The Federal Trade Commission today announced a new proposed rule to prohibit junk fees, which are hidden and bogus fees that can harm consumers and undercut honest businesses. The FTC has estimated that these fees can cost consumers tens of billions of dollars per year in unexpected costs.

The agency launched a proceeding last year requesting public input on whether a rule would help to eliminate these unfair and deceptive charges. After receiving more than 12,000 comments on how fees affect their personal spending or business, the FTC is seeking a new round of comments on a proposed junk fee rule.

“All too often, Americans are plagued with unexpected and unnecessary fees they can’t escape. These junk fees now cost Americans tens of billions of dollars per year—money that corporations are extracting from working families just because they can,” said FTC Chair Lina M. Khan. “By hiding the total price, these junk fees make it harder for consumers to shop for the best product or service and punish businesses who are honest upfront. The FTC’s proposed rule to ban junk fees will save people money and time, and make our markets more fair and competitive.”

As the public comments made clear, consumers are fed up with hidden fees for everything from booking hotels and resort fees to buying concert tickets online, renting an apartment, and paying utility bills. Many consumers said that sellers often do not advertise the total amount they will have to pay, and disclose fees only after they are well into completing the transaction. They also said that sellers often misrepresent or do not adequately disclose the nature or purpose of certain fees, leaving consumers wondering what they are paying for or if they are getting anything at all for the fee charged.

The proposed rule will save consumers more than 50 million hours per year of wasted time spent searching for the total price in live-ticketing and short-term lodging alone, according to FTC estimates. This time savings is equivalent to more than $10 billion over the next decade.

The Proposed Rule

The proposed rule would ban businesses from running up the bills with hidden and bogus fees, ensure consumers know exactly how much they are paying and what they are getting, and help spur companies to compete on offering the lowest price. Businesses would have to include all mandatory fees when telling consumers a price, making it easier for consumers to comparison shop for the lowest price. The proposed rule would also have enforcement teeth, allowing the FTC to secure refunds for harmed consumers and seek monetary penalties against companies that do not comply with its provisions.

To accomplish this, the proposed rule would ban the following junk fee practices that consistently confuse and trick consumers:

• Hidden Fees. Consumers told the FTC that dishonest businesses routinely engage in bait-and-switch pricing tactics that hide mandatory fees and deceive consumers about the price. This is because fees imposed later, but before the purchase is made, significantly increase the total that consumers pay. Accordingly, the proposed rule would prohibit businesses from advertising prices that hide or leave out mandatory fees; and
• Bogus Fees. Many consumers also said that they often do not know what fees are for, because dishonest businesses routinely misrepresent or fail to adequately disclose the nature or purpose of the fees. The rule would prohibit sellers from misrepresenting fees and require them to disclose upfront the amount and purpose of the fees and whether they are refundable.

These provisions are aimed at ensuring businesses will no longer be able to lure consumers with artificially low prices that they later inflate with mandatory fees or to deceive consumers about the nature and purpose of fees. In addition, the proposed rule would provide a level playing field for honest businesses by requiring all businesses to quote total prices at the start of the purchasing process and to remove false or misleading information about fees from the marketplace.

Other Federal Agencies’ Actions

Other federal agencies and organizations are joining the FTC to develop and implement rules prohibiting junk fees across multiple U.S. markets and sectors including the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and the Department of Transportation (DOT).

“Americans are fed up with the junk fees that are creeping across the economy,” said CFPB Director Rohit Chopra. “The FTC’s proposed rule will protect families and honest businesses from race-to-the-bottom abuses that cost us billions of dollars each year. If finalized, the CFPB will enforce the rule against violators in the financial industry and ensure that these firms play fairly.”

“No one likes surprise charges on their bill. Consumers deserve to know exactly what they are paying for when they sign up for communications services. But when it comes to these bills, what you see isn’t always what you get,” said FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel. “Instead, consumers have often been saddled with additional junk fees that may exorbitantly raise the price of their previously agreed-to monthly charges. To combat this, we’re implementing Broadband Consumer Labels, a new tool that will increase price transparency and reduce cost confusion, help consumers compare services, and provide ‘all-in-pricing’ so that every American can understand upfront and without any surprises how much they can expect to be paying for these services.”

