• 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

Amazon Prime Refunds Expand: More Consumers Will Get Automatic Payments, With Up to $200 Possible

September 18, 2026 by Amanda Blankenship 1 Comment

Amazon Prime settlement refund
More consumers are becoming eligible for automatic payments from the Amazon Prime settlement, including some customers who used up to 20 Prime benefits during a 12-month period. Some eligible consumers could eventually receive as much as $200 total across multiple settlement-payment rounds. Tada Images/Shutterstock

More Amazon Prime customers could receive money from the company’s $2.5 billion Federal Trade Commission settlement under a newly approved process that expands automatic refunds and could eventually bring total payments to some eligible consumers to as much as $200.

The Federal Trade Commission announced September 17 that Amazon will accelerate and expand payments from the consumer redress fund established under the 2025 settlement.

One of the biggest changes is that more consumers will receive payments automatically. The revised process eliminates the need for additional claims from consumers identified in Amazon’s records as potentially eligible, including some people who previously didn’t submit a claim or whose submitted claim was invalid.

Consumers should also understand that the new $200 figure doesn’t mean everyone receiving a refund will immediately get $200.

Who Is Newly Eligible for Automatic Amazon Prime Refunds?

The original settlement established several stages for distributing money.

During the initial automatic-payment phase, Amazon issued payments to eligible consumers who enrolled in Prime through one of the enrollment flows challenged by the FTC and used no more than three Prime benefits during a 12-month period after enrollment.

Another phase covered eligible consumers who used no more than 10 Prime benefits during a 12-month enrollment period and included a claims process.

Under the court-approved revised payment order, Amazon began issuing payments by August 30 to potentially eligible consumers from that claims group who had submitted approved claims, submitted invalid claims or never submitted the claim form, as long as they hadn’t already received a settlement payment and weren’t subject to a holdback.

That means some people who missed the earlier claims process can still receive money automatically.

People Who Used Up to 20 Prime Benefits Are Being Added

The revised process expands the pool again beginning by October 1, 2026.

Amazon’s claims administrator will begin issuing automatic payments to additional eligible consumers identified in company records who used more than 10 but no more than 20 Prime benefits during any 12-month period of Prime enrollment.

Customers who already received a payment from the consumer fund are excluded from this particular expanded round.

The change speeds up a process that otherwise would have expanded eligibility incrementally based on the number of Prime benefits used.

According to the court order, handling those consumers in larger batches should allow refunds to reach later groups sooner.

The First Refund Is Still Capped at $51

One potentially confusing part of the new announcement is the $200 figure.

The original settlement capped refunds during the automatic, claims and expanded-payment phases at the amount of Prime membership fees paid, up to $51.

That basic $51 cap hasn’t simply been replaced by an immediate $200 refund for everyone.

Instead, the revised process creates the possibility of an additional payment later.

By the end of March 2027, Amazon must determine how much of the consumer fund has actually been accepted. If less than $1 billion has been accepted, remaining money will be distributed on a pro rata basis to eligible consumers who previously accepted a settlement payment.

Some Consumers Could Eventually Receive Up to $200 Total

Those additional pro rata payments can be as much as $149 per eligible consumer.

Combined with an earlier payment of up to $51, that creates a maximum of $200 in total settlement payments per eligible consumer across the program.

The court order says those additional payments will begin by the end of April 2027 if the remaining-funds condition is met.

The exact additional payment isn’t guaranteed to be $149 because it depends on how much money remains in the fund after earlier payments are accepted.

Consumers who already received and accepted an Amazon Prime settlement refund should therefore keep an eye out for another legitimate payment next year.

You Don’t Need to File a New Claim

For the newly expanded payment rounds, eligible consumers identified through Amazon’s records won’t need to submit a new claim form.

Amazon’s claims administrator will issue the payments automatically.

The FTC’s Amazon refund information says payments may arrive through electronic payment methods such as PayPal or Venmo or as mailed checks, depending on the applicable distribution stage and payment information.

Consumers still need to pay attention to acceptance deadlines.

For the group receiving the expanded automatic payments beginning by October 1, the court order gives recipients until March 5, 2027, to accept the payments. Unaccepted payments can then be voided and don’t have to be reissued.

The Settlement Dates Back to FTC Allegations About Prime Enrollment

The refunds stem from the FTC’s case accusing Amazon of enrolling millions of consumers in Prime subscriptions without their consent and making the cancellation process unnecessarily difficult.

