Federal Trade Commission (FTC)

Subscribe to Federal Trade Commission (FTC) via RSS

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has entered into a stipulated order for permanent injunction against 5967 Ventures, LLC, doing business as Humboldt Merchant Services, resolving allegations that the payment processor facilitated fraud by opening and maintaining payment processing accounts for shell companies and merchants engaged in deceptive practices. The order, filed on September 8 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, carries significant implications for the payment processing industry.

The Federal Trade Commission’s Bureau of Consumer Protection has issued an alert warning consumers about a growing scam in which fraudsters create near-perfect clones of legitimate car dealership websites, sometimes using AI, to trick buyers into paying upfront for vehicles that don’t exist. Victims show up at the real dealership only to find no record of their order, their payment, or their car.

In this crossover edition of Moving the Metal: The Auto Finance Podcast and The Consumer Finance Podcast, hosts Brooke Conkle, Chris Capurso, and Chris Willis break down the FTC’s policy statement abandoning disparate impact enforcement under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and Section 5 of the FTC Act. The group traces the reversal to two key drivers — a reassessment of the FTC’s statutory authority and President Trump’s executive order directing agencies to deprioritize disparate impact liability — while placing the move in the broader context of similar rollbacks at the CFPB and federal banking regulators. They also examine what remaining exposure looks like at the state level, particularly in New York and New Jersey, and close with a clear message for compliance officers: fair lending is far from dead, the current federal retreat is best understood as a vacation rather than a permanent reprieve, and paying close attention to regulatory signals now can be a meaningful competitive advantage down the road.

On August 26, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced updated fees for telemarketers to access phone numbers listed on the National Do Not Call (DNC) Registry for Fiscal Year 2027, which begins October 1, 2026.

Background

All telemarketers calling consumers in the U.S. are required to download and cross-reference numbers listed on the National DNC…

In this episode of Moving the Metal, hosts Brooke Conkle and Chris Capurso break down the FTC’s landmark policy statement officially abandoning disparate impact enforcement and what it means for dealers and auto finance companies. They cover the agency’s two core justifications — statutory authority under Section 5 of the FTC Act and ECOA, and President Trump’s executive order on meritocracy — and explain why, despite the federal reprieve, companies should not treat this as a green light to abandon fair lending compliance programs altogether. From the compliance side, Chris walks through the careful recalibration businesses should consider, while Brooke flags that pending litigation and active state-level efforts to codify disparate impact liability mean the risk landscape is far from clear. The episode closes with a preview of Part 2, where the hosts will be joined by Chris Willis to dig deeper into the history and future of fair lending law.

More than two years after filing suit, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Connecticut Attorney General William Tong have secured a $4 million settlement with Manchester, Connecticut auto dealer Chase Nissan LLC, doing business as Manchester City Nissan, along with its owners and managers, resolving allegations of widespread deceptive fee practices targeting consumers in the car-buying process.

This article was republished on insideARM on August 25, 2026.

On August 14, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) announced that it is ceasing the discretionary publication of unverified consumer complaint narratives and related data visualizations in its Consumer Complaint Database. The move represents a significant change to one of the Bureau’s most publicly visible data tools that will meaningfully reduce reputational risk for financial institutions and financial services companies.

On August 7, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued a policy statement announcing that it will no longer pursue claims based on disparate impact or “unfair discrimination” theories under any statute it enforces. The FTC’s action is the latest in a series of coordinated federal agency moves away from disparate impact enforcement. As we previously reported here, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) proposed to repeal its Fair Housing Act disparate impact regulations in January 2026, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) finalized its rewrite of Subpart A of Regulation B under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) in April 2026, eliminating the disparate impact “effects test” from ECOA enforcement and reframing ECOA as an intent-only statute (see here). Together with the FTC’s action, these developments signal a sweeping realignment of federal fair lending and consumer protection enforcement away from outcome-based theories and toward intentional discrimination as the operative standard.

In this episode of Payments Pros, host Keith Barnett examines a recent FTC enforcement action targeting an alleged unlawful subscription scheme involving 15 corporations and eight individuals operating through Cyprus- and Ukraine-based entities with access to U.S. payment rails. Keith discusses the FTC’s continued focus on deceptive advertising, undisclosed recurring charges, unauthorized billing, and burdensome cancellation practices, and explains why these issues carry significant implications for companies operating in the payments ecosystem. He walks through the FTC’s five-stage playbook allegations, including the failure to clearly disclose subscription terms, the use of engaging online tasks to drive purchases, and the deliberate obstruction of cancellation mechanisms. Keith also highlights the broad temporary restraining order agreed to by several defendants, covering asset freezes, foreign asset repatriation, customer data protections, and expedited discovery extending to third-party banks and payment processors. The episode closes with a reminder that the Trump-era FTC remains active and aggressive in the payments space, with businesses advised to prioritize clear disclosures, simple cancellation options, and strong BSA compliance practices.

On July 21, 2026, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced a proposed settlement order permanently banning Dennise Merdjanian — a key operator of a Nevada-based student loan debt relief scheme — from the debt relief industry and from telemarketing. The order resolves the FTC’s charges that Merdjanian and her co-defendants took more than $45.9 million from consumers by impersonating the U.S. Department of Education and making false promises of student loan forgiveness.