“I believe that every renter should know the true cost of finding and staying in their home and not be hit with hidden costs and junk fees. Earlier this year, we called for reform in the housing industry to increase transparency for renters across the country, reflecting the Biden-Harris administration and the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s commitment,” said HUD Secretary Marcia L. Fudge. “HUD continues to release research and data highlighting state, local, and private sector policies to encourage fairness and equity in the rental market.”

“Junk fees mean that working families have to pay higher prices for the things they need, which is why President Biden is taking decisive action to eliminate them,” said U.S. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg. “At DOT, we have secured commitments from major U.S. airlines to provide free rebooking, meals, and hotels when they are responsible for stranding passengers. We’re working to stop airlines from forcing parents to pay to sit next to their kids, and requiring them to disclose hidden fees for things like extra bags. And we’ve helped secure billions of dollars in refunds for passengers whose flights are cancelled.”

The Commission vote approving publication of the notice of proposed rulemaking was 3-0. Once the notice has been published in the Federal Register, consumers can submit comments electronically for 60 days. Consumers also may submit comments in writing by following the instructions in the “Supplementary Information” section of the Federal Register notice.

The Federal Trade Commission and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) obtained a settlement that will require credit reporting agency Trans Union LLC and a subsidiary to pay a total of $15 million to settle charges they failed to ensure the accuracy of tenant screening reports by including inaccurate and incomplete eviction records about consumers, hampering their ability to obtain housing.

In a complaint filed in federal court, the FTC and CFPB say that Colorado-based TransUnion Rental Screening Solutions, Inc. (TURSS) and its parent company, Trans Union LLC, based in Chicago and commonly known as TransUnion, violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) by failing to ensure the accuracy of the information included in their tenant background screening reports.

“Consumers struggling to find housing shouldn’t be shut out by tenant screening reports that are ridden with errors and based on data from secret sources,” said Samuel Levine, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “Protecting consumers looking for housing is critical to a fair economy, and we are proud to partner with the CFPB in obtaining this record-breaking order.”

“Americans across the country were put at risk of wrongful housing denials because TransUnion failed to follow the law,” said CFPB Director Rohit Chopra. “We are ordering TransUnion to cease its yearslong illegal activity, clean up its broken business practices, redress its victims, and pay penalties.”   

TURSS provides background screening reports about consumers to thousands of clients, including rental property owners, property management companies, employers, and other background screening companies, for tenant and employee selection. These reports may include information about consumers’ criminal and eviction records, including the amount sought by a landlord in court, any judgment amount the court may award, and the amounts owed by consumers. Trans Union LLC manages and oversees TURSS’s compliance with the FCRA.

Inaccurate and outdated information in tenant screening reports can significantly hamper consumers’ ability to find housing, costing them time and money by prolonging their search for housing, requiring them to pay additional application fees and spend time correcting errors in their background reports.

TURSS obtains eviction records from third-party provider LexisNexis Risk and Information Analytics Group, Inc. but has failed to take steps to ensure the accuracy of the data it was provided, according to the complaint. The FTC and CFPB say TURSS failed to follow reasonable procedures to: prevent the inclusion of multiple entries for the same eviction case; accurately report the disposition of eviction cases it included in its reports; accurately label the monetary amounts associated with those cases; and prevent the inclusion of sealed eviction records in its background reports.

Until April 2021, TURSS often reported developments in the same eviction proceeding as separate events, making it appear as if a consumer had more than one eviction, according to the complaint. The company took steps to change that practice only after learning of the FTC’s investigation. The company also failed to follow reasonable procedures to accurately report the outcome of evictions, such as reporting an eviction was filed without reporting that it was also dismissed months or years before, or reporting that a landlord was awarded a judgment in an eviction proceeding when the case was actually dismissed.

The company also included inaccurate labels in its reports that mischaracterized the nature of certain information in consumers’ eviction records, according to the complaint. The company labeled money that a landlord claimed a consumer owed as “Judgment Amount,” giving the false impression that this was the amount awarded by a court. The complaint also charges that TURSS failed to put in place reasonable procedures to prevent eviction records that had been sealed, or restricted from public view, by a court from appearing in its reports.

The FTC and CFPB also say that TURSS violated the FCRA by failing in many instances to provide consumers with the names of third-party vendors from whom it received criminal and eviction records included in its tenant screening reports, which made it harder for consumers to correct errors in their background reports.

