The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) was especially active in the consumer protection space this past week, including announcing three separate enforcement actions based on earnings claims and three more for Made in USA claims. On the competition side, the FTC took action against noncompete agreements. These stories and more after the jump.

Monday, April 13, 2026

Bureau of Consumer Protection; Online Advertising and Marketing; Earnings Claims

• The FTC took action against Stormy Wellington, a high-level participant in two multilevel marketing (MLM) companies, alleging that she used false or baseless earnings claims to recruit workers into Total Life Changes (TLC) and, more recently, Farmasi. Through YouTube videos and social media posts, Wellington allegedly promised recruits they could earn hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars—including claims that she would help “1,000 families make 5-7 figures in the next 90 days to 12 months” and that she would make “60 new millionaires in 2026.” In reality, the income disclosures for both companies revealed a different story: in TLC, 76.8% of active participants earned no compensation in 2023, and fewer than 1% of Farmasi’s active participants earned income in the six-figure range that Wellington allegedly promised. Under a proposed settlement order, Wellington is prohibited from misrepresenting—expressly or by implication, including through lifestyle imagery—the earnings that participants can expect to make, and may not make any earnings representation unless it is truthful, substantiated in writing, and verifiable upon request. The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on a 2-0 Commission vote.

Bureau of Consumer Protection; Health Claims

• The FTC announced a settlement with Vanilla Chip LLC, doing business as TruHeight, and its co-founders and co-CEOs, Eden Stelmach and Justin Rapoport, over charges that the company deceptively advertised a line of supplements it claimed could boost height growth in children and teenagers, and relied on employee and incentivized consumer reviews. The FTC alleged that TruHeight had been making claims such as “The Only Supplement Clinically Proven to Help Height Growth” without possessing the competent and reliable scientific evidence required to substantiate those claims. The complaint further alleged that TruHeight published thousands of fake five-star reviews authored by its own employees, offered free and discounted products in exchange for positive reviews on its website and third-party platforms, and deployed automated bots operating through fake social media profiles to post fabricated comments on its Facebook and Instagram pages. Under the proposed administrative order, TruHeight and its principals face a $4 million judgment—partially suspended based on their inability to pay in full, with $750,000 to be paid—and are prohibited from making false or unsubstantiated height and growth claims, are required to have competent and reliable scientific evidence to support any health-related claims, and are barred from misrepresenting the existence or experiences of reviewers or conditioning the purchase of reviews on a particular sentiment.

Bureau of Consumer Protection; Advertising and Marketing; Earnings Claims

• The FTC announced a $1.5 million settlement with Publishing.com LLC and its two principals to resolve charges that the company misled consumers about the income they were likely to earn using its products and services. Publishing.com marketed online self-publishing programs—primarily AI Publishing Academy, priced at up to $1,995, and Publishing Accelerator—by claiming its system would allow consumers to earn substantial passive income through e-books and audiobooks. According to the FTC’s complaint, most consumers who purchased the company’s products never achieved the promised income levels, and those who sought refunds under the company’s “no questions asked” guarantee found that Publishing.com imposed numerous additional conditions, often buried in fine print or lengthy terms of service, making refunds difficult or impossible to obtain. The FTC further alleged that the company failed to disclose when consumer reviews were written by employees or relatives of its principals, and that some positive testimonials were incentivized through prizes, cash, or additional services—and in some instances, refunds were conditioned on consumers providing positive reviews. Under the proposed settlement order, Publishing.com and its principals are prohibited from making unsubstantiated earnings claims, misrepresenting refund and cancellation policies, and making misrepresentations in endorsements and reviews, and are required to clearly disclose any material connections with endorsers and any incentives provided for positive testimonials.

Tuesday, April 14, 2026

Bureau of Consumer Protection; Online Advertising and Marketing; Earnings Claims

• The FTC announced that the operators of multilevel marketing (MLM) company Forever Living will be permanently prohibited from making deceptive earnings claims, resolving FTC allegations that the company deceived consumers into believing they could earn profits from the venture when the vast majority of participants made little or no money. The FTC’s complaint named Forever Living Products International LLC, its CEO Gregg Maughan, its President Aidan O’Hare, and Forever Living.com LLC, alleging they used deceptive earnings claims to attract new participants—called Forever Business Owners (FBOs)—through promises of income from selling health and wellness products and recruiting new participants. According to the FTC, in each of the last five years at least 77% of FBOs who purchased, sold, or recruited did not receive any compensation, and more than 89% of new participants had not recouped their initial $300-plus start-up cost even after two full years. Under the proposed settlement order, Forever Living, Maughan, and O’Hare must substantiate any earnings claims upon consumer request, and are prohibited from misrepresenting participants’ likely earnings, the reasons participants fail to make money, the likelihood of recruiting an FBO “downline,” and other material facts about the MLM opportunity. The Commission voted 2-0 to authorize the filing of the complaint and stipulated final order in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona.

