Following the first meeting of the Federal Trade Commission’s Scams Against Older Adults Advisory Group in September, the FTC has announced the agencies, organizations, and other participants that will be represented on the advisory group’s committees. 

The committees will address different areas focused on protecting older adults from scams, including consumer education and outreach, industry training, technology and new methods for detecting scams, and scam prevention research. The committees will begin meeting this week.

More information about the advisory group and the full list of committee members can be found on the FTC’s website.

The FTC has temporarily shut down a credit card debt relief scheme operated by Sean Austin, John Steven Huffman, and John Preston Thompson and their affiliated companies that allegedly took millions from people by falsely promising to eliminate or substantially reduce their credit card debt.

“These defendants preyed on older Americans already struggling with credit card debt and caused them to fall into even worse debt, with lasting harm to their credit,” said Samuel Levine, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection.  “We will continue going after companies that take advantage of people in financial distress.”

Since 2019, Austin, Huffman, and Thompson have operated a network of companies incorporated in Tennessee, Nevada, New Mexico, and Wyoming that have worked together as a common enterprise to support the defendants’ deceptive credit card debt relief scheme, the FTC alleged. Their companies have operated under multiple names such as ACRO Services, American Consumer Rights Organization, Consumer Protection Resources, Reliance Solutions, Thacker & Associates, and Tri Star Consumer Group.

In a complaint, the FTC alleged that Austin, Huffman, and Thompson engaged in several deceptive and unlawful tactics, including:

• Deceptive telemarketing: The operators have violated the Telemarketing Sales Rule by using telemarketers to call consumers and pitch their deceptive scheme. The telemarketers often falsely claimed to be affiliated with a particular credit card association, bank, or credit reporting agency and promised they could greatly reduce or eliminate consumers’ credit card debt in approximately 12-18 months.

• Making phony debt relief promises: In marketing their services, the scheme’s operators claimed to use several bogus methods to reduce or eliminate consumers’ credit card debt. For example, they falsely claimed that consumers may qualify for a federal debt relief program or that a consumer doesn’t owe the debt because it hasn’t been “validated.”

• Charging deceptive upfront fees: Consumers who agreed to sign up for the debt relief program were charged an upfront enrollment fee of thousands of dollars depending on a consumer’s available credit, and they were falsely told it is part of the debt that will be eliminated as part of the program. Consumers were also charged monthly fees ranging from $20-$35 for “credit monitoring” services.

Consumers who signed up for the defendants’ services were told to stop making payments to their credit card companies and communicating with those companies. Consumers, however, were never informed that as a result of such actions, they could be sued for failing to pay their credit card debt, may accrue even more debt, and could damage their credit scores, which could also harm their ability to get credit in the future, the FTC alleged.

A federal court granted the FTC’s request to temporarily shut down the scheme operated by Austin, Huffman, and Thompson and froze their assets.

The Commission voted 4-0 to authorize the staff to file the complaint. The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee.

NOTE: The Commission files a complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the named defendants are violating or are about to violate the law and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. The case will be decided by the court.

The Federal Trade Commission and seven state attorneys general announced lawsuits against Google LLC and iHeartMedia, Inc. for airing nearly 29,000 deceptive endorsements by radio personalities promoting their use of and experience with Google’s Pixel 4 phone in 2019 and 2020. The proposed FTC orders and the state judgments settling the allegations bar Google and iHeartMedia from similar misrepresentations, and the state judgments also require them to pay $9.4 million in penalties.

“Google and iHeartMedia paid influencers to promote products they never used, showing a blatant disrespect for truth-in-advertising rules,” said Bureau of Consumer Protection Director Samuel Levine. “The FTC will not stop working with our partners in the states to crack down on deceptive ads and ensure firms that break the rules pay a price.”

“It is common sense that people put more stock in first-hand experiences. Consumers expect radio advertisements to be truthful and transparent about products, not misleading with fake endorsements,” said Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey. “Today’s settlement holds Google and iHeart accountable for this deceptive ad campaign and ensures compliance with state and federal law moving forward.” 

