims about the products’ quality, the number of channels users can acquire, or any other claims about its ranking compared to other products. While the order imposes a $32 million judgment against the defendants, the full judgment will be suspended upon payment of $650,000, subject to certain conditions.
FTC to ban “deceptive” mobile-banking app
On March 29, the FTC announced a proposed stipulated final order against the operators of a mobile banking app to settle allegations that the defendants deceived users about their supposedly high-interest bank accounts and falsely promised users “24/7” access to their funds. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the FTC alleged, among other things, that the defendants represented that users would receive “‘minimum base’ interest rates” of at least 0.2 percent or 1.0 percent, but that users actually received a starting interest rate of 0.04 percent and stopped earning any interest if they requested that their funds be returned. The FTC also claimed that while the defendants promised users 24/7 access to their funds and represented they could make transfers out of their accounts and receive requested funds within three to five business days, some users waited weeks or months to receive funds despite repeated complaints to the defendants, while other users stated they never received their money.
The proposed stipulated final order bans the defendants from operating or advertising a mobile banking app or any other product or service that can be used to deposit, store, or withdraw funds, and prohibits them from misrepresenting the interest rates, restrictions, and other aspects of any financial product or service. Additionally, the defendants must issue full refunds, including interest, to all customers. The FTC vote approving the stipulated final order was 3-1, with Rohit Chopra, President Biden’s nominee to head the CFPB, voting no. Commissioner Chopra has not published a statement explaining his vote.
FTC settles with income scam operation targeting Latina consumers
On March 2, the FTC announced a settlement with a company and its owners (collectively, “defendants”) that used Spanish-language ads targeting Latina consumers with false promises of large profits reselling luxury products. The action—a part of the FTC’s “Operation Income Illusion” sweep (covered by InfoBytes here)—alleged the defendants violated the FTC Act by making false or unsubstantiated earnings claims when marketing work-at-home opportunities. The FTC also claimed the defendants violated the Telemarketing Sales Rule by, among other things, misrepresenting material aspects of the investment opportunities and routinely using threats or intimidation “to coerce consumers to pay Defendants, including but not limited to threatening consumers with damage to consumers’ credit history, false legal actions, and reports to federal government authorities.” The proposed settlement imposes a $7 million judgment, which is partially suspended due to the defendants’ inability to pay. The defendants are also permanently banned from (i) selling any goods or service that is represented as a means for consumers to make money working from home or elsewhere; (ii) making any deceptive claims about the risk, liquidity, earnings potential, or profitability of any goods or services, and making such claims through telemarketing; and (iii) using threats or intimidation to coerce consumers to pay for goods or services.
FTC adds two defendants to real estate investment scheme suit
On February 25, the FTC and the Utah Division of Consumer Protection announced the addition of two additional defendants 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. In October 2019, the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah granted a temporary restraining order against the defendants, prohibiting the defendants from continuing to make unsupported marketing claims and from interfering with consumers’ ability to review their products.
FTC settles with payday lender
On February 11, the FTC announced a settlement with the owners and operators of a payday lending enterprise (collectively, “defendants”) for allegedly deceptively overcharging consumers and withdrawing money from consumers’ accounts without permission. The FTC filed a complaint against the defendants last year claiming, among other things, that the defendants violated the FTC Act, the Telemarketing Sales Rule, TILA/Regulation Z, and EFTA/Regulation E, by advertising loans with fixed payback terms and promising consumers that their loans would be repaid after a pre-determined number of payments. However, the FTC claimed that in many cases the payback terms defaulted to debiting the financial fee only, and the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada granted a temporary restraining order against the defendants (covered by InfoBytes here). Under the terms of the stipulated final order, the FTC ordered that any consumer debt for loans issued and assigned to the defendants are “deemed paid in full to the extent that such [e]xisting [d]ebt exceeds the amount financed plus one finance charge. . . .” The defendants are also (i) permanently banned from the payday lending industry, including making loans or extending credit of any kind; (ii) prohibited from making any misrepresentations related to the collection of any debt; (iii) prohibited from making unauthorized electronic fund transfers from consumers’ bank accounts; and (iv) permanently banned from creating, or causing to be created, any remotely created payment orders. A $114 million monetary judgment will be partially suspended upon completion of asset transfers from all financial institutions holding accounts in the defendants’ names.
