• Home
  • About Us
  • Getting Finances Done
    • Hiring Advisors
    • Debt Management
    • Spending Plan
  • Insurance
    • Life Insurance
    • Health Insurance
    • Disability Insurance
    • Homeowners/Renters Insurance
  • Contact Us
  • Our Editorial Commitment

The Free Financial Advisor

You are here: Home / Archives for Federal Trade Commission

7 Refund Payments Consumers Could Receive From the FTC Right Now

September 2, 2026 by Brandon Marcus Leave a Comment

7 Refund Payments Consumers Could Receive From the FTC Right Now
The FTC currently lists active refund programs involving consumers, workers, students, and customers affected by alleged deceptive business practices. Eligible recipients should verify payments through the FTC’s official refund information and never pay a fee to receive money – Shutterstock

A refund from the Federal Trade Commission can feel like finding money in a coat pocket, except this time there is an actual reason the money exists. The FTC currently lists dozens of active refund programs, and several are sending payments during 2026 to consumers, workers, students, and customers affected by alleged deceptive or unlawful business practices.

There is one important catch: an FTC refund does not work like a government stimulus check that everyone gets simply for existing. Eligibility depends on the specific case, and several current programs involve people who already qualified for an earlier payment but never cashed a check or accepted a previous electronic payment. That makes checking the FTC’s official refund list worthwhile, especially if one of these names looks familiar.

1. AT&T Data Throttling Refunds

Former AT&T customers could receive a payment if they previously qualified for the FTC’s refund program involving unlimited wireless data plans and did not cash an earlier check or accept a previous PayPal payment. The FTC alleged that AT&T reduced data speeds for some unlimited-plan customers after they reached certain monthly data thresholds, making ordinary activities such as browsing and streaming difficult.

The FTC first sent payments in 2024 and now sends Zelle payments to eligible people who left earlier payments untouched. That means this opportunity does not invite every former AT&T customer to submit a fresh claim. If a Zelle payment arrives, the FTC says it goes directly into the recipient’s bank account with a note identifying the settlement.

2. Blueprint to Wealth Settlement

Consumers who previously received a Blueprint to Wealth payment could see another payment in 2026. The FTC says the business opportunity promised members an “everything-is-done-for-you” operation and support from success coaches while promoting the possibility of substantial earnings.

The FTC sent an initial round of payments in 2025 and now sends a second round to people who accepted that first payment. The current round includes more than 2,000 payments totaling more than $333,000, and recipients should cash checks within 90 days or accept PayPal payments within 30 days.

3. Amazon Flex Driver Refunds

Amazon Flex drivers who had tips withheld between 2016 and 2019 could receive another payment if they qualified for the earlier refund program and never cashed an earlier check. The FTC alleged that Amazon withheld tips that customers intended for Flex drivers, leading to a settlement that funded refunds for affected drivers.

The FTC previously sent payments in multiple rounds and now sends Zelle payments to eligible people who failed to cash earlier checks. The current program does not mean every Amazon Flex driver receives money simply because they drove for the service, so an unexpected message demanding personal information deserves serious suspicion.

4. Grubhub Refunds

Grubhub users and drivers have another potentially significant refund opportunity in 2026, and this one reaches two very different groups. The FTC says it sends payments to eligible drivers affected by deceptive earnings claims and to diners affected by conduct that included blocking accounts and preventing some people from redeeming gift cards.

The current program includes hundreds of thousands of payments totaling more than $23.8 million. Recipients who receive checks should cash them within 90 days, while people who receive PayPal payments should accept them within 30 days.

5. Trend Deploy Refunds

People deceived by Trend Deploy’s marketing could receive an FTC refund in this current program. The FTC says the agency sends more than $672,000 to affected consumers and mails thousands of checks through the refund process.

The agency says recipients should cash their checks within 90 days, and the refund administrator can answer questions about individual payments. This case also offers a useful scam warning: the FTC never requires consumers to pay money, transfer funds, or hand over financial account information before receiving an official refund.

6. Ring Refunds

Eligible Ring customers could receive a refund connected to the FTC’s case involving the home security camera company. The FTC alleged that Ring failed to adequately protect customer accounts, gave employees excessive access to customer videos, and left some accounts vulnerable to hackers.

The FTC previously issued payments in 2024 and 2025 and now sends Zelle payments to eligible recipients who did not cash earlier checks or accept earlier PayPal payments. The current program therefore focuses on people who already qualified, rather than opening a brand-new application window for every Ring customer.

7. University of Phoenix Settlement

Eligible University of Phoenix students could receive a payment through the ongoing FTC refund program tied to deceptive advertising allegations. The FTC alleged that the school advertised supposed relationships with major employers and suggested that those relationships could create job opportunities for students.

