Bankrate Inc. Fair Fund
Bankrate Inc. Fair Fund
ra2
Cobell Indian Trust Settlement
Cobell Indian Trust Settlement
JND’s CEO Jennifer Keough oversaw the administration of the largest Government class action settlement in U.S. history. In Cobell v. Salazar, No. 96 CV 1285 (TFH) (D. D.C.), which settled for $3.4 billion, Ms. Keough worked with the U.S. Government to implement the administration program responsible for identifying and providing notice to the two distinct but overlapping settlement classes. As part of the notice outreach program, Ms. Keough participated in multiple town hall meetings held at Indian reservations located across the country. Due to the efforts of the outreach program, over 80% of all class members were provided notice. Additionally, Ms. Keough played a role in creating the processes for evaluating claims and ensuring the correct distributions were made. Under Ms. Keough’s supervision, the processing team processed over 480,000 claims forms to determine eligibility. Less than one half of one percent of all claim determinations made by the processing team were appealed. Ms. Keough was called upon to testify before the Senate Committee for Indian Affairs, where Senator Jon Tester of Montana praised her work in connection with notice efforts to the American Indian community when he stated: “Oh, wow. Okay… the administrator has done a good job, as your testimony has indicated, [discovering] 80 percent of the whereabouts of the unknown class members.” Additionally, when evaluating the Notice Program, Judge Thomas F. Hogan concluded (July 27, 2011): …that adequate notice of the Settlement has been provided to members of the Historical Accounting Class and to members of the Trust Administration Class…. Notice met and, in many cases, exceeded the requirements of F.R.C.P. 23(c)(2) for classes certified under F.R.C.P. 23(b)(1), (b)(2) and (b)(3). The best notice practicable has been provided class members, including individual notice where members could be identified through reasonable effort. The contents of that notice are stated in plain, easily understood language and satisfy all requirements of F.R.C.P. 23(c)(2)(B).
CIT
EEOC and Yates Services
EEOC and Yates Services
The EEOC has entered into an agreement with Yates Services, LLC regarding individuals who were subjected or medical inquiries or who were on medical restrictions and not allowed to return to work.
YAT
EEOC v. Alorica Inc
EEOC v. Alorica Inc
In the lawsuit, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") alleged that Alorica Inc. engaged in unlawful employment practices by subjecting employees to a sexually hostile work environment and/or retaliation in violation of federal and state laws. The lawsuit asked the Court to require Alorica, Inc. to provide monetary damages and provide potential reinstatement to eligible claimants. The lawsuit also sought to compel Alorica Inc. to update its policies and procedures on discrimination, harassment and retaliation. Alorica Inc. denies all of the allegations.
ALO
EEOC v. Champion Fiberglass, Inc.
EEOC v. Champion Fiberglass, Inc.
The federal government seeks individuals who were denied employment or the opportunity to apply for work at Champion Fiberglass, Inc. at any time from January 1, 2013 to the present, as part of its lawsuit against Champion. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued Champion in 2017, alleging that the company discriminated against Black, White, and Asian applicants because of their race (or because they could not speak Spanish) when the company did not hire them or refused to give them a job application. Champion is a manufacturing company located at 6400 Spring Stuebner Road, Spring, TX 77389. In the lawsuit, the EEOC is seeking back pay and other monies for victims of this discrimination.
chp
EEOC v. Patterson-UTI Drilling Company LLC
EEOC v. Patterson-UTI Drilling Company LLC
The United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) reached a settlement with Patterson-UTI Drilling Company LLC (Patterson-UTI Drilling). The settlement provides a $12.26 million fund for payments to minority employees who were subjected to discrimination or harassment based on race, color, or ethnicity, or retaliation for complaining about such discrimination or harassment at any time during the period from January 1, 2006, through April 17, 2015.
