Who was sanctioned, and for what?

In 2023, a federal court found by way of summary judgment that the fuel card provider had charged its predominantly small business customers hidden or unauthorised fees and misrepresented savings; an appeals court upheld this in 2026. According to the FTC, the fees added up to hundreds of millions of dollars, and late fees were also charged despite punctual payment. Under the settlement resolving the administrative proceedings, FleetCor and a further settling party are jointly paying 100 million USD for refunds; the order is not yet final.

Authority / court

Federal Trade Commission (FTC)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing

Legal basis

Section 5 FTC Act

Action

Disgorgement of profits

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Financial services and insurance

Liability of senior managers

Measures against individuals are not reported here.

Published

17 Sep 2026

Original amount 100,000,000 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 17 Sep 2026.

Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 3 · Direct link

Despite promising no hidden fees, the travel app, according to the FTC, charged tips and fees for a VIP support service without consent because they were hidden and pre-selected, and misled users about total prices and the benefits of VIP support and price freezing. The court order against the Canadian Hopper Inc. and its US subsidiary sets 35 million USD, payable in twelve instalments. The authority allegedly made the findings set out here; this account is not based on a final judgment.

Authority / court

Federal Trade Commission (FTC)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing

Legal basis

Section 5 FTC Act; Rule on Unfair or Deceptive Fees (16 C.F.R. Part 464)

Action

Disgorgement of profits

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Media and online platforms

Published

2 Jul 2026

Original amount 35,000,000 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 20 Aug 2026.

Checked against the official source on 3 Oct 2026 · Direct link

According to the Attorney General's office, the company sold an annual shipping subscription ("Celebrations Passport") whose terms between February 2021 and June 2022 appeared only in small print, in linked terms or in pop-up boxes; a post-purchase acknowledgement and a notice before automatic renewal were missing. In the Assurance of Discontinuance it undertakes to pay 375,000 USD in penalties, fees and costs, to refund subscribers and to change its subscription processes. The authority allegedly made the findings set out here; this account is not based on a final judgment.

Authority / court

Office of the New York State Attorney General

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Information duties in online retail

Legal basis

New York General Business Law §§ 349, 527-a; Executive Law § 63(12); Restore Online Shoppers' Confidence Act (15 U.S.C. § 8403)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Published

22 Jul 2026

Original amount 375,000 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 21 Jul 2026.

Checked against the official source on 3 Oct 2026 · Direct link

According to the FTC, employees of the dietary supplement provider wrote thousands of five-star reviews, customers received free products or discounts in return for five-star reviews, and bot profiles posed as real users; in addition, there were unsubstantiated growth claims for children and adolescents. The final settlement order provides for a judgment of 4 million USD, which is partially suspended on account of limited ability to pay after a joint payment of 750,000 USD by the liable parties.

Authority / court

Federal Trade Commission (FTC)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Fake reviews

Legal basis

Section 5 FTC Act; FTC Rule on the Use of Consumer Reviews and Testimonials

Action

Disgorgement of profits

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Food and agriculture

Mitigating circumstances

Partial suspension of the judgment on account of limited ability to pay.

Liability of senior managers

Measures against individuals are not reported here.

Published

15 Jul 2026

Original amount 750,000 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 15 Jul 2026.

Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 3 · Direct link

According to the Attorney General's office, the fitness franchisor stated three to six months until studio opening in the disclosure documents filed in New York, although it took more than 13 months on average and its own SEC reports showed longer periods. The Assurance of Discontinuance requires 3,971,250 USD: 3 million USD for 70 harmed franchisees (of which 300,000 USD is a civil penalty) and 971,250 USD in fee refunds to 25 franchisees who never opened. The authority allegedly made the findings set out here; this account is not based on a final judgment.