Amazon agreed in September 2025 to a $2.5 billion settlement, including a $1 billion civil penalty and $1.5 billion intended for consumer refunds.

The original court order established the process for identifying eligible consumers and distributing the consumer redress money.

Court records show Amazon initiated more than 12.5 million automatic payments totaling more than $406 million during the first phase alone.

The latest change is designed to distribute more of the remaining consumer fund without requiring another round of paperwork from potentially eligible customers.

Watch for Refund Scams

A large refund program can also give scammers an opportunity to impersonate Amazon or the FTC.

Consumers should be suspicious of anyone who says they must pay a fee, buy something, provide a gift card or transfer money to receive an Amazon Prime settlement refund.

The FTC warns consumers that it won’t demand money or require someone to transfer funds in order to receive an FTC-related refund.

If you’re eligible for one of the expanded automatic Amazon Prime payments, you shouldn’t have to pay someone to release it.

Consumers who receive suspicious messages can report them at the FTC’s official fraud-reporting website rather than clicking links in unsolicited texts or emails.

What Amazon Prime Customers Should Do Now

Consumers don’t need to submit a new claim to become part of the expanded automatic-payment process.

Instead, watch for a legitimate electronic payment or mailed check and don’t ignore it indefinitely because some payments have acceptance deadlines.

If you already received a settlement payment, you could potentially receive another payment beginning in 2027 if less than $1 billion from the consumer fund has been accepted and money remains for the additional distribution.

Keep in mind that the $200 figure is a maximum across settlement-payment rounds, not a guaranteed check amount.

The safest place to verify current information is the FTC’s official Amazon refund page rather than a link sent through an unexpected email, text or social-media message.

What to Read Next

FTC Freezes Civil Penalty Amounts for 2026 After Government Shutdown Disrupted Inflation Data

FleetCor, Now Corpay, Agrees to Pay $100 Million Over Hidden Fuel Card Fees and Savings Claims

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

Headshot of Amanda Blankenship
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: Amazon, Amazon Prime, Amazon Prime settlement, Amazon refund, automatic refunds, consumer refunds, Federal Trade Commission, FTC', Prime membership, refund scams, settlement payments

FleetCor, Now Corpay, Agrees to Pay $100 Million Over Hidden Fuel Card Fees and Savings Claims

September 18, 2026 by Amanda Blankenship Leave a Comment

FleetCor FTC settlement
FleetCor, now known as Corpay, and CEO Ronald Clarke have agreed to pay $100 million to resolve an FTC administrative action involving hidden or unauthorized fuel card fees and deceptive claims about savings. The FTC says the money will be used to provide redress to harmed business customers if the proposed settlement becomes final. Tada Images/Shutterstock

FleetCor Technologies, now known as Corpay, and its CEO Ronald Clarke have agreed to pay $100 million to resolve a Federal Trade Commission administrative action involving fuel cards marketed largely to small businesses.

The proposed settlement, announced September 17, follows years of litigation over FleetCor’s fuel card practices. According to the Federal Trade Commission, the company charged customers hidden or unauthorized fees and made deceptive claims about fuel savings, fees and fraud-control features associated with its cards.

The $100 million payment is expected to be used to provide redress to business customers harmed by the practices, according to the FTC. The proposed administrative settlement still must go through a public-comment process before the Commission decides whether to make the consent order final.

FTC Says Small Businesses Faced Undisclosed Fees

FleetCor sells fuel cards that businesses can provide to employees who purchase gasoline and other fuel for company vehicles.

The FTC said FleetCor’s customers were overwhelmingly small businesses and alleged that the company imposed a broad range of fees customers did not know about or agree to pay. According to the agency, those charges totaled hundreds of millions of dollars and affected tens of thousands of customers.

The allegations weren’t limited to ordinary account fees.

The FTC’s case against FleetCor also alleged that the company charged late fees to customers who had paid on time or, in some instances, had been prevented by FleetCor from making timely payments.

According to the FTC, some fees didn’t begin appearing until customers had gone through several billing cycles, potentially making the added charges less noticeable.

Some Fees Were Difficult for Customers to Spot

The way the charges appeared—or didn’t appear—on customer records was another major part of the government’s case.

The FTC alleged that FleetCor invoices didn’t disclose that certain fees were being charged. Customers instead had to look at other account-management reports to identify them.

Even there, the agency said, some fees were mixed in with other information or weren’t listed at all.