EPU
FTC v. 8 Figure Dream Lifestyle
FTC v. 8 Figure Dream Lifestyle
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) reached a settlement with companies and individuals responsible for 8 Figure Dream Lifestyle. According to the FTC’s complaint, 8 Figure Dream Lifestyle used a combination of illegal robocalls, live telephone calls, text messages, internet ads, emails, social media, and live events to market and sell bogus money-making opportunities. 8 Figure Dream Lifestyle falsely claimed that those who joined the program would make tens of thousands of dollars within 60 to 90 days. The FTC first sent payments in October 2021, which resulted in over $740,000 in refunds. Because there was still money in the fund, the FTC sent a second round of checks and PayPal payments totaling more than $390,000 to 1,542 people who accepted their first payment and paid the defendants more than $2,000.
FLS
FTC v. A.S. Research
FTC v. A.S. Research
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) reached a settlement with A.S. Research. According to the FTC’s complaint, A.S. Research made misleading health claims and used phony testimonials to promote Synovia, a supplement advertised and sold by A.S. Research. Refund checks totaling $774,755 were mailed to consumers who bought Synovia. Because there was still money in the fund, the FTC sent a second round of payments totaling more than $95,000 to 9,499 people who accepted their first payment. All checks have been distributed and are now void.
ASR
FTC v. A1 Janitorial Supply Corp.
FTC v. A1 Janitorial Supply Corp.
At the FTC’s request, a U.S. District Court permanently halted a New York-based office supply scam operated by a business known as A1 Janitorial. The FTC charged A1 Janitorial with charging small businesses and other organizations for supposedly free samples of cleaning supplies and other products. Refund checks totaling more than $2.6 million were mailed to small businesses who lost money to this scam in December 2019. Because there was still money in the fund after the first distribution, the FTC mailed an additional 21,775 checks totaling more than $643,000 in March 2021. All checks have been distributed and are now void.
A1J
FTC v. AAFE Products
FTC v. AAFE Products
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) reached a settlement with AAFE Products related to the marketing of cooking gadgets, golf equipment, and other related products and services. According to the FTC, the company claimed that these products were “free” and “risk-free,” but did not tell customers that they would be charged monthly fees if they did not cancel a related subscription service. Full refunds totaling $488,629 were mailed to consumers who bought these products. All checks have been distributed and are now void.
AFE
FTC v. American Financial Support Services Inc.
FTC v. American Financial Support Services Inc.
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) sued Arete Financial and related companies, and the defendants agreed to settle. According to the lawsuit, the defendants pretended to be affiliated with the U.S. Department of Education, falsely promised to reduce or eliminate monthly student loan payments, and charged consumers illegal upfront fees and recurring monthly fees. As a result of the lawsuit, the FTC sent checks totaling $3.3 million to 37,844 people who paid money to Arete Financial Group, a student loan debt relief scheme that charged illegal upfront fees for debt relief and regularly failed to deliver.
AFG
FTC v. AT&T Mobility, LLC
FTC v. AT&T Mobility, LLC
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) sued AT&T, and the company agreed to settle. According to the FTC’s lawsuit, AT&T unfairly reduced data speeds for customers with unlimited data plans, a practice known as “data throttling.” After customers reached a monthly threshold, they experienced data speeds so slow that many common activities like web browsing and video streaming were difficult or impossible. The FTC sent 212,893 checks and 54,841 PayPal payments to consumers who had not yet received a refund and filed a valid claim with the FTC.
AMO
FTC v. Career Education Corp.
FTC v. Career Education Corp.
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) reached a settlement with Career Education Corporation (CEC). According to the FTC, CEC bought sales leads from companies that used deceptive websites to collect people’s contact information. The FTC first sent checks in June 2021 and the second round of checks in November 2022. These distributions resulted in more than $29 million in refunds. Because there was still money in the fund, the FTC sent additional payments totaling more than $720,000 to 4,296 people who cashed their first check and paid the defendants more than $1,000.
CED
FTC v. Credit Karma LLC
FTC v. Credit Karma LLC
In January 2023, Credit Karma paid money to settle charges brought by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The FTC alleged that many people who got “pre-approved” credit offers from Credit Karma were not approved. As a result, they wasted time applying and sometimes saw their credit scores drop when their applications were denied. The deadline to submit a claim was March 4, 2024 and the FTC is currently reviewing claims.
