FTC' Archives - The Free Financial Advisor

A 12% “No-Risk” Pitch: The Five Questions That Expose It Before Your Money Is Locked Up

September 26, 2026 by Brandon Marcus Leave a Comment

A 12% return with “no risk” sounds like the sort of financial offer that deserves a closer look, not an immediate deposit. The return itself does not prove that an investment is fraudulent, but the combination of a high promised return and zero-risk language should put a serious pause between the pitch and your money.

The Federal Trade Commission says all investments involve risk and warns consumers about offers promising large or guaranteed returns with little or no risk. The Securities and Exchange Commission makes the same basic point: higher potential returns generally come with greater risk.

Before signing anything, asking five blunt questions can reveal far more than a glossy presentation or a confident salesperson.

1. What Exactly Produces the 12% Return?

Start here because “12% return” tells you almost nothing by itself. The offer might involve a business, real estate project, private lending arrangement, securities, insurance product, cryptocurrency, or something else entirely. Each structure carries different risks, fees, protections, and rules.

Ask the person pitching it to explain exactly where the money goes and how the promised return gets generated. Then ask whether the 12% represents a guaranteed payment, a target return, an average historical result, projected appreciation, or something else. Those phrases can sound similar during a sales pitch while carrying very different meanings.

A legitimate opportunity should come with enough detail to evaluate the mechanics. The FTC warns that vague investment offers deserve scrutiny and recommends getting the details in writing before committing money. If the explanation keeps circling back to phrases like “proven system,” “special strategy,” or “insider opportunity” without explaining the actual economics, that missing detail matters.

2. What Happens if The Investment Loses Money?

This question removes the shiny part of the presentation. Ask the promoter to walk through a bad outcome, not the advertised outcome. If the investment falls short, who absorbs the loss? Can the principal decline? Can payments stop? Can the investment become worthless? Does someone else guarantee repayment, and if so, who?

The word “guaranteed” deserves especially careful treatment. A guarantee only matters if a real, legally enforceable obligation backs it and the guarantor can actually perform. A salesperson repeating “your money is safe” does not create that protection.

The SEC cautions that every investment carries some level of risk and that claims of guaranteed high returns with little or no risk can signal fraud.

A useful test involves forcing the pitch to leave its happy path. If the person can explain both how you make money and how you could lose money, the conversation becomes much more informative. If the downside somehow disappears from every answer, that deserves attention.

3. when Can the Money Come Back Out?

A 12% return can look very different once access to the principal enters the conversation. Ask whether you can withdraw the money whenever you want. If not, ask for the exact lockup period, withdrawal rules, penalties, notice requirements, and circumstances that could delay repayment. Also ask whether the investment can become difficult to sell even after the official lockup ends.

This detail can turn a seemingly attractive return into a very different financial decision. Money needed for an emergency, upcoming purchase, taxes, or ordinary household expenses cannot function like long-term investment capital if the investment prevents access.

Watch for vague answers such as “most investors stay for several years” or “liquidity usually isn’t an issue.” Those statements do not replace a written withdrawal policy.

A promise of high returns can distract from a less glamorous question: How long will the money actually be unavailable? That answer belongs near the front of the decision, not buried in the paperwork.

4. Who Is Legally Offering This, and Can the Credentials Be Verified?

A polished website proves remarkably little. The SEC warns that attractive websites can be easy to create, while the FTC recommends independently researching the company, its officials, and its promoters.

If someone recommends or sells an investment, search for the individual and the firm independently. Investor.gov provides a free tool that can show registration information and certain disciplinary history for investment professionals and firms. The SEC also directs investors to FINRA’s BrokerCheck for relevant broker information.

Registration does not make an investment automatically safe. It also does not guarantee the promised return. It gives consumers another way to verify who they are dealing with and examine available background information. Pay attention to mismatched details, too. A familiar company name, impressive title, or professional-looking logo does not establish that the person contacting you actually represents that organization.

5. What Happens if The Offer Disappears Tomorrow?

This question sounds dramatic, but it gets at a very practical issue: what protections exist after the money leaves your account?

Ask where the investment assets sit, whose name holds them, what documents establish your ownership, and what happens if the company fails. Ask about fees, taxes, early withdrawal costs, and any other charges that reduce the amount you actually receive.

Do not accept “it’s protected” as a complete answer. Ask protected by whom, under what rules, and against what type of loss? Different financial products can carry very different protections, and some protections do not cover investment losses.