Google is a multinational technology company that specializes in internet-related services and products. iHeartMedia, headquartered in San Antonio, Texas, is the nation’s largest radio station owner, with more than 850 AM and FM radio stations and an internet radio network that collectively reach more than 245 million listeners each month.

According to the FTC, in 2019, Google hired iHeartMedia and 11 other radio networks in ten major markets to have on-air personalities record and broadcast endorsements of the Pixel 4 phone. Google provided iHeartMedia with scripts that included lines about the Pixel 4 phone like, “It’s my favorite phone camera out there, especially in low light, thanks to Night Sight Mode,” “I’ve been taking studio-like photos of everything,” and “It’s also great at helping me get stuff done, thanks to the new voice activated Google Assistant that can handle multiple tasks at once.” However, the on-air personalities were not provided with Pixel 4s before recording and airing the majority of the ads and therefore did not own or regularly use the phones.

The agency’s administrative complaint alleges that the companies’ misrepresentations violated the FTC Act.

Enforcement Action

The proposed orders settling the FTC’s charges are designed to address the Google and iHeartMedia’s allegedly illegal conduct. Among other things, they:

This action builds on the FTC’s work to tackle phony testimonials, fake reviews, and other deceptive endorsements, including challenging online fashion retailer Fashion Nova for its past practice of suppressing of negative reviews, putting more than 700 marketers on notice about fake reviews and other misleading endorsements, seeking public comment on proposed updates to the Endorsement Guides, and issuing business guidance about online review management for marketers and platforms.

The Commission vote to issue the administrative complaint and to accept the proposed consent agreements was 5-0. The FTC will publish a description of the consent agreement package in the Federal Register soon. The agreement will be subject to public comment for 30 days, after which the Commission will decide whether to make the proposed consent orders final. Instructions for filing comments will appear in the published notice. Comments must be received 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. Once processed, comments will be posted on Regulations.gov.

The Commission appreciates the support of the attorney generals offices in the following states for their help in securing monetary relief in this matter: Arizona, California, Georgia, Illinois, Massachusetts, New York, and Texas.

NOTE: The Commission issues an administrative complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the law has been or is being violated, and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. When the Commission issues a consent order on a final basis, it carries the force of law with respect to future actions. Each violation of such an order may result in a civil penalty of up to $46,517.

The Federal Trade Commission and seven state attorneys general sued Google LLC and iHeartMedia, Inc. today for airing nearly 29,000 deceptive endorsements by radio personalities promoting their use of and experience with Google’s Pixel 4 phone in 2019 and 2020. Today’s proposed FTC orders and the state judgments settling the allegations bar Google and iHeartMedia from similar misrepresentations, and the state judgments also require them to pay $9.4 million in penalties.

“Google and iHeartMedia paid influencers to promote products they never used, showing a blatant disrespect for truth-in-advertising rules,” said Bureau of Consumer Protection Director Samuel Levine. “The FTC will not stop working with our partners in the states to crack down on deceptive ads and ensure firms that break the rules pay a price.”

“It is common sense that people put more stock in first-hand experiences. Consumers expect radio advertisements to be truthful and transparent about products, not misleading with fake endorsements,” said Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey. “Today’s settlement holds Google and iHeart accountable for this deceptive ad campaign and ensures compliance with state and federal law moving forward.” 

Google is a multinational technology company that specializes in internet-related services and products. iHeartMedia, headquartered in San Antonio, Texas, is the nation’s largest radio station owner, with more than 850 AM and FM radio stations and an internet radio network that collectively reach more than 245 million listeners each month.

According to the FTC, in 2019, Google hired iHeartMedia and 11 other radio networks in ten major markets to have on-air personalities record and broadcast endorsements of the Pixel 4 phone. Google provided iHeartMedia with scripts that included lines about the Pixel 4 phone like, “It’s my favorite phone camera out there, especially in low light, thanks to Night Sight Mode,” “I’ve been taking studio-like photos of everything,” and “It’s also great at helping me get stuff done, thanks to the new voice activated Google Assistant that can handle multiple tasks at once.” However, the on-air personalities were not provided with Pixel 4s before recording and airing the majority of the ads and therefore did not own or regularly use the phones.