CRK
FTC v. Damian Kutzner
FTC v. Damian Kutzner
The FTC reached a settlement with Brookstone Law, Advantis Law, and others for running a mortgage relief scam. The defendants tricked homeowners into paying large upfront fees to participate in "mass joinder" lawsuits by falsely promising that these lawsuits would save them from foreclosure. A federal court ordered the defendants to pay money to provide refunds. As part of the settlement, the FTC first sent payments in June 2022, which resulted in more than $118,000 in refunds. Because there was still money in the fund, the FTC sent a second round of payments totaling over $18,000 to 1,563 people who accepted their first payment.
DKU
FTC v. Digital Altitude
FTC v. Digital Altitude
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) reached a settlement with Digital Altitude, LLC. According to the FTC, the defendants behind Digital Altitude convinced people to pay tiered membership fees by promising them substantial income from an online business. Refund checks totaling nearly $4.7 million were mailed to consumers who lost money as a result of the Digital Altitude business coaching scheme in February 2021. Because there was still money in the fund after the first distribution, the FTC sent out a second round of payments totaling more than $1.1 million to people who accepted their first payment in March 2022. All checks have been distributed and are now void.
DGA
FTC v. Educare Centre Services
FTC v. Educare Centre Services
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) reached a settlement with Educare Centre Services. According to the FTC’s complaint, Educare falsely promised to lower credit card interest rates and illegally charged upfront fees for debt relief services. Refund checks totaling nearly $2.3 million were mailed to people who lost money to this credit card debt relief scheme. Because there was still money in the fund, the FTC sent a second round of payments totaling more than $486,000 to 4,729 people who accepted their first payment. All checks have been distributed and are now void.
ECS
educare center services, credit card debt relief, l.l. vision, madera
FTC v. Fashion Nova
FTC v. Fashion Nova
In March 2022, Fashion Nova paid money to settle charges brought by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The FTC alleged that for years Fashion Nova didn’t publish hundreds of thousands of negative reviews of its products and inflated average star ratings by excluding reviews with less than four stars. The initial claims deadline was August 15, 2023 and the FTC is currently reviewing claims.
FAN
FTC v. FBA Stores
FTC v. FBA Stores
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) reach a settlement with FBA Stores. FBA Stores falsely claimed that people could use its “Amazing Wealth System” to create a profitable online business selling products on Amazon. FBA Stores had no affiliation with Amazon, and most people who bought the “Amazing Wealth System” lost money. Refunds totaling more than $9.1 million were sent to consumers who bought these products in August 2020. Because there was still money in the fund, the FTC sent out a second round of payments totaling $669,533 to people who accepted their first payment and paid the defendants more than $7,000 in February 2022. All checks have been distributed and are now void.
fba
FTC v. First American Payment Systems, LP
FTC v. First American Payment Systems, LP
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) alleged that payment processor First American Payment Systems used misleading sales pitches and charged hidden fees. The company paid $4.9 million to settle. The FTC is using that money to provide refunds to eligible businesses. The initial claims deadline was May 28, 2024 and the FTC is currently reviewing claims.
FPS
FTC v. GDP Network LLC
FTC v. GDP Network LLC
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the State of Florida sued GDP Network and its owners in July 2020, alleging that they charged consumers as much as $3,995 for their debt relief services, making claims that they were affiliated with major credit card companies and could save consumers thousands of dollars by securing reduced interest rates. As part of the settlement, the FTC first sent payments in May 2023, which resulted in more than $457,000 in refunds. Because there was still money in the fund, the FTC sent a second round of payments totaling over $88,000 to 500 people who accepted their first payment.
GDP
FTC v. Geniux
FTC v. Geniux
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) reached a settlement with the companies that sold the dietary supplements Geniux, Xcel, EVO, and Ion-Z. According to the FTC, these companies falsely claimed their products would improve memory, increase focus, prevent memory loss, and increase IQ. The FTC also charged the companies with using sham news sites, phony clinical studies, and fake celebrity endorsements to market their products. Refund checks totaling over $551,000 were mailed to consumers who purchased these supplements. All checks have been distributed and are now void.