A High Return Is One Thing. “No Risk” Changes the Conversation.

A 12% opportunity does not automatically equal a scam. Investments can produce high returns, but higher potential returns generally involve greater uncertainty or risk. The problem starts when a sales pitch tries to erase that relationship with a promise that the return comes without meaningful downside.

The strongest protection may be surprisingly ordinary: slow the conversation down. Ask where the return comes from, what can go wrong, when the money becomes available, who stands behind the offer, and what protections actually exist.

If the answers get clearer under scrutiny, that gives you useful information. If the answers become evasive, rushed, or increasingly complicated, keeping your money out of the deal may be the simplest decision available.

Would a “no-risk” investment pitch make you ask these questions before putting money into it? Share your thoughts in the comments.

Surveillance Pricing Is Legal in Most States: How to Tell If a Site Is Charging You More

September 25, 2026 by Brandon Marcus Leave a Comment

Surveillance pricing can turn your own shopping data into a pricing input. A website may consider details such as location, browsing activity, purchase history, or other personal information when deciding which price or promotion to show you.

That does not mean every price change online comes from surveillance pricing. Prices can change because of inventory, timing, demand, shipping costs, promotions, or ordinary dynamic pricing. The harder question involves a different scenario: whether a company uses personal data to estimate what a particular shopper might pay.

Federal law does not impose a blanket ban on personalized pricing. The Federal Trade Commission said in August 2026 that it does not have authority to ban personalized pricing in all circumstances, while warning that companies can still violate the FTC Act or other laws in some situations.

Start by Separating Personalized Pricing from Ordinary Price Changes

A price that changes between two visits does not automatically indicate surveillance pricing. Retailers routinely adjust prices based on supply, demand, time, promotions, membership status, shipping costs, and other business factors. Those practices can produce different prices without the seller knowing anything particularly personal about the shopper.

Surveillance pricing goes further because personal information enters the pricing process. The FTC’s 2025 findings identified inputs such as precise location, browser history, shopping activity, demographics, and even behavior on a webpage as data that intermediaries can use to tailor prices or promotions.

The distinction matters because shoppers often blame cookies for every strange price change. A cookie might help a company recognize a returning visitor, but the existence of a cookie does not prove that the company raised the price because of that visitor. The pricing system could use dozens of inputs, or none of them could affect the final price at all.

A Second Screen Can Become a Useful Reality Check

One of the easiest ways to investigate a suspicious price involves comparison rather than guesswork. Open the same product on another device or browser and compare the listing, seller, shipping charge, and final checkout price. A private browsing window can also help create a different shopping session, although it cannot guarantee that a retailer will stop using other information linked to the shopper.

Location deserves special attention. The FTC found that precise location can serve as an input for individualized pricing, so a comparison from another geographic area may produce a different result.

That still does not prove surveillance pricing. A retailer might legitimately charge different delivery costs based on distance, or a local promotion might apply in one market but not another. A useful comparison therefore looks for a pattern rather than one isolated difference.

Try the same product at roughly the same time, compare the final price rather than the eye-catching headline price, and record what changed. Screenshots can help if the difference disappears later.

Read the Fine Print Around Discounts and Personalization

A surprisingly revealing spot may sit below the giant price rather than beside it. Look for references to personalized offers, membership pricing, loyalty benefits, location-based promotions, or eligibility requirements. Those terms can explain why two shoppers see different offers without necessarily indicating that a company secretly calculated each person’s maximum willingness to pay.

New York provides a useful example of how lawmakers have approached the issue. Its surveillance pricing law took effect in November 2025 and requires businesses to disclose clearly when an algorithm uses personal data to set a price, subject to exceptions.

California has also taken a closer look at the practice. In January 2026, the state’s attorney general announced an investigative sweep focused on businesses that use personal information to set targeted, individualized prices. The announcement noted that California’s Consumer Privacy Act can create obligations around how businesses use personal information for purposes consumers may not reasonably expect.

Privacy Settings Can Limit Some of The Information Available

Consumers cannot control every data source a retailer might access, but they can reduce some of the information they volunteer. Browser privacy controls, app permissions, location settings, account preferences, and advertising controls can all affect the data trail surrounding an online purchase.

That does not create an invisible shopping mode. A retailer can still know information that comes directly from an account, transaction, payment process, or delivery request. A site can also use information supplied by other companies or data intermediaries.