Authority / court

Office of the New York State Attorney General (Investor Protection Bureau, Franchise Section)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail

Legal basis

New York Franchise Sales Act (General Business Law §§ 680 ff., insb. § 687); Executive Law § 63(12)

Action

Disgorgement of profits

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Other

Published

9 Jun 2026

Original amount 3,971,250 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 9 Jun 2026.

Checked against the official source on 3 Oct 2026 · Direct link

According to the FTC, StubHub displayed ticket prices on its website without clearly and conspicuously stating up front the total price including all mandatory fees. The court order relies on the new FTC rule against unfair or deceptive fees and requires StubHub to pay 10 million USD for consumer refunds. The authority allegedly made the findings set out here; this account is not based on a final judgment.

Authority / court

Federal Trade Commission (FTC)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing

Legal basis

Section 5 FTC Act; Rule on Unfair or Deceptive Fees (16 C.F.R. Part 464)

Action

Disgorgement of profits

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Media and online platforms

Published

9 Apr 2026

Checked against the official source on 3 Oct 2026 · Direct link

According to the FTC and eleven states, Walmart misled the drivers of its Spark Driver delivery service about base pay, incentives and tips, so that they lost tens of millions of dollars in earnings. The court order comprises judgments of 100 million USD: 89 million USD for the FTC (of which 10 million USD is paid and 16,175,302 USD goes into a driver fund, the remainder suspended because of back payments already made) and 11 million USD for the states. The authority allegedly made the findings set out here; this account is not based on a final judgment.

Authority / court

Federal Trade Commission (FTC) mit elf Bundesstaaten (AZ, CA, CO, IL, MI, NC, OK, PA, SC, UT, WI)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing

Legal basis

Section 5 FTC Act; Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 6801–6809, 6821–6827); Verbraucherschutzgesetze der klagenden Bundesstaaten

Action

Disgorgement of profits

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Employees

10,000 or more

Published

26 Feb 2026

Original amount 100,000,000 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 3 Mar 2026.

Checked against the official source on 3 Oct 2026 · Direct link

According to the FTC, Instacart advertised free delivery but charged mandatory service fees of up to 15 %, promised a "100 % satisfaction guarantee" without providing full refunds and did not sufficiently point out the subsequent charges for trial subscriptions. Under the settlement, the company is paying 60 million USD for refunds and must discontinue the practices complained of.

Authority / court

Federal Trade Commission (FTC)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing

Legal basis

Section 5 FTC Act; Restore Online Shoppers' Confidence Act (ROSCA)

Action

Disgorgement of profits

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Employees

1,000 to 9,999

Published

18 Dec 2025

Original amount 60,000,000 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 13 Jan 2026.

Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 2 · Direct link

According to the FTC, the telemedicine company advertised GLP-1 weight-loss programmes with monthly prices that did not include medication, laboratory costs and medical consultations, concealed the minimum term and cancellation fees, published fake testimonials from employees and relatives, and induced customers to delete negative reviews by offering vouchers or refunds. Under the final settlement order, the company is paying 150,000 USD jointly with other liable parties (joint payment), which is earmarked for refunds.

Authority / court

Federal Trade Commission (FTC)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Fake reviews

Legal basis

Section 5 FTC Act; Restore Online Shoppers' Confidence Act (ROSCA)

Action

Disgorgement of profits

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Healthcare

Liability of senior managers

Measures against individuals are not reported here.

Published

3 Dec 2025

Original amount 150,000 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 3 Dec 2025.

Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 3 · Direct link

According to the allegations of the attorneys general, the online fashion retailer enrolled buyers in a paid VIP membership programme without their express consent, presented prices in a misleading way and made cancellation difficult. Under the settlement with 32 states and D.C., TFG is providing around 3.8 million USD in automatic refunds and paying 1 million USD to the states; the settlement does not constitute an admission of guilt.

Authority / court

Attorney General of Pennsylvania (verhandelt mit Maryland, Texas und D.C.; Vergleich mit 33 Attorneys General)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Information duties in online retail

Legal basis

Verbraucherschutzgesetze der beteiligten Bundesstaaten

Action

Disgorgement of profits

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Published

23 Oct 2025

Original amount 4,800,000 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 23 Oct 2025.

Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link

According to the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Amazon used confusing order screens to push millions of customers into Prime subscriptions without their consent and deliberately made cancellation difficult. The settlement comprises a civil penalty of 1 billion USD and 1.5 billion USD in refunds, as well as a clear decline button and simple cancellation.

Authority / court

Federal Trade Commission (FTC)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Information duties in online retail

Legal basis

Restore Online Shoppers' Confidence Act (ROSCA); Section 5 FTC Act

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Employees

10,000 or more

Liability of senior managers

The press release names a Senior Vice President and a Vice President.

Published

25 Sep 2025

Original amount 2,500,000,000 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 25 Sep 2025.

Checked against the official source on 27 Sep 2026 · Version 2 · Direct link

According to the FTC complaint, the education provider hid the cancellation option for its automatically renewing subscriptions on its website and, since October 2020, continued to charge almost 200,000 customers even after they had cancelled. Under the settlement, Chegg is paying 7.5 million USD for refunds and must offer simple cancellation.

Authority / court

Federal Trade Commission (FTC)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Information duties in online retail

Legal basis

Restore Online Shoppers' Confidence Act (ROSCA); Section 5 FTC Act

Action

Disgorgement of profits

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Telecoms, IT and software

Repeat case

yes

Published

15 Sep 2025

Original amount 7,500,000 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 18 Sep 2025.

Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link

According to the CFPB, Equifax did not properly reinvestigate disputes about credit report entries, allowed deleted entries to be reinserted, informed consumers inadequately of the results and did not block entries resulting from identity theft as required (Fair Credit Reporting Act). The company also sold inaccurate credit scores after test code had been introduced into a production server; the order imposes a fine of 15 million USD. The authority allegedly made the findings set out here; this account is not based on a final judgment.

Authority / court

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail

Legal basis

Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 1681c, 1681e, 1681i); Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010, §§ 1031, 1036

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Financial services and insurance

Published

17 Jan 2025

Original amount 15,000,000 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 17 Jan 2025.

Checked against the official source on 3 Oct 2026 · Direct link

The CFPB found that Block did not effectively prevent and address fraud on Cash App, handled disputes and chargebacks unfairly, did not provide effective customer service, misled users about protection against unauthorised transfers and breached error-resolution duties under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act and Regulation E. The order imposes a fine of 55 million USD and requires 75 million USD for redress, which may rise to up to 120 million USD (up to 175 million USD in total). The authority allegedly made the findings set out here; this account is not based on a final judgment. The amount field records only the civil monetary penalty.

Authority / court

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail

Legal basis

Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 (12 U.S.C. §§ 5531, 5536); Electronic Fund Transfer Act und Regulation E (12 C.F.R. §§ 1005.6, 1005.7, 1005.11, 1005.13, 1005.18)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Financial services and insurance

Published

16 Jan 2025

Original amount 55,000,000 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 16 Jan 2025.

Checked against the official source on 3 Oct 2026 · Direct link

According to the FTC, the AI-powered review platform collected star ratings for its business customers at the time of purchase, before customers had received the product or service, thereby inflating average ratings and review counts, including in search engine results. The FTC issued a final settlement order prohibiting such misrepresentations.

Authority / court

Federal Trade Commission (FTC)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Fake reviews

Legal basis

Section 5 FTC Act

Action

Order

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Media and online platforms

Published

3 Jan 2025

Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link

The FTC and the Illinois Attorney General alleged that the delivery service misled customers about delivery costs and blocked their accounts and balances, promised drivers inflated earnings and listed restaurants without their consent. The court order sets a judgment of 140 million USD, suspended except for a payment of 24.8 million USD to the FTC; in addition, 200,000 USD goes to Illinois (25 million USD in total). The authority allegedly made the findings set out here; this account is not based on a final judgment.