GNX
FTC v. Helping America Group
FTC v. Helping America Group
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) reached a settlement with Helping America Group. According to the lawsuit, the defendants sold phony debt relief services, including fake loans. Refund checks totaling more than $16 million were mailed to consumers who bought these services in July 2020. Because the agency recovered additional funds from the defendants, the FTC sent a second round of checks totaling more than $6.5 million to people who cashed their first check in December 2021.
HAG
FTC v. Hey Dude Shoes
FTC v. Hey Dude Shoes
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) sued online shoe retailer Hey Dude, and the company paid money to settle. According to the lawsuit, Hey Dude didn’t tell customers about shipping delays and illegally sent gift cards instead of refunds when the company failed to ship orders as promised. The lawsuit also alleged that Hey Dude hid negative product reviews from its website. The FTC sent nearly $1.9 million to 36,757 people who bought shoes from online shoe seller.
HDS
FTC v. Hylan Asset Management
FTC v. Hylan Asset Management
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the New York Attorney General reached a settlement with Hylan Asset Management, and others for operating an abusive debt collection scheme. According to the FTC’s complaint, Hylan sold fake debts to several collection agencies, including Worldwide Processing Group, who then used abusive and illegal practices to collect. Refund checks totaling $772,512 were mailed to people who were targeted by this scheme for debts that they did not owe. Because there was still money in the fund, the FTC sent a second round of payments totaling more than $235,000 to 1,047 people who accepted their first payment. All checks have been distributed and are now void.
HAM
FTC v. I Works, Inc.
FTC v. I Works, Inc.
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) reached settlements with I Works and its owner, Jeremy Johnson. According to the FTC’s lawsuit, I Works promoted bogus government grants and money-making products on its websites, and offered "free" information at no risk. When people gave their credit or debit card numbers to pay for shipping and handling, I Works charged them recurring monthly fees without their consent. The FTC first sent payments in this matter in May 2020, which resulted in more than $8.4 million in refunds. Because the FTC recovered additional money from the defendants, the agency sent a second round of payments.
IWK
FTC v. J. William Enterprises, LLC
FTC v. J. William Enterprises, LLC
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) reached a settlement with J. William Enterprises, LLC, which also used the name Pro Timeshare Resales. According to the FTC, the company collected up to $2,500 from timeshare owners by promising to sell or rent their timeshares quickly. The FTC alleged that the company did not deliver on its promises, and frequently refused to provide refunds. Refund checks totaling nearly $2.7 million were mailed to people who paid J. Williams Enterprises or Pro Timeshare Resales to sell or rent their timeshare in October 2019. Because there was still money in the fund, the FTC mailed 5,126 additional checks totaling more than $460,000 to people who cashed their first check in December 2020. All checks have been distributed and are now void.
JWE
Pro Timeshare Resales
FTC v. LCA-Vision Inc.
FTC v. LCA-Vision Inc.
In January 2023, Lasik Plus and Joffe Medi Center paid $1.25 million to settle charges brought by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). These companies advertised LASIK surgery for less than $300 per eye, but the FTC says most people didn’t qualify for this price. As a result, many people wasted their time on consultations only to learn that the surgery would cost much more than they expected. On October 3, 2024, the FTC sent checks and PayPal payments to 12,077 consumers who filed a valid claim before the deadline.
LCA
FTC v. Liberty Chevrolet, Inc.
FTC v. Liberty Chevrolet, Inc.
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) reached a settlement with Bronx Honda. According to the lawsuit, Bronx Honda charged car buyers fees and inflated the final sales price without customers’ knowledge, and also engaged in other illegal activities that caused many customers to pay more than they expected. In addition, Bronx Honda allegedly charged many African American and Hispanic car buyers higher financing markups and fees. Refund checks totaling nearly $1.5 million were mailed to victims of Bronx Honda’s practices in November 2020. Because there was still money in the fund, the FTC sent a second round of checks totaling nearly $200,000 to people who cashed their first check in March 2022. All checks have been distributed and are now void.
lbc
bronx honda refunds, bronx honda
FTC v. Life Management Defendants
FTC v. Life Management Defendants
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Florida Attorney General sued Life Management Services of Orange County LLC and related defendants for running an illegal debt relief scheme. According to the FTC’s June 2016 complaint, the Life Management defendants bombarded consumers with illegal robocalls trying to sell them bogus credit card interest rate reduction services. As a result of the lawsuit, the FTC and the Florida Attorney General sent refunds totaling more than $540,000 to more than 4,600 consumers.