The FTC’s investigation illustrates why the issue extends beyond a simple cookie. The agency examined companies that provide pricing tools using direct consumer data, inferred information, and first- or third-party sources. Consumers therefore should not assume that deleting cookies will automatically produce a neutral price. It may change what a website knows, but it cannot reveal every input inside a pricing system.

The Smartest Test Compares the Whole Checkout Price

The number displayed on a product page deserves less attention than the amount that actually reaches the payment screen. Shipping, service charges, taxes, membership requirements, promotional codes, and seller differences can all change the final amount.

Suppose a pair of headphones appears at one price on a laptop and another on a phone. Before blaming personalized pricing, check whether both devices use the same account, seller, shipping destination, membership status, coupon, and delivery speed. Those details can create a legitimate price difference without any individualized pricing algorithm entering the picture.

If those variables match and the difference persists, save screenshots and note the date and time. Repeat the comparison later rather than treating one observation as proof. That evidence becomes more useful if a company later asks for details about a pricing complaint. It also helps separate an actual pricing pattern from the ordinary churn of online retail.

The Law Is Changing, so Today’s Price Rules May Not Last

Surveillance pricing sits in a rapidly developing legal area. The FTC continues to examine personalized pricing, while states have taken different approaches ranging from disclosure requirements to proposed or enacted restrictions. In 2026, the National Conference of State Legislatures identified legislation involving algorithmic, individualized, and surveillance pricing across numerous states.

That does not mean a shopper can assume a suspicious price violates state law. Some proposals never become law, some laws cover specific conduct, and exemptions can matter. Colorado, for example, considered a bill targeting surveillance-based price and wage setting in 2026, but the governor vetoed it.

New York’s rules show the opposite side of the patchwork. Its first law focused on disclosure, while lawmakers later advanced legislation that would prohibit surveillance pricing more broadly.

Treat the Price as Something to Verify, Not Something to Trust Blindly

Online shopping once made comparison shopping easier because a few browser tabs could expose competing prices. Personalized pricing complicates that advantage if a retailer can tailor what each shopper sees. The FTC’s research shows that companies and pricing intermediaries have access to far more consumer information than many shoppers might expect.

The goal is not to prove that every strange price reflects surveillance. It is to make sure the price on the screen actually deserves your money.

Have you ever compared the same online price across different devices, accounts, or locations and found a surprising difference?

Searching Google to Pay a Bill Could Lead to the Wrong Website

September 22, 2026 by Brandon Marcus Leave a Comment

Searching Google for a bill-payment website can feel like one of the safest things possible. Type the company name, find the familiar-looking result, click, pay, and move on with the day.

That routine can go sideways, though, because the first result may not belong to the company you searched for. The Federal Trade Commission recently warned that dishonest businesses can use paid search advertisements to steer people toward third-party payment websites. In some cases, those sites can add fees or create the impression that they represent the company whose name appeared in the search.

The problem does not require a dramatic fake website covered in spelling errors. Sometimes the danger starts with a perfectly ordinary search.

The First Result Is Not Necessarily the Company

Search engines place paid advertisements above many unpaid results. Those ads can look remarkably similar to ordinary search listings, especially when someone searches for a familiar business followed by words such as “pay bill” or “make payment.”

The FTC recently described a case involving Doxo, a third-party bill-payment platform. The agency alleged that Doxo used search advertising that could make consumers think they had reached an official payment channel for companies and agencies, including Labcorp, AT&T, and state toll authorities. The FTC said Doxo often had no relationship with the companies consumers believed they were paying, and alleged that the service added fees to some payments. Doxo agreed to pay $2.1 million to settle the FTC’s allegations without admitting wrongdoing.

That distinction is important because a third-party payment service and a criminal phishing site are not automatically the same thing. A consumer can still land somewhere other than the intended company’s payment system and face unexpected costs or confusion about where the money goes.

The FBI has separately warned about criminals buying search advertisements that imitate legitimate businesses. Those ads can lead to convincing fake websites designed to collect passwords, financial information, or other sensitive data.

A Familiar Logo Does Not Settle the Question

A company logo can create instant confidence. So can familiar colors, a recognizable business name, and a payment page that looks polished.

None of those details proves who operates the website. The FTC’s recent bill-payment warning recommends checking the destination instead of assuming the search result tells the whole story. Look for the small “Ad” or “Sponsored” label beside a result. Then check the website address carefully before entering an account number, password, card number, or bank information. The FBI also recommends checking URLs for small differences, including misspellings that can make a fraudulent address resemble a legitimate one.