FTC may seek civil penalties under Covid-19 Consumer Protection Act
Recently President Trump signed the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021—a funding measure which extends certain emergency authorities and temporary regulatory relief contained in the CARES Act (covered by InfoBytes here)—that includes a provision under Title XIV Covid-19 Consumer Protection Act, which allows the FTC to seek civil penalties for first-time violations of the FTC Act related to Covid-19 scams and deceptive practices. Specifically, the provision targets conduct “associated with—(1) the treatment, cure, prevention, mitigation, or diagnosis of COVID-19; or (2) a government benefit related to COVID-19.” Such a violation would be “treated as a violation of a rule defining an unfair or deceptive act or practice prescribed under section 18(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 57a(a)(1)(B)),” with violators subject to civil penalties. This authority is granted to the FTC for the duration of the Covid-19 pandemic.
FTC reaches $62 million settlement with student loan debt relief operation
On November 19, the FTC entered into a settlement with defendants accused of engaging in deceptive practices when marketing and selling student loan debt relief services. As part of its enforcement initiative, Operation Game of Loans (covered by InfoBytes here), the FTC alleged that the defendants violated the FTC Act and Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR) by, among other things, charging illegal up-front fees to enroll consumers in debt relief programs, accepting monthly payments that were not applied towards student loans, and collecting monthly fees that consumers believed were being applied to their loans but instead were going towards unrelated “financial education” programs (see previous InfoBytes coverage here). Under the terms of the order, the defendants are permanently banned from providing secured and unsecured debt relief products and services, and are prohibited from (i) engaging in unlawful telemarketing practices and violating the TSR; (ii) misrepresenting financial products and services; (iii) making unsubstantiated claims; and (iii) collecting, or assigning any right to collect, payments from consumers for products sold by the defendants. The defendants are also ordered to pay $62 million in monetary relief.
FTC says mobile banking app is deceptive
On November 18, the FTC filed a complaint against a mobile banking app operator alleging the defendants violated the FTC Act by deceiving users about their high-interest bank accounts and falsely promising users “24/7” access to their funds. The FTC’s complaint alleges that the defendants represented that users would receive “‘minimum base’ interest rates” of at least 0.2 percent or 1.0 percent, but that users actually received a starting interest rate of 0.04 percent and stopped earning any interest if they requested that their funds be returned. Additionally, the complaint claims that while the defendants promised users 24/7 access to their funds and represented they could make transfers out of their accounts and receive the requested funds within three to five business days, some users waited weeks or months to receive their funds despite submitting repeated complaints to the defendants. Other users claimed they never received their money. Moreover, some users claimed that the defendants blamed the failure to deliver the requested funds on “unspecified issues with unspecified ‘banking partners’ or ‘technology partners’ and promised the delays were temporary.
The FTC seeks an injunction against the defendants, along with monetary relief including “rescission or reformation of contracts, restitution, the refund of monies paid, disgorgement of ill-gotten monies, and other equitable relief.”
FTC issues final order with skincare company for false reviews
On November 6, the FTC announced a final order with a skincare company, resolving allegations that the company misled consumers by posting fake reviews on a retailer’s website and failed to disclose company employees wrote the reviews. As previously covered by InfoBytes, in October 2019, the FTC filed the complaint against the company asserting that (i) the product reviews posted on the company’s website were not “independent experiences or opinions of impartial ordinary users of the products” and therefore, were false or misleading under Section 5 of the FTC Act; and (ii) the failure to disclose the reviews were written by the owner or employees constitutes a deceptive act or practice under Section 5 of the FTC Act, because the information would “be material to consumers in evaluating the reviews of [the company] brand products in connection with a purchase or use decision.”
The Commission, in a 3-2 vote, approved the final order, which prohibits the company from misrepresenting the status of an endorser, including misrepresentations that the endorser or reviewer is an “independent or ordinary user of the product.” The order requires the company and owner to “clearly and conspicuously, and in close proximity to that representation, any unexpected material connection between such endorser and (1) any Respondent; or (2) any other individual or entity affiliated with the product.” The final order does not include any monetary relief for consumers.
In dissent, two Commissioners objected to the final order, stating that the agency is “doubling down on its no-money, no-fault settlement with [the company], who was charged with egregious fake review fraud.” The dissent urged the Commission to publish a statement on monetary remedies in order to restate “legal precedent into formal rules” and designate specific misconduct as penalty offenses through Section 5(m)(1)(B) of the FTC Act, which allows the agency “to seek penalties against parties who engage in conduct known to have been previously condemned by the Commission.”