LMD
FTC v. Mission Hills Federal
FTC v. Mission Hills Federal
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) brought a lawsuit to stop a student loan debt relief scheme that used many names including Mission Hills Federal, Federal Direct Group, National Secure Processing, and The Student Loan Group. According to the lawsuit, these companies charged illegal upfront fees and falsely promised to lower or wipe out student loan payments. As a result of the lawsuit, the FTC sent payments totaling more than $4.1 million to 27,584 consumers.
MHF
FTC v. NatureCity, LLC
FTC v. NatureCity, LLC
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) reached a settlement with NatureCity, LLC related to its products TrueAloe and AloeCran. According to the FTC, NatureCity claimed that these aloe vera supplements could treat many health conditions, including chronic pain, ulcerative colitis, diabetes, high cholesterol, and acid reflux. The FTC says that these claims were false. Refund checks totaling more than $470,000 were mailed to people who bought these products. All checks have been distributed and are now void.
NCT
FTC v. Nexway SASU
FTC v. Nexway SASU
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) brought a lawsuit against Nexway, which used several business names including Tech Live Connect, Saburi TLC, and Sensei Ventures. According to the lawsuit, the scammers used bogus security warnings and pop-up messages to sell their tech support services. These messages convinced people that their computers were infected with viruses and other problems. The scammers collected people’s credit card numbers over the phone and then used Nexway's account to process payments. As a result of the lawsuit, the FTC sent payments totaling more than $610,000 to 6,490 consumers.
NSA
FTC v. NoBetes Corporation
FTC v. NoBetes Corporation
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) reached a settlement with NoBetes Corporation over the company’s advertising and billing practices. According to the FTC, the defendants did not have scientific evidence to support their claims that Niobates could treat diabetes and reduce the need for insulin. Refund checks totaling $60,791 were mailed to consumers nationwide who bought Niobates. All checks have been distributed and are now void.
NOC
FTC v. Nudge, LLC
FTC v. Nudge, LLC
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Utah Division of Consumer Protection sued Response Marketing Group, LLC in November 2019, alleging that the company, its affiliates Nudge, LLC and Boyd, LLC, and its principals, used false promises to sell consumers a series of expensive real estate investment training programs. The FTC sent payments to 4,670 consumers. In addition, the FTC sent claim notices to nearly 400 consumers who previously filed a complaint about Response Marketing. The initial claims deadline was June 19, 2024 and the FTC is currently reviewing claims.
NDG
FTC v. Pointbreak Media
FTC v. Pointbreak Media
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) reached a settlement with Pointbreak Media and related defendants for running an illegal robocall scheme that affected thousands of businesses nationwide. According to the lawsuit, the defendants, claiming to act on behalf of Google, told small business owners that their businesses would be removed from Google’s search results, unless they paid a fee. The defendants also falsely promised these businesses unique keywords that would make their listings appear more prominently in search results. The FTC previously mailed checks in August 2020 and March 2023, resulting in more than $1.7 million in refunds. Because there was still money in the fund, the FTC sent checks totaling $322,200 to 514 people who didn't cash their initial payment.
pbm
FTC v. Position Gurus
FTC v. Position Gurus
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) reached a settlement with Position Gurus and Top Shelf Ecommerce. According to the FTC’s complaint, these companies targeted people who were starting new businesses online to sell them ecommerce websites and marketing assistance. The FTC says that these companies made high-pressure sales calls and falsely claimed that their marketing assistance would attract new customers and drastically increase sales and earnings. Refund checks totaling more than $1.5 million were mailed to people who were deceived by this deceptive scheme. Because there was still money in the fund, the FTC sent a second round of payments totaling more than $197,000 to 1,817 people who accepted their first payment. All checks have been distributed and are now void.