A strange-looking domain does not automatically mean fraud, either. Some legitimate businesses use different payment processors or separate domains for billing. That is why the safest check involves the company itself.

If a paper bill provides the company’s website, type that address into the browser rather than searching for it. If the company sends customers to a separate payment provider, its official website should identify that relationship.

The Bill Itself Can Give You a Safer Route

The piece of mail or email that creates the bill may also contain the information needed to avoid the search-result problem.

Check the bill for the company’s official website, customer-service number, or instructions for online payments. A phone number printed on a statement gives you a more direct route than grabbing the first number that appears in a search.

That distinction matters with utilities, too. The FTC advises consumers with questions about utility accounts to contact the company through the number on the bill or the company’s known website. It specifically warns that search results can lead consumers to paid advertisements from businesses that impersonate utilities or charge additional fees for bill payments.

There is another useful habit here: separate the search for information from the search for a payment button. Someone might reasonably search Google to find a company’s customer-service page. That does not mean the first payment-related result deserves the same trust as a website the company itself identifies as official.

Slow Down Before the Payment Screen

The most useful moment to stop is before entering payment information. Look at the web address. Check whether the page identifies the actual company receiving the payment. Read the payment terms before submitting anything, particularly if the page mentions processing, delivery, convenience, or service fees.

A payment page that suddenly asks for information that seems unrelated to the bill deserves another look. So does a page that pressures you to use an unusual payment method. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau lists demands for gift cards, cryptocurrency, wire transfers, payment apps, or other hard-to-recover payment methods among common fraud warning signs.

A normal payment deadline can create plenty of pressure without anyone adding more. If a page makes the situation feel unusually urgent, closing the tab and verifying the site through the company’s known contact information can prevent an expensive mistake.

Already Paid Through the Wrong Site? Act Quickly

Finding out that a payment went through an unfamiliar website does not necessarily mean the money disappeared. The next steps depend on what happened, who received the payment, and how the transaction occurred.

Start by checking the payment confirmation and your bank or card account. Save the receipt, website address, emails, and transaction details. If you suspect fraud, contact the financial institution or payment provider through a trusted phone number or website and ask what options exist for the transaction.

If you entered a password on a suspicious site, change that password through the legitimate company’s website. Do not use a link from the suspicious page or any follow-up message to make the change.

The CFPB recommends contacting financial institutions and government agencies through trusted websites and phone numbers when reporting suspected fraud. Consumers can also report scams to the FTC, and suspected internet crime can be reported to the FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center.

A Two-Second Check Can Change the Whole Payment

Google can still be a useful starting point for finding information. The mistake comes from treating the first result as proof that the destination belongs to the company being searched.

For recurring bills, there is an even easier solution. Once the legitimate website has been verified, bookmark it or save the address in a password manager. The next payment can begin with that known destination instead of another search.

That small change removes one layer of uncertainty from an otherwise routine chore. A bill may still arrive with an annoying due date, but at least the payment does not have to begin with a guessing game.

Have you ever clicked a search result expecting an official bill-payment page and discovered that another company was behind it?

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

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.

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

Amanda Blankenship

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

Amanda Blankenship

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

August 28, 2026 by Amanda Blankenship Leave a Comment

FTC Cox Media Group settlement — The FTC says an “Active Listening” advertising service marketed as using AI and conversations captured near smart devices did not actually use voice data and allegedly failed to provide the geographic targeting customers were promised. Laktikov Artem/Shutterstock

The Federal Trade Commission has finalized orders requiring Cox Media Group and two marketing firms to pay a combined $930,000 to settle allegations that they misled customers about an AI-powered advertising service promoted as being able to target consumers based on conversations picked up by smart devices.

The FTC announced final approval of the orders on August 27 after considering public comments on settlements first proposed in May. The companies are Georgia-based CMG Media Corporation, which does business as Cox Media Group; New Hampshire-based MindSift LLC; and Wisconsin-based 1010 Digital Works LLC.

FTC Says the ‘Active Listening’ Service Didn’t Work as Advertised

At the center of the cases was a marketing product branded as “Active Listening.”

According to the Federal Trade Commission, the companies claimed the service could use a special algorithm to identify relevant conversations taking place near consumers’ smart devices and then help small businesses target advertisements to potential customers in specific geographic areas.

The FTC alleged that those claims weren’t true.