A federal district court entered summary judgment for the FTC on all counts in 2023, finding that FleetCor had charged hidden or otherwise unauthorized fees and misrepresented both fuel savings and fees associated with its cards.

A federal appeals court upheld the judgment against FleetCor on all counts in 2026. The appeals court affirmed the judgment against CEO Ronald Clarke on all but one count while vacating the injunction against him.

FTC Challenged Fuel-Savings Claims, Too

Fees weren’t the only issue.

The FTC alleged that FleetCor promoted some fuel cards by promising businesses specific savings on fuel purchases, but those promised savings weren’t always available.

Court records in the case describe claims that customers would receive specific discounts on every gallon purchased, while restrictions could prevent those discounts from being available at certain retailers or reduce or eliminate the savings under some circumstances.

For a small business operating several vehicles, the difference between an advertised per-gallon discount and the savings actually received can become significant as fuel purchases accumulate.

The FTC also challenged representations FleetCor made concerning fraud controls associated with the cards.

$100 Million Is Intended for Customer Redress

Under the proposed settlement, FleetCor and Clarke will pay $100 million, which the FTC says will be used to provide redress to business customers harmed by the company’s practices.

The agreement also says FleetCor and Clarke won’t oppose reimposition of a federal court injunction against Clarke.

A court order already permanently prohibits FleetCor from billing customers for charges unless the company obtains express informed consent and provides clear and unavoidable information about those charges.

The order also prohibits FleetCor from hiding material information about a charge behind a hyperlink and from making deceptive representations about its fuel cards.

Those provisions address practices at the center of the FTC’s original allegations.

The Settlement Isn’t Final Yet

The FTC voted 1-0-1 to accept the proposed consent agreement, with FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson recused.

The agency said a description of the agreement will be published in the Federal Register and will then be open for public comment for 30 days.

After the comment period closes, the Commission will determine whether to make the proposed consent order final.

That distinction matters: FleetCor and Clarke have agreed to the $100 million settlement, but the administrative consent order was still proposed when the FTC announced it on September 17.

Once an FTC consent order becomes final, violations of the order can potentially result in additional civil penalties.

Businesses That Used FleetCor Cards Should Watch What Happens Next

Businesses that previously used FleetCor fuel cards don’t need to assume they’re automatically entitled to part of the $100 million settlement simply because they were customers.

The FTC has said the money will be used for customer redress, but details about which businesses qualify, how payments will be calculated, and whether customers will need to take any action may depend on the final order and the agency’s redress process.

For now, affected businesses can follow the official FTC FleetCor case page for updates and future documents.

Business owners may also want to preserve old FleetCor account statements, invoices, fee records, and other account documentation while the case proceeds.

The case offers a broader reminder for businesses using fuel cards and other payment products: advertised discounts don’t necessarily reveal the complete cost of an account, so reviewing actual fees and realized savings can be just as important as comparing the headline offer.

What to Read Next

FTC Freezes Civil Penalty Amounts for 2026 After Government Shutdown Disrupted Inflation Data

7 Refund Payments Consumers Could Receive From the FTC Right Now

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

Headshot of Amanda Blankenship
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: business expenses, Consumer Protection, Corpay, Federal Trade Commission, FleetCor, FTC settlement, FTC', fuel cards, fuel costs, Hidden Fees, small businesses, unauthorized fees

FTC Freezes Civil Penalty Amounts for 2026 After Government Shutdown Disrupted Inflation Data

September 16, 2026 by Amanda Blankenship Leave a Comment

FTC civil penalties 2026
The Federal Trade Commission says its civil penalty amounts will remain at 2025 levels throughout 2026 because the government shutdown prevented federal officials from producing the October 2025 inflation data required to calculate the annual increase. Tada Images/Shutterstock

The Federal Trade Commission will keep its civil penalty amounts at 2025 levels for the remainder of 2026 after a government shutdown prevented federal officials from producing inflation data required to calculate this year’s increase.

The FTC formally announced the unusual move in a Federal Register notice published September 15. Federal law normally requires agencies to adjust applicable civil monetary penalties annually for inflation, but 2026 will be different.

The reason traces back to the federal government shutdown in late 2025.

Why FTC Penalties Aren’t Increasing in 2026

Under the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015, federal agencies generally make annual inflation adjustments to civil monetary penalties under their jurisdiction.

The calculation relies on the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers, or CPI-U, produced by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Specifically, the annual adjustment depends on comparing CPI-U data for October of the preceding year with October data from the year before that.