PSG
FTC v. Preferred Law
FTC v. Preferred Law
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) sued Consumer Defense for running an illegal mortgage relief scam. The defendants promised to help struggling homeowners. They claimed that their legal experts would make mortgage payments more affordable. Instead, they collected illegal upfront fees and didn’t provide the help they promised. They used many business names including Consumer Defense, Preferred Law, American Home Loans, and Modification Review Board. As a result of the lawsuit, the FTC sent payments totaling more than $1.2 million to 6,261 people who paid fees to the defendants.
PFL
FTC v. RagingBull.com LLC
FTC v. RagingBull.com LLC
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) sued Raging Bull, and the company agreed to settle. According to the lawsuit, Raging Bull used bogus earnings claims to trick people into paying for investment strategies and recommendations, and then trapped them into hard-to-cancel subscription plans with costly fees. The FTC first sent payments in March 2023, which resulted in more than $1.7 million in refunds. Because there was still money in the fund, the FTC sent a second round of payments totaling over $627,000 to 6,999 people who accepted their first payment.
RGB
FTC v. Reckitt Benckiser
FTC v. Reckitt Benckiser
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) reached settlements totaling $60 million with the companies responsible for Suboxone, a prescription drug used to treat opioid addiction. The FTC says that these companies violated antitrust laws by preventing patients from choosing lower-priced generic versions of the drug. Refund checks totaling more than $59 million were mailed to consumers who were prescribed Suboxone film in the United States between March 1, 2013 and February 28, 2019 and filed a timely claim. Because there was still money in the fund, the FTC sent a second round of checks totaling nearly $369,000 to people who submitted a valid claim during a second claims period.
RBK
FTC v. Resident Home, LLC
FTC v. Resident Home, LLC
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) sued the company responsible for Dream Cloud mattresses in October 2021, and they agreed to settle. According to the lawsuit, the company made false or misleading advertising claims that their Dream Cloud mattresses were made from 100% USA-made materials. The FTC first sent payments in March 2023, which resulted in $44,570 in refunds. Subsequently, the FTC sent payments totaling over $597,900 to 6,991 Dream Cloud Mattress customers who filed a valid claim before the deadline.
RDH
FTC v. Saint James School of Medicine
FTC v. Saint James School of Medicine
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) sued Saint James School of Medicine, the for-profit medical school, alleging that the school lied to prospective students about their chances of success—both in passing a medical school standardized test and in matching with a residency program after graduation. The FTC first sent payments in November 2022, which resulted in more than $742,000 in refunds. Because there was still money in the fund, the FTC sent a second round of payments totaling more than $70,000 to 1,190 people who accepted their first payment.
SJM
FTC v. Seed Consulting
FTC v. Seed Consulting
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) reached a settlement with Seed Consulting, a company that also used the names Seed Capital and Foundation Funding. According to the FTC’s complaint, companies that sold business training and real estate investment programs referred people to Seed Consulting as a source of funding to pay for the costly, but often ineffective, training programs. Refund checks totaling more than $2 million were mailed to people who paid for these ineffective training programs. Because there was still money in the fund, the FTC sent a second round of payments totaling more than $147,000 to 8,099 people who accepted their first payment. All checks have been distributed and are now void.
SDC
seed capital, foundation funding
FTC v. Strategic Student Solutions
FTC v. Strategic Student Solutions
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) reached a settlement regarding student loan debt relief and credit repair services offered by Strategic Student Solutions. According to the FTC, the defendants charged illegal upfront fees, and falsely promised that they would reduce or eliminate people’s student loan debt and improve their credit scores and histories. Refund checks totaling more than $3.1 million were mailed consumers who were victims of this scheme. Because there was still money in the fund, the FTC sent a second round of payments totaling more than $502,000 to 11,765 people who accepted their first payment. All checks have been distributed and are now void.