Under the proposed order, which must be approved by a federal court before it can go into effect, TURSS and Trans Union LLC will be required to pay $11 million, which will be used to compensate consumers, and a $4 million civil penalty, which will go to the CFPB’s civil penalty fund. This is the largest amount ever recovered in an FTC tenant screening matter. In addition, the companies must also take steps to address the allegations of the complaint and help enable consumers to dispute inaccurate information in the future, including:

• Put in place procedures to ensure the accuracy of information they provide about consumers in background screening reports, particularly information related to evictions;
• Design procedures to prevent the inclusion of the types of problematic records detailed in the complaint including sealed records, unresolved eviction cases, multiple filings for a single eviction case, and any monetary amounts other than final judgments;
• Disclose the sources of information in a consumer’s file, including identifying third-party vendors;
• Implement practices and procedures that will help the companies identify future problems with criminal and eviction records and take corrective steps to fix them;

• Provide consumers upon request and at no charge all the information in their file at the time of the request, including any information that TURSS might provide to a landlord or property manager; and
• Make available on TURSS’s website a sample “adverse action notice letter” that landlords can use when they turn down applicants for housing, which will prompt the landlord to share the applicant’s tenant screening report and tell them why they are denying their application.

The Commission vote authorizing the staff to file the complaint and stipulated final order was 3-0. The FTC and CFPB filed the complaint and stipulated final order in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado.

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. Stipulated final orders have the force of law when approved and signed by the District Court judge.

The lead staffers on this matter are Jarad Brown and Whitney Moore in the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection.

The Federal Trade Commission announced a settlement with bankrupt crypto company Voyager that will permanently ban it from handling consumers’ assets and is filing suit against its former CEO, Stephen Ehrlich, for falsely claiming that customers’ accounts were insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and were “safe,” even as the company was approaching an eventual bankruptcy. The complaint also names Stephen Ehrlich’s wife, Francine Ehrlich, as a relief defendant.

In the federal court complaint, the FTC charges that from at least 2018 until it declared bankruptcy in July 2022, Voyager used promises that consumers’ deposits would be “safe” to entice them to hand over their funds. When the company failed, consumers lost access to significant assets they had saved, including ongoing salary deposits, college tuition funds, and down payments for homes, according to the complaint, which notes that consumers were locked out of their cash accounts for more than a month and lost more than $1 billion in crypto assets.

“Consumers reported over $1.4 billion in losses to cryptocurrency scams in the last year, and the FTC continues to crack down on those who lie to consumers about these risky assets,” said Samuel Levine, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “This action reminds companies and individuals: don’t play fast and loose with claims about FDIC insurance.”

The proposed settlement with Voyager and its affiliates will permanently ban the companies from offering, marketing, or promoting any product or service that could be used to deposit, exchange, invest, or withdraw any assets. The companies also agreed to a judgment of $1.65 billion, which will be suspended to permit Voyager to return its remaining assets to consumers in the bankruptcy proceedings. Former executive Stephen Ehrlich has not agreed to a settlement and the FTC’s case against him will proceed in federal court. 

According to the complaint, Voyager enticed consumers to deposit cash and cryptocurrency with the company based on assurances that their assets were especially safe on the platform. The company offered incentives to consumers who converted the cash they deposited into a cryptocurrency called USD Coin, a so-called “stablecoin” that claims to track the value of the U.S. dollar.

The company’s marketing included direct promises about the safety of consumers’ deposits. One example cited in the complaint included the line “YOUR USD IS FDIC INSURED”

Voyager, however, is not a bank or financial institution, and the deposits consumers made with Voyager were not eligible to be insured by the FDIC. The complaint notes that the FDIC does not insure crypto assets at all, and consumers’ cash deposits were actually placed in an account held by Voyager at a traditional bank that also issued debit cards on behalf of Voyager. Consumers’ cash was only protected if that bank itself failed, and their cryptocurrency wasn’t protected at all.

The complaint notes that Voyager was aware that the company’s claims could mislead consumers. The bank where Voyager deposited consumers’ funds contacted the company in 2021 saying the claims were “potentially misleading.” A bank representative went on to say that “a reasonable consumer could conclude that his USDC [USD Coin] held with Voyager is FDIC-insured.” While Voyager made some changes to its cardholder agreement, the complaint notes that the company continued its misleading advertisements. The company only removed the FDIC claims from its advertising after receiving a cease-and-desist letter from the FDIC.