The agency’s administrative complaint alleges that the companies’ misrepresentations violated the FTC Act.

Enforcement Action

The proposed orders settling the FTC’s charges are designed to address the Google and iHeartMedia’s allegedly illegal conduct. Among other things, they:

This action builds on the FTC’s work to tackle phony testimonials, fake reviews, and other deceptive endorsements, including challenging online fashion retailer Fashion Nova for its past practice of suppressing of negative reviews, putting more than 700 marketers on notice about fake reviews and other misleading endorsements, seeking public comment on proposed updates to the Endorsement Guides, and issuing business guidance about online review management for marketers and platforms.

The Commission vote to issue the administrative complaint and to accept the proposed consent agreements was 5-0. The FTC will publish a description of the consent agreement package in the Federal Register soon. The agreement will be subject to public comment for 30 days, after which the Commission will decide whether to make the proposed consent orders final. Instructions for filing comments will appear in the published notice. Comments must be received 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. Once processed, comments will be posted on Regulations.gov.

The Commission appreciates the support of the attorney generals offices in the following states for their help in securing monetary relief in this matter: Arizona, California, Georgia, Illinois, Massachusetts, New York, and Texas.

NOTE: The Commission issues an administrative complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the law has been or is being violated, and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. When the Commission issues a consent order on a final basis, it carries the force of law with respect to future actions. Each violation of such an order may result in a civil penalty of up to $46,517.

The Federal Trade Commission is taking action against California-based Precision Patient Outcomes, Inc. and the company’s CEO Margrett Priest Lewis for marketing an over-the-counter dietary supplement containing nothing more than vitamins, zinc, and a flavonoid as an effective treatment to mitigate the effects of COVID-19.

“The FTC will halt baseless claims about COVID-19 treatments that harm consumers’ pocketbooks and health,” said Samuel Levine, Director of the Commission’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “We don’t simply seek to stop this kind of fraud, but to permanently prohibit companies and company owners engaging in misconduct from endangering the health and well-being of American consumers.”

In its complaint, the FTC is seeking to permanently stop the company and its CEO from using deceptive treatment or prevention claims with no supporting scientific evidence to sell their dietary supplement. The FTC alleges that these practices violate the FTC Act and the COVID-19 Consumer Protection Act. The latter allows the Commission to seek civil penalties in cases of COVID-related consumer fraud.

Precision Patient Outcomes, based in Berkeley, California, developed, labeled, advertised, marketed, distributed, and sold a supplement under the names COVID Resist and VIRUS Resist, to consumers nationwide during the COVID pandemic. According to the FTC’s complaint, in May 2021 the defendants began advertising and marketing COVID Resist on the company’s website and social media pages with deceptive claims that the product can treat, prevent, or mitigate COVID-19.

Lewis, the company’s co-founder and CEO, formulated the product and is in direct control of Precision Patient Outcomes’ business operations. Among other things, she has been actively involved in promoting COVID Resist and VIRUS Resist using the company’s website; through posts on Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok; and on her personal social media accounts.

Despite knowing about the Commission’s enforcement action under the COVID-19 Consumer Protection Act against a company making similar claims about the science and efficacy of its products, the defendants only changed the name of the product from COVID Resist to VIRUS Resist and continued to deceptively advertise it as an effective treatment for COVID-19.

The Commission vote authorizing the staff to file the complaint was 4-1, with Commissioner Christine S. Wilson dissenting. The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

The Federal Trade Commission joined the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) in filing an amicus brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in the case of Louis v. Bluegreen Vacations Unlimited, Inc. The brief asks the appeals court to overturn a lower court decision that denied servicemembers the right to sue to invalidate a contract that they allege violates the Military Lending Act.

The district court erred, the brief argues, and its ruling could undermine enforcement of the Military Lending Act, a law designed to protect military families from predatory lending. Servicemembers are particularly vulnerable to predatory practices, which can undermine military readiness and morale.

The Act includes provisions that establish rules governing the types of loans that creditors can issue to active duty servicemembers and their dependents, and also requires that creditors provide servicemembers certain information before issuing a loan. Under the law, any agreement that violates the Act is void from the moment that it was signed.