SOL
FTC v. Student Advocates Team, LLC
FTC v. Student Advocates Team, LLC
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) brought a lawsuit against Student Advocates Team, Progress Advocates Group, Student Advocates Group, Assurance Solutions Services, and Equitable Acceptance Corporation. According to the FTC's lawsuit, these companies charged illegal upfront fees and falsely promised to help people wipe out their student loan debt or cut their monthly payments. The companies did not use the money they collected to pay down student loan balances. As part of the settlement, the FTC first sent payments in August 2022, which resulted in more than $671,000 in refunds. Because there was still money in the fund, the FTC sent a second round of payments totaling over $107,000 to 5,015 borrowers who accepted their first payment and paid Student Advocates more than $1,716.
SAD
FTC v. Student Debt Relief Group
FTC v. Student Debt Relief Group
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) reached a settlement with Student Debt Relief Group and related companies. According to the FTC, these companies tricked people into thinking they were affiliated with the Department of Education, charged illegal upfront fees for free government programs, and collected monthly fees they falsely claimed would be credited toward student loans. Refund checks totaling nearly $1.7 million were mailed to consumers who lost money as a result of the debt relief scheme in February 2021. Because there was still money in the fund, the FTC sent out a second round of payments totaling $167,000 to people who accepted their first payment and paid the defendants more than $1,000 in March 2022. All checks have been distributed and are now void.
SDR
FTC v. Tate's Auto Center
FTC v. Tate's Auto Center
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) sued a group of car dealerships in Arizona and New Mexico known as Tate’s Auto. According to the lawsuit, Tate’s Auto lied to lenders about people’s income and down payment amounts. Many people got loans they couldn’t afford to pay back. The FTC first sent payments in September 2022, which resulted in nearly $290,000 in refunds. Because there was still money in the fund, the FTC sent a second round of payments totaling more than $78,000 to 2,444 people who accepted their first payment.
TAC
FTC v. Teami
FTC v. Teami
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) reached a settlement with Teami. According to the FTC’s complaint, Teami made bogus health claims and paid for endorsements from well-known social media influences who did not adequately disclose that they were being paid to promote the defendant’s products. The FTC first sent payments in February 2022, which resulted in more than $670,000 in refunds. Because there was still money in the fund, the FTC sent a second round of payments totaling over $184,000 to 11,545 people who accepted their first payment and paid Team more than $45.
TEA
detox tea, weight loss tea
FTC v. Vantage Point Services
FTC v. Vantage Point Services
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the New York Attorney General reached a settlement with Vantage Point Services and related defendants for running an illegal debt collection scheme. According to the lawsuit, the defendants used many different aliases, lied about who they were, and made false threats to pressure people to make payments. For example, the callers pretended they were calling from law firms or government offices and threatened to arrest or imprison people who didn't pay. The FTC first sent payments in May 2022, which resulted in more than $148,000 in refunds. Because there was still money in the fund, the FTC sent a second round of checks totaling nearly $80,000 to 1,474 people who cashed their first payment and paid the defendants more than $700.
VPS
FTC v. Vemma
FTC v. Vemma
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) reached a settlement with Vemma over its business practices. According to the FTC, Vemma misrepresented its business opportunity as a legitimate alternative to traditional employment and an easy path to financial freedom and a luxury lifestyle. The vast majority of affiliates lost money. Refund checks totaling more than $2.2 million were mailed to people who lost money to this alleged pyramid scheme in September 2019. Because there was still money in the fund, the FTC mailed 13,508 additional checks totaling more $430,000 to people who cashed their first check in January 2021. All checks have been distributed and are now void.
VMA
FTC v. Warrior Trading, Inc.
FTC v. Warrior Trading, Inc.
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) sued Warrior Trading and its CEO and founder, Ross Cameron, in April 2022, and the company agreed to settle. According to the lawsuit, Warrior Trading made misleading and unrealistic claims that its day trading ""system"" would result in big investment gains for customers. In its advertisements, Warrior Trading showcased the trading results of Ross Cameron, claiming that his strategies were both “profitable” and “scalable.” The vast majority of customers actually lost money trading, on top of the thousands they paid Warrior Trading. As a result of the lawsuit, the FTC sent checks and PayPal payments totaling more than $2.9 million to 20,402 people.