Ehrlich himself, in a June 2022 letter to Voyager customers, reassured them of the company’s stability, claimed it was “well-capitalized and positioned to weather the bear market,” and said that consumers’ funds were “as safe with us as at a bank.”

Two weeks later, the company froze consumers’ access to their accounts.

The FTC staff complaint alleges that Voyager and Stephen Ehrlich violated the FTC Act’s prohibition on deceptive practices and the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act’s prohibition on obtaining a customer’s financial information through false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements.  The complaint also alleges that Stephen Ehrlich transferred millions of dollars to his wife Francine, including funds that can be traced directly to the alleged unlawful conduct.

In addition to banning Voyager and its affiliated companies from handling consumers’ assets, the proposed settlement prohibits the companies from misrepresenting the benefits of any product or service; from making false, fictitious, or fraudulent representations to any customer of a financial institution in order to obtain or attempt to obtain their financial information; and from disclosing nonpublic personal information about consumers without their express consent.

The Commission voted 3-0 to file a complaint against Voyager and its affiliated companies, Stephen Ehrlich, and relief defendant Francine Ehrlich and to approve a stipulated order with Voyager and its affiliated companies. The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

In a parallel action, on October 12, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission separately charged Ehrlich with fraud and registration failures.

NOTE: The Commission authorizes the filing of a 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. Stipulated orders have the force of law when approved and signed by the District Court judge.

The staff attorneys on this matter are Quinn Martin, Sanya Shahrasbi, and Larkin Turner of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection.

A federal judge in Illinois has ruled in favor of the Federal Trade Commission  in a case the FTC has been litigating since 2019 against a telemarketing company and its owners, finding they made millions of illegal, unsolicited calls to consumers on the Do Not Call Registry. 

The court found that corporate defendants Day Pacer, LLC and Edutrek, L.L.C. purchased consumers’ contact information primarily from websites claiming to help people find jobs, and instead illegally called those consumers to market unsolicited vocational or post-secondary education services. The court also found that the defendants assisted and facilitated other telemarketing companies by paying them to make approximately 40 million calls to consumers on the Do Not Call Registry. Additionally, the court found that individual defendants Raymond Fitzgerald, Ian Fitzgerald, and David Cumming directly participated in or had authority to control the corporations’ deceptive acts or practices, and were therefore also liable.

The court found that the defendants knowingly violated the Telemarketing Sales Rule, citing evidence that the defendants had ignored repeated complaints from consumers and warnings from business partners.

In granting summary judgment, the court found that the FTC was entitled to both injunctive relief and civil penalties. The court has scheduled a hearing to determine the amount of the civil penalty award and the scope of injunctive relief.

Sollers College and its parent company, Sollers Inc., have been ordered to cancel $3.4 million in student debt to resolve separate charges brought by the Federal Trade Commission and the state of New Jersey that said the companies lured prospective students to enroll by falsely touting their job-placement rates and that their relationships with prominent companies would lead to jobs after students graduate.

The for-profit school also had an illegal twist to the “income share agreements” it encouraged students to take out to pay for the school, according to the FTC’s complaint. Income-share agreements require students to pay the school a percentage of their future income in exchange for covering their tuition.

“Not only did Sollers College use deceptive advertisements to attract students, it trapped them in multi-year income share agreements that broke the law by leaving out important borrower rights,” said Samuel Levine, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “Today’s order cancels all income-share agreements issued by the school. Companies that skirt long‑standing consumer protection laws when offering new financing products should be on notice that the FTC takes these violations seriously.”

According to the FTC’s complaint, Sollers, and its parent company, used their website, social media, and email campaigns to falsely advertise their partnerships with prominent employers in the fields of information technology, clinical research, and drug safety. Sollers falsely claimed that its partnerships with prominent employers, such as Pfizer, Weill Cornell Medicine, and Infosys, resulted in jobs for its graduates at those companies. In reality, many of the businesses featured on Sollers’ website had no partnership with the school at all. 

The complaint states that, since at least 2018, Sollers advertised that the vast majority of Sollers graduates are placed in jobs. For example, the company advertised, “90% of our students are placed within 3 months of graduation,” on its website. In reality, the job placement rate for Sollers graduates is substantially lower than the 80 percent, 82 percent, 90 percent or “near perfect” rates featured prominently on its website and in its advertising campaigns. For example, the school’s own data suggests that the current job-placement rate for graduates of its Life Sciences programs remains as low as 52 percent. 