The service didn’t collect or use consumers’ voice data, according to the agency, and the FTC also alleged that it didn’t accurately target advertisements to the geographic areas customers had paid to reach. Instead, the original FTC complaints alleged that the service involved reselling email lists obtained from other data brokers at a significant markup.

That distinction is important because businesses purchasing the service weren’t simply buying an advertising campaign that underperformed. The FTC alleged they were being given a fundamentally different service from the sophisticated voice- and AI-based targeting capability that had been marketed to them.

Consumers Hadn’t Opted Into the Voice Targeting Either, FTC Says

The FTC also challenged claims about consumer consent.

According to the agency, the companies represented that consumers had opted into having voice data used for the Active Listening service. The FTC alleged no such voice-data collection was actually taking place and that consumers had not provided the claimed consent.

The original complaints said the companies relied on consumers accepting terms of service when downloading and using apps as the basis for saying people had “opted in.” The FTC rejected that reasoning, saying acceptance of mandatory app terms did not constitute opt-in consent for an invasive service involving voice data from inside people’s homes.

The agency added that if Active Listening had actually collected and used voice data without adequate consent as advertised, the practice itself would have violated Section 5 of the FTC Act.

Cox Media Group Will Pay Most of the $930,000

Under the finalized orders, Cox Media Group must pay $880,000. MindSift and 1010 Digital Works must each pay $25,000, bringing the combined total to $930,000.

The FTC says the money will be used to provide redress to Cox Media Group customers affected by the practices.

The orders also restrict what the three companies can claim going forward. They are prohibited from misrepresenting the qualities or features of advertising and marketing services, the collection or use of voice data, whether consumers have consented to collection or disclosure of voice data, and the geographic-targeting capabilities of their services.

The Commission voted 2-0 to finalize the consent agreements after receiving two public comments on the proposed settlements.

The Case Is Also a Warning About AI Marketing Claims

The settlement has implications beyond these three companies because businesses are increasingly being asked to pay for advertising and other services marketed with AI-powered capabilities.

For small businesses buying digital advertising, the case is a reminder to ask vendors what data actually powers a targeting product, where that data comes from, how geographic targeting is verified and what evidence supports claims involving artificial intelligence.

The case also illustrates why claims involving sensitive consumer information deserve additional scrutiny. In this instance, the FTC says the advertised voice surveillance wasn’t actually occurring—but the agency made clear that collecting and using consumers’ conversations without adequate consent would have presented a separate legal problem.

The final orders resolve the FTC’s allegations against the companies and carry legal requirements governing their future conduct. As with other FTC consent matters, the allegations should not be characterized as independent judicial findings that every allegation was proven at trial.

What to Read Next

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

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

Federal Agencies Withdraw 2022 Guidance on Special Credit Programs — What Borrowers Should Know

Amanda Blankenship

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

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

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

August 11, 2026 by Amanda Blankenship Leave a Comment

credit repair scams — Credit repair companies may promise a fast way to improve a struggling credit score, but the FTC warns consumers to carefully investigate companies before paying for services. Prostock-studio/Shutterstock

The Federal Trade Commission’s case against a sprawling credit repair operation offers a costly reminder for consumers tempted by promises of a quick credit-score fix. The FTC accused Financial Education Services (FES), its owners, and related companies of taking more than $213 million from consumers through allegedly ineffective credit repair services and a pyramid scheme.

The case was originally filed in 2022, and the FTC later secured settlements that permanently banned several defendants from the credit repair industry. In March 2026, the agency announced another development: more than $10.9 million in refund checks were being sent to 443,048 affected consumers.

How the Credit Repair Operation Allegedly Worked

According to the FTC, Michigan-based Financial Education Services also operated under names including United Wealth Services and marketed its services to people struggling with low credit scores.

The agency alleged that consumers were promised the company could remove negative information from credit reports and rapidly increase their credit scores. Customers could be charged $99 upfront followed by recurring fees as high as $89 per month, according to the FTC’s original complaint.

The agency alleged that many of the company’s credit repair efforts amounted to sending form dispute letters to credit bureaus and that the techniques were rarely effective. The FTC also accused the operation of recruiting customers to become agents selling the same services to others through a pyramid-style compensation structure.

Upfront Credit Repair Fees Deserve Attention

The case highlights an important distinction for anyone considering paying for help with a damaged credit history.