WTR
FTC v. Wealth Press Holdings LLC
FTC v. Wealth Press Holdings LLC
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) sued Wealth Press along with two of its owners, Roger Scott and Conor Lynch. According to the lawsuit, Wealth Press sold its investment advice by claiming that clients would make a lot of money. The FTC says that Wealth Press didn’t have support for these claims and that many Wealth Press clients lost money. As a result of the lawsuit, the FTC sent payments totaling more than $1.2 million to 19,857 people.
WPH
FTC v. Zurixx LLC
FTC v. Zurixx LLC
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Utah Division of Consumer Protection sued Zurixx and its owners. The FTC alleged that Zurixx used false promises to sell real estate investment training and coaching programs. The FTC sent payments totaling more than $12 million to 25,563 customers who paid Zurixx.
ZRX
In the Matter of Beth Liou & GCRC, LLC
In the Matter of Beth Liou & GCRC, LLC
On November 4, 2019, the SEC issued an Order Instituting Cease-and-Desist Proceedings Pursuant to Section 8A of the Securities Act of 1933, against Bethany Liou and Golden California Regional Center, LLC. The SEC found that the Respondents violated Section 17(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933 and ordered them to pay, jointly and severally, disgorgement of $49,306,893, and prejudgment interest of $988,339 to the SEC. On December 10, 2020, the SEC approved a plan for the distribution of the Fund. Investors who purchased limited partnership interests in the Fund as described in the Cease-and-Desist Proceeding, and who suffered losses due to the conduct of the Respondents, were eligible for a monetary distribution under the Plan. All awards in this matter have been disbursed.
BGC
In the Matter of FCA US LLC and Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V.
In the Matter of FCA US LLC and Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V.
FCF
In the Matter of GTV Media Group
In the Matter of GTV Media Group
GTV
In the Matter of Homeland Safety International, Inc.
In the Matter of Homeland Safety International, Inc.
HSI
In the Matter of Robinhood Financial LLC
In the Matter of Robinhood Financial LLC
RFF
SEC v. Brian N. Lines, et al.
SEC v. Brian N. Lines, et al.
SED
SEC v. Fluor Fair Fund
SEC v. Fluor Fair Fund
FFF
SEC v. Garrett O’Rourke, et al.
SEC v. Garrett O’Rourke, et al.
GOF
SEC v. Hope Advisors, LLC
SEC v. Hope Advisors, LLC
The Order to Transfer Funds for Distribution dated August 18, 2021 established the dissemination of the Hope Advisors Fair Fund, in accordance with the terms of the Distribution Plan. JND Legal Administration was the Distribution Agent appointed by the Securities and Exchange Commission in the Order To Appoint A Distribution Agent dated November 26, 2019. Upon completion of its duties, JND Legal Administration worked with the appointed Tax Administrator to prepare a final report and accounting for the court.
hpe
SEC v. Jeffrey Friedland Fair Fund
SEC v. Jeffrey Friedland Fair Fund
JOF
SEC v. Palm House Hotel, LLLP, et al.
SEC v. Palm House Hotel, LLLP, et al.
PLM
SEC v. SeaWorld Fair Fund
SEC v. SeaWorld Fair Fund
SWD
sea, world
United States v. City of Jacksonville Assoc. of Firefighters
United States v. City of Jacksonville Assoc. of Firefighters
The U.S. Department of Justice brought a lawsuit alleging that the City, through its Fire and Rescue Department, engaged in a pattern or practice of unintentional discrimination by administering, between 2004-2011, ten promotion examinations that had a disparate impact on African-American candidates. The Consent Decree requires that the City provide a Settlement Fund in the amount of $4,900,000.
UCJ
United States v. Greyhound Lines, Inc.
United States v. Greyhound Lines, Inc.
Greyhound has agreed to compensate individuals who were harmed by Greyhound’s lack of accessible transportation or transportation-related services, or by a failure to make disability-related accommodations, between February 8, 2013 and February 8, 2016. If you believe you were harmed by these practices between those dates, then you may be eligible to receive compensation from Greyhound as a result of its agreement with the DOJ.
GRY