But the government shutdown prevented BLS from producing the required October 2025 CPI-U figure.

Without that number, federal agencies didn’t have the data needed to calculate the 2026 adjustment using the formula established by law.

On April 17, the Office of Management and Budget issued Memorandum M-26-11, announcing that there would be no updated cost-of-living multiplier for 2026 and instructing agencies to continue using their 2025 civil monetary penalty amounts.

The FTC’s September notice formally confirms that the agency is following that guidance.

This Isn’t an FTC Decision to Lower Penalties

Consumers and businesses shouldn’t interpret the announcement as the FTC reducing its civil penalties or backing away from enforcement.

The agency isn’t lowering its 2025 penalty levels. It simply isn’t applying the inflation increase that would normally occur in 2026.

The FTC says it will continue applying the penalty amounts established for 2025.

This situation also isn’t unique to the FTC. OMB’s April guidance applies across federal agencies subject to the inflation-adjustment law because they face the same missing October 2025 CPI-U data.

OMB noted that 2026 is the first year since implementation of the 2015 law in which annual adjustments aren’t required because the necessary inflation data aren’t available.

How FTC Civil Penalties Work

The FTC enforces numerous consumer-protection and competition laws, but a civil penalty isn’t automatically available every time the agency believes a business engaged in unfair or deceptive conduct.

The legal authority depends on the particular violation.

For example, the FTC explains in its enforcement guidance that civil penalties can be available for violations of certain FTC rules, statutes, and final Commission orders.

The agency can also use its Penalty Offense Authority in certain circumstances. Under that process, the FTC may seek civil penalties when a company engages in conduct it knows has previously been found unfair or deceptive in a written Commission decision.

The FTC says civil penalties are intended in part to deter conduct that harms consumers and can sometimes exceed the amount a company earned from the misconduct.

The maximum amount applicable to a particular case depends on the law or rule involved and potentially factors such as the number and timing of violations.

Some FTC Penalties Can Reach Tens of Thousands of Dollars Per Violation

The 2025 penalty schedule contains different maximum amounts depending on the statutory provision involved.

For example, the FTC currently says companies that receive certain Notices of Penalty Offenses and then engage in prohibited conduct can face civil penalties of up to $53,088 per violation under the applicable 2025 adjustment.

Other statutes enforced by the FTC carry different maximum penalty amounts.

The complete schedule is contained in 16 CFR § 1.98, which lists the inflation-adjusted civil monetary penalties within the Commission’s jurisdiction.

Those are the amounts the FTC will continue using in 2026 rather than applying another inflation adjustment.

Why the September Notice Didn’t Go Through Public Comment

Normally, federal regulatory changes can involve notice-and-comment procedures and a waiting period before taking effect.

This announcement is different because the FTC isn’t changing the regulatory text or establishing new penalty amounts.

Instead, it’s notifying the public that the 2025 amounts will remain in place because the federal government lacks the CPI-U figure needed to calculate the annual adjustment.

The FTC therefore said prior public notice and comment under the Administrative Procedure Act and a delayed effective date weren’t required.

The notice took effect when it was published in the Federal Register on September 15.

What the 2026 Penalty Freeze Means

For consumers, the announcement doesn’t change what conduct the FTC can investigate or which consumer-protection laws businesses must follow.

For companies subject to statutes, rules, or orders carrying FTC civil penalties, however, it means the maximum inflation-adjusted amounts won’t receive the increase that ordinarily would have occurred in 2026.

The unusual pause stems from missing government inflation data rather than a change in the underlying enforcement laws.

The Office of Management and Budget’s guidance directed federal agencies to continue using their 2025 civil penalty levels, and the FTC’s September notice formally confirms that it will do exactly that.

Consumers and businesses looking for the penalty amount associated with a particular FTC law or rule can consult the agency’s current schedule in 16 CFR § 1.98.

What to Read Next

7 Refund Payments Consumers Could Receive From the FTC Right Now

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

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

Headshot of Amanda Blankenship
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: Business Regulation, Civil Penalties, Consumer Protection, CPI, Federal Trade Commission, FTC', government shutdown, Inflation

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?

Headshot of Amanda Blankenship
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

Headshot of Amanda Blankenship
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

Headshot of Amanda Blankenship
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
  • 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
  • How to Avoid NJ Exit Tax by Jacob Sensiba

Copyright © 2026 · News Pro Theme on Genesis Framework