The FTC now sends Zelle payments to eligible people who did not cash earlier checks or accept earlier PayPal payments. The current page also notes a separate development involving federal student loans: the Department of Education continues processing borrower-defense claims from qualifying University of Phoenix students, so an FTC refund and potential loan relief represent separate matters.

A Refund Alert Worth Keeping on the Fridge

The FTC’s official refund list currently shows these programs alongside many others, and the list can change as new payments begin or older programs wind down. The agency says consumers can visit its refund pages to see case-specific information, including whether a program uses checks, PayPal, Zelle, or another payment method.

The golden rule remains wonderfully simple: never pay someone to receive an FTC refund. Scammers impersonate the FTC, and the agency warns that it will not demand money, threaten consumers, or tell them to transfer funds to unlock a payment.

Which of these FTC refund programs surprised you, and have you ever received a refund payment from a government settlement?

You May Also Like…

FTC Finalizes $930,000 Settlement Over ‘Active Listening’ AI Ad Service That Allegedly Didn’t Work as Advertised

IRS Proposes New Eligibility Rules for Refundable Payments From 4 Tax Credits

Connecticut’s “Junk Fee” Law, Right-to-Repair Mandate and Auto-Renewal Requirements Take Effect July 1 — What Consumers Need to Know

FTC Raises National Do Not Call Registry Access Fees for Telemarketers Starting October 1

Unclaimed Refunds Expire After 3 Years — Billions Go Unrecovered Every Summer

Brandon Marcus
Brandon Marcus

Brandon Marcus is a writer who has been sharing the written word since a very young age. His interests include sports, history, pop culture, and so much more. When he isn’t writing, he spends his time jogging, drinking coffee, or attempting to read a long book he may never complete.

Filed Under: Lifestyle Tagged With: 2026 refunds, Consumer Protection, consumer refunds, Federal Trade Commission, FTC refunds, refund checks, scams

FTC Raises National Do Not Call Registry Access Fees for Telemarketers Starting October 1

August 27, 2026 by Amanda Blankenship Leave a Comment

Do Not Call Registry fees
</strong> The FTC is increasing the fees certain telemarketers and sellers pay to access National Do Not Call Registry data beginning October 1, 2026. Consumers can still register their own phone numbers for free. Ruslan Huzau/Shutterstock

Businesses that make telemarketing calls will soon pay slightly more to access the federal database designed to protect consumers from unwanted sales calls. The Federal Trade Commission announced new fiscal year 2027 fees for accessing the National Do Not Call Registry, with the changes taking effect October 1, 2026. The increase affects businesses and other organizations that pay to access phone-number data by area code, not consumers who register their numbers.

For consumers, the announcement is also a useful reminder of how the Do Not Call Registry actually works — and what registering a number can and cannot stop.

What Telemarketers Will Pay Starting October 1

The annual fee for accessing National Do Not Call Registry data will increase from $82 to $85 per area code for fiscal year 2027. Businesses adding area codes during the second half of their annual subscription period will pay $43 per additional area code, up from $41.

The maximum annual charge for a single entity will increase from $22,626 to $23,425.

Not every business accessing the database necessarily pays for every area code. Under the FTC’s current system, organizations can access data for up to five area codes for free, while qualifying exempt organizations do not pay access fees.

Why the FTC Is Raising the Fees

The adjustment isn’t simply a discretionary price increase by the agency. Federal law requires the FTC to periodically adjust National Do Not Call Registry access fees based on changes in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers.

According to the agency, the CPI increased enough since the previous adjustment to trigger another fee increase for fiscal year 2027. The calculations ultimately resulted in the $85 per-area-code fee and $23,425 maximum charge.

Because the adjustment is required by statute and involves applying a prescribed inflation calculation, the agency treated the change as a technical amendment rather than going through the usual public notice-and-comment process.

Businesses Have to Check Numbers Against the Registry

The National Do Not Call Registry isn’t simply a list that consumers add their phone numbers to and then forget about. It also creates compliance obligations for many businesses engaged in telemarketing.

Sellers generally must access the portions of the Registry covering the area codes where they plan to make calls and pay the required access fees. Telemarketers working for sellers also need to make sure their clients have properly accessed the Registry before placing covered calls.

The FTC’s guidance warns that sellers or telemarketers can face legal consequences for making calls without obtaining required Registry access, even in some circumstances when the particular number called isn’t itself on the Registry.

The Fee Increase Doesn’t Mean Consumers Have to Pay

Consumers should not confuse the new fees with a charge for putting their own phone number on the Do Not Call Registry. Registration remains free for consumers.

That distinction could also help people recognize a potential scam. Someone who contacts a consumer claiming a payment is required to put a number on the federal Do Not Call Registry should not be trusted simply because the FTC recently announced a fee increase.

The fees taking effect October 1 apply to businesses and other organizations obtaining access to Registry data for telemarketing compliance — not people registering their personal phone numbers.