In addition, the complaint notes that Sollers encouraged students to pay for their education using income-share agreements. Under the specific terms of Sollers’s contracts, students agreed to pay Sollers a fixed percentage of their future income on a monthly basis, typically for two years. Between August 2018 and April 2021, the school entered into 392 illegal agreements, none of which included certain disclosures mandated by law. Specifically, the agreements failed to include the Holder Rule notice, which protects consumers who enter certain loans or credit contracts by preserving their right to assert claims and defenses, even if the loans or contracts are assigned to a third party. Sollers later sold a portion of the agreements to third parties.

Under the stipulated order, the for-profit is prohibited from falsely advertising any educational product or service. The order also prohibits the company from denying access to diplomas or transcripts based on any debt forgiven by the proposed order.

Specifically, Sollers must:

• stop collecting debts from students on any income-share agreements it currently holds;
• re-purchase any income share agreements it sold to third parties to stop collection efforts on those agreements;
• request that consumer reporting agencies delete the debt from consumers’ credit reports;
• and provide written notification to consumers who are receiving debt forgiveness under the proposed order.

The Commission vote authorizing the staff to file the complaint and stipulated final order was 3-0. The complaint and stipulated final order will be filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

The staff attorneys on this matter are Wendy Miller and Paul Mezan of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection.

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. Stipulated final orders have the force of law when approved and signed by the District Court judge.

The Federal Trade Commission has issued its latest report to Congress on protecting older adults, which highlights key trends based on fraud reports by older adults, and the FTC’s multi-pronged efforts to combat the problem through law enforcement actions, rulemaking, and outreach and education programs.

In addition, the report calls on Congress to update the FTC Act in response to the Supreme Court’s 2021 ruling in the AMG Capital Management case, which severely limited the FTC’s ability to recover money that older adults and other consumers lose to scammers.

“We do all we can to protect older adults and shut down the scams targeting them,” said Samuel Levine, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “But we still need Congress to restore our authority to get money back from the scammers and into consumers’ pockets.”

The report, Protecting Older Consumers, 2022-2023, A Report of the Federal Trade Commission, finds that older adults reported losing more than $1.6 billion to fraud in 2022.

Because the vast majority of frauds are not reported, this figure represents only a fraction of the overall cost of fraud to older consumers, which the FTC estimates to be as high as $48 billion. The report also finds that in 2022, older adults reported significantly higher losses to investment scams, business impersonation scams and government impersonation scams than they did in 2021:

• Investment scams: $404 million reported lost, up 175% from 2021.
• Business impersonation scams: $271 million reported lost, up 78% from 2021.
• Tech support scams: $159 million reported lost, up 117% from 2021.

As in prior years, the analysis of fraud reports received by the FTC in 2022 showed that adults aged 60 and over were substantially less likely to report losing money to fraud than adults aged 18-59. When they did report losing money, though, they tended to report losing substantially more than younger adults. Consumers 80 and older reported losing a median of $1,750 to fraud, while those in their seventies reported a median loss of $1,000, with both numbers increasing over 2021.

The analysis included in the report to Congress also found that adults 60 and older were more than six times as likely as adults aged 18 to 59 to report losing money to a tech support scam. Older adults were more than twice as likely to report a loss to a prize, lottery or sweepstakes scam, and 73 percent more likely to report losing money to a friend or family impersonation scam.

The report’s analysis shows that older adults filed the largest number of reports about online frauds—where consumers were first exposed to the fraud via social media, the web, or online ads. The largest median losses, however, were reported by older adults on fraud that started with a phone call. The impact of scams where older adults were contacted on social media also increased; the median reported loss from this type of scam jumped from $460 in 2021 to $800 in 2022.

The report focuses on key actions the FTC has taken to protect older consumers, particularly in light of the Supreme Court’s AMG Capital decision. In 2022, the Commission issued a notice of proposed rulemaking on government and business impersonation, which is aimed at curbing a form of fraud that has resulted in tremendous losses for older consumers. A new rule would offer additional tools for the FTC to seek refunds for consumers harmed by these scams.

