FabKids’ Back-to-School Ads Mislead Parents
Online retailer deceptively advertises members-only prices, TINA.org investigation finds.
Since 2014, the FTC has brought 36 actions alleging violations of the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act (ROSCA). ROSCA prohibits companies from charging consumers through negative-option offers in internet transactions unless they meet certain requirements, including disclosing all material terms of the transactions, providing consumers with a simple way to stop recurring charges and obtaining consumers’ express informed consent to the charges.
Thirty-four of the FTC actions since 2014 were filed in federal court and two are administrative actions. Twenty-nine of the cases resulted in settlement agreements, and a total of 26 of the cases resulted in monetary judgments or penalties. One of the cases was voluntarily dismissed after a federal court judge entered a judgment in favor of the company. Six of the cases remain pending and an appeal remains pending in one case. (In addition to the actions listed in the table, the FTC sent a staff advisory opinion regarding ROSCA to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) in 2011.)
The table below contains more detailed information about the FTC’s ROSCA actions:
Defendant(s)
(Year) |
Type of Action | Status/Outcome | Monetary Penalty or Judgment? |
---|---|---|---|
Health Formulas d/b/a Simple Pure Nutrition et al.
(2014) |
Federal Court Case | Settled | √ |
JDI Dating et al
(2014) |
Federal Court Case | Settled | √ |
One Technologies
(2014) |
Federal Court Case | Settled | √ |
DirecTV
(2015) |
Federal Court Case | Voluntarily dismissed after judgment in favor of defendants | |
BunZai Media (AuraVie) et al.
(2015) |
Federal Court Case | 12 of the defendants settled; default judgments were entered as to 20 defendants; 1 relief defendant was dismissed | √ |
Direct Alternatives and Original Organics et al*
(2016) |
Federal Court Case | Settled | √ |
Nutraclick f/k/a Hungry Fish Media
(2016) |
Federal Court Case | Settled | √ |
DOTAuthority.com et al
(2016) |
Federal Court Case | Settled | √ |
Credit Bureau Center
(2017) |
Federal Court Case | 2 defendants settled; Appeal of judgment pending regarding remaining 2 defendants | √** |
XXL Impressions et al
(2017) |
Federal Court Case | Settled | √ |
AAFE Products/BNRI Corp. et al
(2017) |
Federal Court Case | Settled | √ |
RevMountain et al
(2017) |
Federal Court Case | Settled | √ |
Hornbeam Special Situations et al
(2017) |
Federal Court Case | Pending | |
Pact Inc. et al
(2017) |
Federal Court Case | Settled | √ |
Tarr Inc. et al
(2017) |
Federal Court Case | Settled | √ |
AdoreMe
(2017) |
Federal Court Case | Settled | √ |
Triangle Media Corp. et al
(2018) |
Federal Court Case | Settled | √ |
Redwood Scientific Technologies et al
(2018) |
Federal Court Case | 1 individual defendant settled; default judgments were entered as to all the companies; judgment entered against 2 of the individual defendants | |
Apex Capital Group et al
(2018) |
Federal Court Case | Settled | √ |
Gopalkrishna Pai et al
(2019) |
Federal Court Case | Pending | |
Elite IT Partners et al
(2019) |
Federal Court Case | Settled | |
UrthBox et al
(2019) |
Administrative Action | Settled | √ |
AH Media Group et al
(2019) |
Federal Court Case | Settled | √ |
Match Group (Match.com)
(2019) |
Federal Court Case | Pending | |
MyLife.com, Inc.
(2020) |
Federal Court Case | Settled | √ |
Age of Learning, Inc. d/b/a ABCmouse
(2020) |
Federal Court Case | Settled | √ |
NutraClick***
(2020) |
Federal Court Case | Settled | √ |
MoviePass, Inc. et al
(2021) |
Administrative Action | Settled | |
First American Payment Systems also d/b/a Merimac Capital et al.
(2022) |
Federal Court Case | Settled | √ |
Vonage
(2022) |
Federal Court Case | Settled | √ |
WealthPress et al.
(2023) |
Federal Court Case | Settled | √ |
Amazon
(2023) |
Federal Court Case | Pending | |
FloatMe et al.
(2024) |
Federal Court Case | Settled | √ |
Cerebral et al. (2024) |
Federal Court Case | Settled | √ |
Doxo et al.
(2024) |
Federal Court Case | Pending | |
Adobe
(2024) |
Federal Court Case | Pending |
* While the FTC did not allege that the defendants in the Direct Alternatives case violated ROSCA, the defendants agreed not to violate ROSCA in the settlement agreement.
** While the district court ordered the defendants to pay monetary penalties, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the restitution award.
*** This lawsuit alleges that company’s deceptive sales and billing practices violated federal law and a court order from a 2016 FTC case.
Online retailer deceptively advertises members-only prices, TINA.org investigation finds.
Comparing the amount companies agree to pay to settle deceptive marketing charges with their annual revenue.
From “Belgian” chocolates made in the U.S. to knockoff engagement rings, be wary of these roadblocks to love.