Being on the Registry Won’t Stop Every Unwanted Call

Consumers should also understand that registration doesn’t create a universal block against every unwanted phone call.

Certain calls aren’t covered by the National Do Not Call Registry’s restrictions, and scammers who are already willing to break the law may simply ignore the Registry altogether. That is why someone can legitimately register a phone number and still receive illegal robocalls or scam calls afterward.

For legitimate sellers and telemarketers subject to the Telemarketing Sales Rule, however, checking numbers against the Registry remains an important compliance requirement. The new fiscal year 2027 fees change how much qualifying businesses pay for that access, rather than changing the basic purpose of the consumer protection program.

What Changes on October 1, 2026

For consumers, very little changes directly on October 1: registering a phone number with the National Do Not Call Registry remains free. For telemarketers and sellers that must pay for Registry data, the cost rises to $85 per area code beyond applicable free access, while the maximum annual fee climbs to $23,425.

Businesses affected by the change should review the FTC’s current requirements rather than relying on previous-year fee information. Consumers, meanwhile, can continue using the Registry as one tool for limiting legitimate telemarketing calls — while remembering that registration alone can’t prevent criminals from placing illegal scam calls.

Are you registered with the National Do Not Call Registry, and have you noticed any difference in the number of unwanted calls you receive? Share your experience in the comments.

What to Read Next

Florida Health System Agrees to $541.5 Million Settlement Over Medicare Advantage Diagnosis Codes

At 55, Should You Still Be Investing Like You’re 35?

At What Point Does Saving More for Retirement Stop Improving Your Life?

Amanda Blankenship

Amanda Blankenship is the Chief Editor for District Media.  With a BA in journalism from Wingate University, she frequently writes for a handful of websites and loves to share her own personal finance story with others. When she isn’t typing away at her desk, she enjoys spending time with her daughter, son, husband, and dog. During her free time, you’re likely to find her with her nose in a book, hiking, or playing RPG video games.

Filed Under: news Tagged With: Consumer Protection, Do Not Call, Do Not Call Registry, Federal Trade Commission, FTC', phone scams, robocalls, scam calls, Telemarketing, Telemarketing Sales Rule

FTC Says Doxo Used Misleading Bill-Payment Ads and Hidden Fees — Company to Pay $2.1 Million

August 18, 2026 by Amanda Blankenship Leave a Comment

Doxo FTC settlement
The FTC alleged that Doxo used misleading search ads that could make its third-party bill-payment service appear to be an official payment channel and failed to clearly disclose certain fees and subscription terms. DimaBerlin/Shutterstock

Online bill payment company Doxo will pay $2.1 million to settle Federal Trade Commission allegations that the firm and two of its co-founders deceived consumers through misleading search advertisements and undisclosed fees, according to an official FTC announcement.

FTC Says Doxo Ads Made Its Service Look Like an Official Payment Channel

The FTC’s 2024 complaint alleged that Doxo and co-founders Steve Shivers and Roger Parks used search ads and other advertisements to trick consumers into using Doxo’s third-party bill payment platform by disguising it as the official payment channel for utilities, car loans, and other bills. The company’s landing pages frequently displayed other companies’ names and sometimes their logos, according to the FTC. The agency alleged that Doxo did not have a relationship with the overwhelming majority of the companies it claimed were part of its payment network.

The FTC further alleged that Doxo added undisclosed “delivery fees” to consumers’ bills without clear disclosure. The company also allegedly enrolled consumers in a recurring subscription program deceptively — failing to clearly and conspicuously disclose that delivery fee waivers applied only to certain payment methods and failing to clearly disclose the subscription’s price.

A federal court found, at the FTC’s request, that Doxo violated the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act by failing to clearly disclose subscription terms and failing to obtain consumers’ consent for subscription charges.

$2.1 Million Will Be Used for Consumer Redress

Under the proposed settlement order, the $2.1 million Doxo pays will be used for consumer redress. Doxo, Shivers, and Parks will also be prohibited from certain conduct, according to the announcement, though the specific prohibitions were not fully detailed in the released text. The Commission approved the stipulated final order by a 2-0 vote. The FTC filed the proposed order in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. Stipulated final orders carry the force of law once approved and signed by the District Court judge.

Christopher Mufarrige, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, stated that misleading search ads undermine the marketplace and that the action reflects the agency’s commitment to stopping deceptive search advertising so consumers can avoid hidden fees and make informed decisions.

Before paying a bill through a search result, consumers can check whether they are actually on the biller’s official website or using an authorized payment provider. Pay attention to the web address, review the total payment amount for added fees, and read any subscription language before submitting payment information. A search advertisement appearing above other results does not, by itself, mean the advertiser is the company you were searching for.

Consumers who believe they may have been affected by Doxo’s billing practices should verify their specific situation directly with the FTC at ReportFraud.ftc.gov or consumer.ftc.gov, as individual circumstances can vary.

