Federal Trade Commission (FTC)

Subscribe to Federal Trade Commission (FTC) via RSS

On May 13, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed and simultaneously settled a lawsuit against online digital photo and video platform Shutterstock, Inc. in the Southern District of New York, alleging that the company used deceptive “negative option” subscription practices in violation of § 5 of the FTC Act and the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act (ROSCA). According to the complaint, Shutterstock misled consumers about its “annual, paid monthly” (APM) plans and on‑demand “packs,” failed to clearly disclose automatic renewals and hefty early‑termination fees, converted “free trials” into paid annual plans without adequate notice, and made it difficult and time‑consuming for customers to cancel.

In this episode of Moving the Metal: The Auto Finance Podcast, hosts Brooke Conkle and Chris Capurso break down a major FTC–Maryland AG settlement with multiple auto dealerships over alleged deceptive pricing, unauthorized add-ons, and misleading financing practices. Brooke and Chris walk through the redress and penalty structure and explain how “total price,” clear disclosure, and express informed consent are being enforced post-CARS Rule. They also discuss what dealers and auto finance companies should do now to strengthen compliance, documentation, and oversight of dealer practices.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has taken a highly visible step into the national debate over “debanking” by sending warning letters to several large payment networks and financial services providers, reminding them that deplatforming or denying customers access to financial products or services due to political or religious beliefs could violate their existing obligations under Section 5 of the FTC Act. The FTC’s letters signal a sharpened enforcement focus on how financial services firms manage account closures, suspensions, and access to services, particularly when political or religious views are implicated.

On March 20, Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson issued a memorandum directing the creation of an internal Healthcare Task Force. The directive underscores that healthcare remains a top enforcement and policy priority for the FTC, reflecting the Administration’s focus on a “more competitive, innovative, affordable, and higher quality healthcare system.”

On March 13, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced that it is sending warning letters to 97 auto dealership groups across the country, signaling a renewed focus on deceptive pricing practices in the retail auto sector. The letters stress that advertised prices must reflect the total price consumers will be required to pay, including all mandatory, dealer-imposed fees other than government charges like taxes. The agency frames this effort as part of a broader initiative to promote price transparency across sectors such as rental housing, ticketing and hotels, grocery delivery, and now auto sales and leasing.

This article was cited in the April 1, 2026 Multifamily Dive article, “FTC Seeks Public Input on Junk Fee Rule for Rental Housing.”

The Federal Trade Commission has announced an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) to explore a new rule governing unfair or deceptive rental housing fee practices. The initiative focuses on the widening gap between advertised rent and the total amounts renters actually pay once mandatory fees and charges are added. Once the ANPRM has been published in the Federal Register, comments will be accepted for 30 days. 

On March 11, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued a new Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) to revisit its Rule Concerning the Use of Prenotification Negative Option Plans. The move follows the Eighth Circuit’s 2025 decision vacating the FTC’s 2024 amendments (discussed here), which would have imposed uniform requirements on subscriptions, auto‑renewals, and trial‑to‑pay offers across all marketing channels. The ANPRM makes clear that while the FTC acknowledges that so-called negative options are widely offered and can provide benefits to both sellers and consumers, the FTC intends to address recurring billing and cancellation frictions that continue to generate a high volume of consumer complaints.

In this crossover episode of The Consumer Finance Podcast and Payments Pros, Jason Cover sits down with Brooke Conkle and Caleb Rosenberg to demystify the Federal Trade Commission’s Holder Rule and its day‑to‑day impact on point‑of‑sale (POS) finance programs. They explain why creditors and assignees inherit customers’ claims and defenses against merchants, what transactions are in scope and out of scope, how liability is generally capped at amounts paid (and why attorneys’ fees remain a live issue), and how merchant/vendor/dealer agreements can shift risk back to sellers. The conversation turns practical with a compliance toolkit: robust upfront diligence, continuous monitoring of merchant and consumer complaints (including requiring merchants to forward complaints), and a risk‑based response that separates meritless claims from those requiring redress. The panel also highlights enforcement and litigation trends and why, at 50 years old, the Holder Rule remains bedrock law that POS lenders cannot ignore, even as strong contracts and oversight materially mitigate exposure.

On October 6, Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law the California Combating Auto Retail Scams (CARS) Act. This legislation aims to fortify consumer protections and enhance transparency in the car-buying process. The enactment of this law follows a series of discussions and amendments, as highlighted in our previous blog and podcast, which traced the bill’s evolution and its alignment with the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) vacated CARS Rule.

On July 14, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) secured a court order aimed at halting allegedly deceptive practices against seven companies and three individuals operating the “Accelerated Debt” program. The defendants allegedly contacted consumers through telemarketing calls or in response to calls resulting from their mail and online ads and made false claims about their ability to substantially reduce consumer debts and misleading consumers about fees. The FTC alleged these actions violated the FTC Act, the Telemarketing Sales Rule, the Impersonation Rule, the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), and § 521 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act by making false statements to get consumers’ financial account numbers. The court’s order includes a temporary restraining order, asset freeze, and the appointment of a temporary receiver to oversee the defendants’ business operations.