In addition, the report notes a number of enforcement actions that had a particular impact on older consumers, including cases against Publishers Clearing House for using dark patterns to mislead consumers into thinking that making a purchase would increase their chances of winning the company’s sweepstakes drawing; a company that placed more than a billion calls to consumers, including hundreds of robocalls and calls to consumers on the National Do-Not-Call Registry; a bogus credit card relief scheme; a timeshare exit scam; a company making false health claims about COVID prevention; and current and former major distributors for the multi-level marketing company doTERRA for making baseless claims about COVID treatments. The report highlights a number of ongoing law enforcement partnerships in which the FTC works with other federal agencies, along with state and local authorities, to take actions to protect older consumers.

Finally, the report details the FTC’s outreach and education efforts through such programs as the Pass it On campaign, which focuses on providing fraud prevention resources to older adults so they can help protect their communities by sharing the information and materials with family and friends. It also details the FTC’s ongoing efforts to implement the Stop Senior Scams Act of 2022.

The Commission vote authorizing the report to Congress was 3-0.

The Federal Trade Commission is seeking public comments on the costs, benefits, necessity, and regulatory and economic impact of its Labeling Requirements for Alternative Fuels and Alternative Fueled Vehicles (AFVs), also called the Alternative Fuels Rule, including issues related to electric vehicle charging stations.

The FTC is conducting this review as part of its ongoing, systematic review of all agency rules and guides. With this request for comment, the FTC is starting a new review of the rule. The FTC first published the Alternative Fuels Rule in 1995 as directed by the Energy Policy Act of 1992. To enable consumers to make informed buying decisions, the rule requires informative labels on fuel dispensers for non-liquid alternative fuels, such as electricity, compressed natural gas, and hydrogen. The Commission completed its most recent review of the rule 10 years ago, and as part of that process, eliminated separate FTC labeling requirements for AFVs such as electric cars, and, in their place, incorporated the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) fuel economy labeling requirements into the rule.

In addition to seeking comments on general questions about the rule, the FTC now seeks comments on specific issues related to electric vehicle charging stations. The Federal Register notice announcing the request for public comments includes specific questions about labeling for electric vehicle charging stations operated by retailers for consumers. It details the current rule’s requirements regarding disclosures on all public electric vehicle (EV) charging stations and seeks input on whether, among other things, the FTC should make any changes to the content of the current EV charging stations label, what types of information the labels should disclose, and where they should appear.

Instructions for filing comments will be included the published notice. Comments must be received 60 days after the notice is published in the Federal Register. Once processed, comments will be posted on Regulations.gov. Consumers also may submit comments in writing by following the instructions in the “Supplementary Information” section of the notice. Comments must be received within 60 days after the request in published in the Federal Register.

The Commission vote approving publication of the request for public comments in the Federal Register was 3-0.

The primary staffer on this matter is Hampton Newsome in the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection.

The Federal Trade Commission has submitted two reports to Congress detailing the agency’s efforts to combat cross-border fraud through the U.S. SAFE WEB Act and work contributing to the fight against ransomware and other cyber attacks that originate outside the United States.

The first report provides an update on the FTC’s efforts to implement the Undertaking Spam, Spyware, And Fraud Enforcement With Enforcers Beyond Borders Act, or U.S. SAFE WEB Act (SAFE WEB). The second report, which was required by the Reporting Attacks from Nations Selected for Oversight and Monitoring Web Attacks and Ransomware from Enemies Act (RANSOMWARE Act), addresses questions about FTC activities concerning China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran and the FTC’s efforts to combat ransomware—a type of cyber-related attack in which bad actors hold data or computer access hostage until they receive payment— and other types of cyber attacks. 

SAFE WEB, passed by Congress in 2006, provides a framework to engage in cross-border assistance, including information sharing and investigative support. As the report notes, the law has been an indispensable tool in helping the FTC combat cross-border fraud and protect consumers in an increasingly global and digital economy. Thirty years ago, less than 1% of fraud reported to the FTC was cross border, while in 2022 more than 11% of complaints were cross border.

With the authority provided by SAFE WEB, the FTC has pursued and stopped harmful conduct in the United States and successfully defended against challenges to its jurisdictional authority over foreign companies targeting American consumers. The FTC has also worked with numerous foreign enforcers to stop cross-border injury and frauds.