Authority / court

Federal Trade Commission (FTC) und Attorney General of Illinois

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing

Legal basis

Section 5 FTC Act; Restore Online Shoppers' Confidence Act; Impersonation Rule (16 C.F.R. Part 461); Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (815 ILCS 505); Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act (815 ILCS 510)

Action

Disgorgement of profits

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Media and online platforms

Published

17 Dec 2024

Original amount 25,000,000 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 31 Dec 2024.

Checked against the official source on 3 Oct 2026 · Direct link

According to the complaint of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC, the US consumer protection authority), the AI writing service offered a “Testimonial & Review” feature that generated detailed customer reviews with entirely invented details from brief, generic input; individual users produced hundreds to tens of thousands of reviews with it. With the final settlement order (3–2 vote), the FTC prohibited Rytr from offering any service for generating reviews. On 22 December 2025, the FTC set the order aside again with Rytr’s consent (2–0 vote): the facts alleged in the complaint did not support a violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act, and the order unduly burdened AI innovation, contrary to the Trump Administration’s AI Executive Order and AI Action Plan.

Authority / court

Federal Trade Commission (FTC)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Fake reviews

Legal basis

Section 5 FTC Act (Mittel zur Täuschung bereitgestellt)

Action

Order

Status of proceedings

overturned

Sector

Telecoms, IT and software

Published

18 Dec 2024

Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 2 · Direct link

According to the CFPB, as issuing bank of the Apple Card Goldman failed to acknowledge and resolve transaction disputes on time, reported disputed amounts to credit bureaus prematurely and investigated disputes inadequately (Truth in Lending Act, Regulation Z); the card was launched although the board had been warned shortly beforehand that the dispute system was not fully ready. The bank also gave the misleading impression that device purchases would automatically be converted into interest-free instalments; the order requires 19.8 million USD in redress and a fine of 45 million USD. The authority allegedly made the findings set out here; this account is not based on a final judgment. The amount field records only the civil monetary penalty.

Authority / court

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail

Legal basis

Truth in Lending Act und Regulation Z; Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010, §§ 1031, 1036

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Financial services and insurance

Employees

10,000 or more

Liability of senior managers

The CFPB stresses that the board had been warned four days before the card's launch that the dispute system was not ready.

Published

23 Oct 2024

Original amount 45,000,000 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 23 Oct 2024.

Checked against the official source on 3 Oct 2026 · Direct link

According to the CFPB, Apple in some cases failed to forward Apple Card users' disputes to the issuing bank Goldman Sachs and designed advertising and the checkout process so that customers wrongly assumed device purchases would automatically be split into interest-free instalments (Apple Card Monthly Installments). The order imposed a fine of 25 million USD; in September 2025 the CFPB terminated it early after the fine had been paid. The authority allegedly made the findings set out here; this account is not based on a final judgment.

Authority / court

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing

Legal basis

Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010, §§ 1031, 1036 (12 U.S.C. §§ 5531, 5536) – unlautere, irreführende und missbräuchliche Praktiken

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Telecoms, IT and software

Employees

10,000 or more

Published

23 Oct 2024

Original amount 25,000,000 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 23 Oct 2024.

Checked against the official source on 3 Oct 2026 · Direct link

According to the FTC, the large US landlord of single-family homes advertised monthly rents without mandatory additional fees (for example for smart home technology or utility management), which could add up to more than 1,700 USD a year and only appeared in the lease; further allegations concerned withheld security deposits and evictions. Under the settlement, the landlord is paying 48 million USD for refunds and must include mandatory fees in the advertised price.

Authority / court

Federal Trade Commission (FTC)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing

Legal basis

Section 5 FTC Act

Action

Disgorgement of profits

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Construction and real estate

Employees

1,000 to 9,999

Published

24 Sep 2024

Original amount 48,000,000 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 27 Sep 2024.

Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 4 · Company name anonymised since 27 Sep 2026 · Direct link