What to Read Next

FTC Credit Repair Case Shows Why “Quick Fix” Credit Promises Can Cost Consumers Thousands

Celsius Network Founders Ordered to Pay $16.5 Million to Resolve FTC Charges

RentGrow to Pay $2.25 Million to Settle FTC Allegations of Fair Credit Reporting Act and FTC Act Violations

Amanda Blankenship

Amanda Blankenship is the Chief Editor for District Media.  With a BA in journalism from Wingate University, she frequently writes for a handful of websites and loves to share her own personal finance story with others. When she isn’t typing away at her desk, she enjoys spending time with her daughter, son, husband, and dog. During her free time, you’re likely to find her with her nose in a book, hiking, or playing RPG video games.

Filed Under: news Tagged With: Bill Payments, Consumer Alerts, Consumer Protection, Doxo, Federal Trade Commission, FTC', Hidden Fees, online payments, subscriptions

Celsius Network Founders Ordered to Pay $16.5 Million to Resolve FTC Charges

July 21, 2026 by Amanda Blankenship Leave a Comment

Celsius Network FTC settlement
A smartphone displays cryptocurrency market data as the FTC announces a $16.5 million settlement with the founders of Celsius Network over allegations they misled consumers about the safety of customer funds. DCStockPhotography/Shutterstock

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced that the founders of collapsed cryptocurrency platform Celsius Network will pay a combined $16.5 million to resolve allegations that they misled consumers about the safety of customer deposits. The settlements involve former CEO Alexander Mashinsky, former Chief Strategy Officer Shlomi Daniel Leon, and former Chief Technology Officer Hanoch “Nuke” Goldstein. According to the FTC, the executives falsely assured customers that funds deposited with Celsius were safe, secure, and always available for withdrawal, even as the company’s financial condition deteriorated.

FTC Alleged Consumers Were Misled

The FTC first filed its case against Celsius and its executives in 2023, alleging the company marketed itself as a safer alternative to traditional banks while making misleading claims about its lending practices, reserves, and risk management. Regulators said many customers believed their cryptocurrency deposits were protected when, in reality, Celsius engaged in risky business practices that ultimately contributed to its collapse. Celsius filed for bankruptcy in 2022 after freezing customer withdrawals, leaving many investors unable to access their funds.

Settlement Includes Industry Restrictions

Under the settlement orders, Mashinsky will pay $10 million, Leon will pay $4.1 million, and Goldstein will pay $2.4 million, totaling $16.5 million. In addition to the financial penalties, the founders are barred from marketing or selling many cryptocurrency-related products and services in the future. The FTC said the restrictions are intended to help prevent similar conduct and protect consumers from deceptive practices in the digital asset marketplace.

A Reminder About Cryptocurrency Risks

While the settlements close the FTC’s consumer protection claims against the founders, they also serve as a reminder that cryptocurrency investments often lack many of the safeguards associated with traditional financial institutions. Investors should carefully evaluate claims about safety, guaranteed returns, or easy access to deposited funds before committing money to any digital asset platform. Consumers who believe they may have been affected by the Celsius collapse should monitor official FTC and bankruptcy updates for information about ongoing proceedings or potential relief.

What to Read Next

7 Advisor Red Flags to Watch When Retirement Advice Involves AI or Crypto

Cryptocurrency Owners Are Getting IRS Letters — Even for Small Trades

5 Ways to Avoid Being Reported Under New 1099-DA Crypto Rules

Amanda Blankenship

Amanda Blankenship is the Chief Editor for District Media.  With a BA in journalism from Wingate University, she frequently writes for a handful of websites and loves to share her own personal finance story with others. When she isn’t typing away at her desk, she enjoys spending time with her daughter, son, husband, and dog. During her free time, you’re likely to find her with her nose in a book, hiking, or playing RPG video games.

Filed Under: news Tagged With: Alexander Mashinsky, bankruptcy, Celsius Network, Consumer Protection, crypto investing, crypto regulation, cryptocurrency, cryptocurrency fraud, digital assets, enforcement action, Federal Trade Commission, financial news, FTC', investor protection

Follow Us

Search this site:

Recent Posts

  • Can My Savings Account Affect My Financial Aid? by Tamila McDonald
  • 12 Ways Gen X’s Views Clash with Millennials… by Tamila McDonald
  • What Advantages and Disadvantages Are There To… by Jacob Sensiba
  • 10 Tactics for Building an Emergency Fund from Scratch by Vanessa Bermudez
  • Call 911: Go To the Emergency Room Immediately If… by Stephen Kanaval
  • 7 Weird Things You Can Sell Online by Tamila McDonald
  • 10 Scary Facts About DriveTime by Tamila McDonald

Copyright © 2026 · News Pro Theme on Genesis Framework