SAFE WEB was reauthorized by Congress in 2020 for seven years. In the new report, the Commission urges Congress to permanently reauthorize SAFE WEB by removing the sunset provision currently set to expire on September 30, 2027, thus preserving the agency’s ability to effectively cooperate with foreign law enforcement to protect consumers. The report also reiterates the FTC’s call for Congress to restore the agency’s ability to get money back to consumers harmed by unlawful conduct and to prevent bad actors from profiting from their misconduct. The FTC’s authority to do so was severely hampered by the Supreme Court’s 2021 AMG decision.

Report on Ransomware and other Cyber Attacks

The second report details the FTC’s work to target ransomware and other cyber attacks. The report notes that one of the key ways the FTC has done this is by implementing a robust data security enforcement program aimed at ensuring companies take appropriate steps to protect personal data they hold from such attacks. The FTC has brought more than 80 enforcement actions involving data security. The agency also has pursued bad actors involved in ransomware-related tech support scams and worked to educate the public and businesses on how to secure and protect data from cyber attacks.

Only a small fraction of the millions of complaints the FTC receives each year involve ransomware and other cyber attacks, and these complaints rarely mention Iran, North Korea or Russia, according to the report. While China is the leading source of complaints about cross-border fraud, they rarely relate to ransomware and other cyber attacks, the report notes. The report details enforcement actions, mostly involving privacy and data security, the FTC has taken involving known or unverified connections to China and Russia.

The report reiterates the importance of SAFE WEB in helping to combat ransomware and other cyber attacks. The Commission also urges Congress to enact privacy and data security legislation, enforceable by the FTC, asserting that such legislation would advance the security of the United States and U.S. companies against ransomware and other cyber attacks.

The Commission votes to approve each report were 3-0.

The lead staffers on both reports are Stacy Procter and Angel Martinez in the FTC’s Office of International Affairs.

The Federal Trade Commission and State of Wisconsin are taking action against Wisconsin auto dealer group Rhinelander Auto Center, its current and former owners, and general manager Daniel Towne for deceiving consumers by tacking hundreds or even thousands of dollars in illegal junk fees onto car prices and for discriminating against American Indian customers by charging them higher financing costs and fees.

The defendants have agreed to proposed court orders that will require Rhinelander’s current owners and Towne to stop their unlawful practices and provide $1.1 million to be used for refunds to consumers.

“Working closely with the State of Wisconsin, we are holding these dealerships accountable for discriminating against American Indian customers and sneaking junk fees onto consumers’ bills,” said Samuel Levine, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “A vehicle is one of the most expensive purchases families make, and we are fully committed to ensuring that all consumers navigating the car-buying process can do so without facing unlawful discrimination or paying for products and services they do not want.”

“Companies must not be permitted to engage in discriminatory practices or improperly charge customers for ‘add-on’ products or services,” said Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul. “Thank you to those at Wisconsin DOJ, the FTC, and other agencies whose work led to the filing of this complaint.”

In their complaint, the FTC and Wisconsin DOJ say that Rhinelander and Towne regularly charged many of their customers junk fees for “add-on” products or services without their consent. The complaint cites one survey of Rhinelander customers that shows half of the dealer’s customers said they were charged for add-ons without authorization or through deception. One consumer was told—deceptively—that Guaranteed Asset Protection (commonly referred to as “GAP,” or “GAP insurance”) was required for her car purchase, even though she didn’t want to buy it; it cost her more than $1,000 in fees and additional interest on her loan.

Rhinelander and Towne discriminated against American Indian customers in the cost of financing by adding more “markup” to their interest rates, according to the FTC’s complaint. This additional markup cost American Indian customers $401 more on average compared to non-Latino white customers. The complaint also notes that, since Rhinelander changed ownership in 2019, the disparity has only increased.

In addition, the complaint alleges that American Indian customers were charged for unwanted add-ons at a higher rate than non-Latino white customers. These additional junk fees can significantly drive up the amount that customers finance when they purchase their vehicle, which in turn leads to higher cost over the life of the loan. In total, American Indians paid on average approximately $1,362 more for add-ons in credit transactions than non-Latino White customers since 2016, and $1,374 more since the new ownership took over, according to the complaint.

The proposed settlement with Rhinelander’s current owners and Towne will require the company to stop deceiving consumers about whether add-ons are required for a purchase and obtain consumers’ express informed consent before charging them for add-ons. The settlement will also the require the defendants to establish a comprehensive fair lending program that, among other components, will allow consumers to seek outside financing for a purchase and cap the additional interest markup Rhinelander can charge consumers. The current owners and Towne will also be required to pay $1 million to be used to refund affected consumers.