Bureau of Consumer Protection; Advertising and Marketing; Made in USA

• The FTC announced law enforcement actions against three companies that deceived American consumers by falsely claiming, in advertising and labeling, that their products were made in the United States—actions that follow President Trump’s March Executive Order, “Ensuring Truthful Advertising of Products Claiming to be made in America.” The FTC reached settlements with sellers of American flags and flagpole display kits, entertainment systems for home and commercial use, and footwear products, resolving allegations that these sellers violated the law by making unqualified and unsubstantiated “Made in USA” claims. Specifically, TouchTunes Music Company, LLC was sued for falsely marketing its electronic dartboards as “Made in the USA” despite the products containing imported components—including computer chips, cameras, and flatscreen monitors—and agreed to pay $625,000 in consumer redress, the largest settlement for a Made in USA Labeling Rule case to date. Americana Liberty LLC and Three Nations LLC, along with their principals, were alleged to have falsely advertised patriotic flag products as “Made in the USA” when several products were wholly imported from China or comprised of significant Chinese components, and agreed to pay $167,743 in consumer redress. Oak Street Manufacturing Company, LLC (d/b/a Oak Street Bootmakers) was alleged to have falsely claimed its footwear was “handcrafted 100%” in the United States when it sourced components from the Dominican Republic and Brazil, and agreed to pay $75,000 in consumer redress. In addition to the three enforcement actions, the FTC issued closing letters to two other companies—Marketing Holders LLC and Lamar Trailers, Inc.—that had agreed to remediate their “Made in USA” representations and come into compliance following FTC contact. Businesses making domestic-origin claims should take note of this enforcement sweep and ensure their “Made in USA” representations are fully substantiated and compliant with the FTC’s standard.

Bureau of Consumer Protection; Advertising and Marketing; Unfair and Deceptive Fees

• The FTC announced that it is seeking public comment on whether a new rule is needed to address unfair or deceptive fee practices by online food and grocery delivery platforms. The FTC issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) published in the Federal Register, through which it is soliciting written comments, data, evidence, and analyses to help determine how best to prevent unfair or deceptive acts or practices in this space. The ANPRM invites public input on a broad range of fee-related practices, including whether platforms clearly disclose total prices, the existence and nature of fees, variable or contingent charges, price differentials between online and in-store pricing, personalized pricing, limitations on promotions and discounts, and whether consumers are billed without their express informed consent. The FTC is exploring whether a nationwide rule would enhance consumer protections and serve as a meaningful deterrent by enabling the agency to seek civil penalties against violators and more readily obtain redress for harmed consumers. As the ANPRM was published in the Federal Register on April 16, the public will have until May 18 (30 days from the date of publication) to submit comments electronically or in writing.

Wednesday, April 15, 2026

Bureau of Competition; Noncompete Agreements

• The FTC ordered Rollins, Inc.—one of the largest pest-control companies in the United States and the parent of brands such as Orkin, HomeTeam, and Critter Control—to cease enforcing noncompete agreements against more than 18,000 employees nationwide. Those agreements had broadly prohibited employees from working in the pest-control industry for two years after leaving Rollins, typically within a 75-mile radius of any of the company’s more than 700 U.S. locations. The agreements covered a wide range of workers—including pest-control technicians, customer-service representatives, and others earning relatively low wages—who the FTC alleged had no ability to negotiate the terms, received no additional compensation for signing, and were given little or no opportunity to understand what they were agreeing to. Under the proposed consent order, Rollins must stop enforcing these agreements against current and former employees and must notify those workers that they are no longer bound and are free to compete against Rollins, including by starting their own businesses. The FTC also sent warning letters to 13 other pest-control industry employers, urging them to review their employment agreements to ensure compliance with the law.

Commissioners; Office of Congressional Relations

• The FTC testified before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, highlighting the agency’s accomplishments over the past year and a half in support of its ongoing work to protect consumers and promote competition on behalf of the American people. FTC Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson and Commissioner Mark R. Meador outlined the Commission’s key priorities and recent achievements, including preparations for enforcement of the TAKE IT DOWN Act—set to take effect on May 19—which requires online platforms to remove nonconsensual intimate images and other content exploiting victims of online abuse. The Commission also highlighted its efforts to combat deceptive fees in sectors such as automobiles, online food delivery, concert tickets, and online subscriptions, as well as its work to protect consumer privacy and combat illegal robocalls and telemarketing scams. On the competition front, the FTC announced the creation of a Healthcare Task Force to preserve competition in the healthcare market, and reaffirmed its commitment to protecting workers from anticompetitive labor practices, including unreasonable noncompete agreements and no-hire provisions.

Thursday, April 16, 2026

Bureau of Consumer Protection; Debt Relief; Education; Telemarketing Sales Rule; Impersonation Rule; Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act

• The FTC announced that it has obtained a temporary restraining order against an alleged student loan debt relief scheme and its operators over allegations that they pretended to be affiliated with the U.S. Department of Education or loan servicers and falsely promised student loan debt relief in exchange for illegal upfront fees. The FTC’s complaint targets NERD Solutions Inc., ED REF Inc., and their operators Natalie Rodriguez and Pablo Ortiz, alleging that since at least February 2022 the defendants illegally marketed their services by cold calling consumers—thousands of whom are on the National Do Not Call list—while impersonating the Department of Education or consumers’ actual loan servicers. The defendants allegedly used false promises of loan forgiveness to induce consumers into paying illegal upfront monthly fees as high as $1,400, collecting at least $8.8 million from borrowers already burdened with significant student loan debt. The defendants are charged with violating the FTC Act, the Telemarketing Sales Rule, the Impersonation Rule, and the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. The Commission voted 2-0 to authorize the filing of the complaint, and the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California entered the temporary restraining order on April 13, 2026.

Friday, April 17, 2026

Bureau of Competition; Department of Justice; Business Collaborations

• The FTC and the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division have extended the public comment period on their inquiry into potential updated guidance for collaborations among competitors, which was first announced on February 23, 2026. The comment deadline has been pushed from April 24, 2026 to May 21, 2026, providing stakeholders additional time to submit input as the agencies work to develop modernized guidance building on the existing 2000 Antitrust Guidelines for Collaborations Among Competitors. Interested parties—including attorneys, economists, academics, consumer groups, and industry stakeholders—may submit comments of up to 18 pages via Regulations.gov by the new May 21, 2026 deadline, and the agencies will use the submissions to inform any updated guidance.