Federal law gives consumers protections when dealing with credit repair organizations, and the FTC warns consumers to be skeptical of companies that demand payment before providing promised credit repair services. Consumers should also be cautious when a company guarantees that it can remove accurate negative information from a credit report.

Accurate and timely negative information generally cannot simply be erased because a consumer pays a company to challenge it.

You Can Dispute Credit Report Errors Yourself

Consumers don’t necessarily need to hire a company when their credit report contains information they believe is inaccurate.

The FTC advises people to review their credit reports and dispute errors with the appropriate credit bureau. Consumers can also contact the company that supplied the disputed information.

That distinction matters because legitimate disputes involving incorrect accounts, balances, payment histories, or identity theft are very different from promises that a company can make accurate negative information disappear.

Check the Company Before Paying for Credit Repair

Before handing over money, consumers should research the company, understand exactly what services are being promised, and be suspicious of guarantees about specific increases in a credit score.

Pressure to pay immediately, promises to remove accurate information, instructions to misrepresent information, or claims that consumers shouldn’t contact credit bureaus themselves should warrant additional scrutiny.

Consumers who believe they’ve encountered deceptive credit repair practices can report them to the Federal Trade Commission. The larger lesson from the FES case is straightforward: a low credit score can make an easy solution extremely appealing, but promises of a fast fix deserve careful investigation before any money changes hands.

What to Read Next

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

IRS Issues New Guidance on Expanded Paid Family and Medical Leave Tax Credit

Amanda Blankenship

1. What Exactly Produces the 12% Return?

2. What Happens if The Investment Loses Money?

3. when Can the Money Come Back Out?

4. Who Is Legally Offering This, and Can the Credentials Be Verified?

5. What Happens if The Offer Disappears Tomorrow?

A High Return Is One Thing. “No Risk” Changes the Conversation.

You May Also Like…

Start by Separating Personalized Pricing from Ordinary Price Changes

A Second Screen Can Become a Useful Reality Check

Read the Fine Print Around Discounts and Personalization

Privacy Settings Can Limit Some of The Information Available

The Smartest Test Compares the Whole Checkout Price

The Law Is Changing, so Today’s Price Rules May Not Last

Treat the Price as Something to Verify, Not Something to Trust Blindly

You May Also Like…

The First Result Is Not Necessarily the Company

A Familiar Logo Does Not Settle the Question

The Bill Itself Can Give You a Safer Route

Slow Down Before the Payment Screen

Already Paid Through the Wrong Site? Act Quickly

A Two-Second Check Can Change the Whole Payment

You May Also Like…

Who Is Newly Eligible for Automatic Amazon Prime Refunds?

People Who Used Up to 20 Prime Benefits Are Being Added

The First Refund Is Still Capped at $51

Some Consumers Could Eventually Receive Up to $200 Total

You Don’t Need to File a New Claim

The Settlement Dates Back to FTC Allegations About Prime Enrollment

Watch for Refund Scams

What Amazon Prime Customers Should Do Now

What to Read Next

FTC Says Small Businesses Faced Undisclosed Fees

Some Fees Were Difficult for Customers to Spot

FTC Challenged Fuel-Savings Claims, Too

$100 Million Is Intended for Customer Redress

The Settlement Isn’t Final Yet

Businesses That Used FleetCor Cards Should Watch What Happens Next

What to Read Next

Why FTC Penalties Aren’t Increasing in 2026

This Isn’t an FTC Decision to Lower Penalties

How FTC Civil Penalties Work

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

Why the September Notice Didn’t Go Through Public Comment

What the 2026 Penalty Freeze Means

What to Read Next

FTC Says the ‘Active Listening’ Service Didn’t Work as Advertised

Consumers Hadn’t Opted Into the Voice Targeting Either, FTC Says

Cox Media Group Will Pay Most of the $930,000

The Case Is Also a Warning About AI Marketing Claims

What to Read Next

What Telemarketers Will Pay Starting October 1

Why the FTC Is Raising the Fees

Businesses Have to Check Numbers Against the Registry

The Fee Increase Doesn’t Mean Consumers Have to Pay

Being on the Registry Won’t Stop Every Unwanted Call

What Changes on October 1, 2026

What to Read Next

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

$2.1 Million Will Be Used for Consumer Redress

What to Read Next

How the Credit Repair Operation Allegedly Worked

Upfront Credit Repair Fees Deserve Attention

You Can Dispute Credit Report Errors Yourself

Check the Company Before Paying for Credit Repair

What to Read Next