The former owners, Rhinelander Auto Center, Inc. and Rhinelander Motor Company, have agreed to a separate settlement that would require the companies to permanently wind down the businesses and pay $100,000 to be used to refund affected consumers.

The Commission vote to authorize FTC staff to file the complaint and to approve the proposed stipulated final orders was 3-0. The complaint and proposed final orders were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin.

In addition to its partnership with the Wisconsin Department of Justice in this case, the FTC also thanks Wisconsin’s Department of Transportation; Department of Financial Institutions; and Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection, as well as the Better Business Bureau of Wisconsin, for their assistance with this matter.

NOTE: The Commission authorizes the filing of 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. Consent judgments have the force of law when approved and signed by the District Court judge.

The FTC attorneys on this matter are Nathan Nash, Rachel Sifuentes and Rachel Granetz of the FTC’s Midwest Region.

The settlement with the State of Wisconsin is dependent on approval by Wisconsin’s Joint Committee on Finance per the requirements of 2017 Wisconsin Act 369.

The Federal Trade Commission sued to stop four related defendants from deceptively marketing their 1 Virus Buster Invisible Mask

(Invisible Mask) that purportedly creates a three-foot barrier of protection against 99.9 percent of all viruses and bacteria, including COVID-19 – without any scientific proof that the product actually works.

Despite receiving a warning letter that the FTC sent in July 2020, the New York-based defendants continued falsely advertising the Invisible Mask—a badge worn around the neck—as a scientifically proven defense against COVID-19 and other diseases and that it was a government-approved device, according to the FTC’s complaint.

Three of the four defendants have agreed to a proposed order settling the FTC’s complaint, and will be banned from making unsupported health claims for products designed to prevent or treat COVID-19.

“The defendants’ claims that their products can stand in for approved COVID-19 vaccines are bogus,” said Samuel Levine, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “The FTC will use every tool it has at its disposal to stop false and unsubstantiated health claims that endanger consumers.”

The complaint alleges defendants Gary Kong, Timothy Wetzel, and the two companies they operate, K W Technology Inc. and K W Technology NV Inc., violated the FTC Act and the Covid Consumer Protection Act through their marketing and sale of the Invisible Mask on their own website, YouTube, and Facebook, where it was called “The 1 Virus Buster Card.”

This card, which was worn around the neck or clipped onto clothing, was sold using deceptive claims, the FTC says. For example, the defendants claimed their product “uses quantum theory technology, combines known virus and bacteria killing compounds. It is safe, simple, and effective. All you need to do is hang it around your neck or attach it to your collar, close to your mouth and nose. . . it kills 99.9% of most harmful bacterial and viruses . . . within a three-foot radius.”

The FTC contends the defendants have no reliable scientific evidence to support their claims that the Invisible Mask can prevent any human disease, and that despite contacting the FTC after receiving the warning letter and vowing to stop making such claims, they simply continued deceptively marketing the product.

The complaint also alleges the defendants falsely claimed that the Invisible Mask or its materials are government approved or made in a government-approved facility. They also falsely claimed the Invisible Mask had “FDA Approval” and that that the materials used to make it are “EPA-approved.” On their website the defendants posted a phony “Certificate of Registration” with the FDA’s logo, despite the fact that no such agency certificate exists.

The Kong Proposed Order

Three of the defendants have agreed to settle the FTC’s complaint in this case. A proposed court order will ban defendants Kong and his two companies, K W Technology Inc. and K W Technology NV Inc., from advertising, promoting, or selling any product claiming to prevent or treat COVID-19, unless the claims are true and supported by scientific evidence. The order also will bar the defendants from making any health-related product claims unless they have scientific evidence that the claim is true and from making misrepresentations about products’ health benefits, performance, efficacy, safety, or side effects.

The order also prohibits the defendants from misrepresenting they have government approval, clearance, or authority for their products and product claims. Finally, it requires the payment of $150,000.

The Commission voted 3-0 to file the complaint and proposed stipulated order against defendants Kong, K W Technology Inc. and K W Technology NV Inc. The FTC filed the documents in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Litigation continues against defendant Wetzel, who did not agree to the proposed settlement.

The lead attorney on the matter is Robin L. Rock of the FTC’s Southeast Region.