The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) sued Dollar General over alleged pricing discrepancies and Toast over alleged hidden fees and subscription practices, warned healthcare plan marketers and lead generators about deceptive advertising, and highlighted its enforcement efforts against impersonation scams. The FTC also partnered with states to take action against a payment processor and property manager for deceptive billing and other practices. More on these stories after the jump.

Monday, October 26, 2026

Bureau of Consumer Protection; Retail; Advertising and Marketing; Deceptive Pricing

• The FTC announced that it and 20 states sued Dollar General Corporation for allegedly charging consumers more at checkout than the prices displayed on shelves, product labels, and advertisements. According to the complaint, the discrepancies persisted for years despite tens of thousands of consumer complaints, government inspections, and the company’s knowledge of the problem. The FTC alleges violations of Section 5 of the FTC Act and the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, while the states assert claims under consumer protection and weights and measures laws. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act claim concerns allegations that false pricing representations induced consumers to disclose financial account information during payment. Plaintiffs seek permanent injunction and monetary relief, with the states also seeking restitution, disgorgement, civil fines or penalties, and other remedies available under their respective laws.

Thursday, October 29, 2026

Bureau of Consumer Protection; Health Care; Advertising and Marketing; Deceptive/Misleading Conduct

• FTC staff announced that they are sending warning letters to 25 companies that market healthcare plans or generate sales leads for them, with additional letters expected on a rolling basis. The initiative covers Affordable Care Act Marketplace insurance and other healthcare products, including limited indemnity plans and medical discount programs. The letters identify potentially unlawful claims about plan benefits and limitations, whether a product provides comprehensive medical insurance, costs, and promised enrollment incentives such as cash rewards or rebates. The letters do not allege wrongdoing by their recipients; instead, they encourage companies to review their advertising for compliance and note that the FTC is continuing to monitor the marketplace. The announcement is a warning initiative, not a new lawsuit or monetary judgment against the recipients.

Bureau of Consumer Protection; Impersonation; Advertising and Marketing; Online Platforms

• The FTC reported that it has completed 14 enforcement actions resulting in more than $80 million in consumer redress since its Impersonation Rule took effect in 2024. Separately, the agency said domain registrars removed 19 websites impersonating the FTC in response to letters identifying apparent rule violations, and that it has worked to remove social media pages impersonating the agency and its officials. The rule allows the FTC to seek consumer refunds and civil penalties, which the release states may reach $53,088 per violation. The announcement also highlighted the agency’s September request for public comment on whether to amend the rule or develop a new rule addressing digital platforms’ role in promoting impersonation scams through ad-optimization tools and services. That potential rulemaking remains under consideration and does not itself impose new obligations on platforms. For more information on the FTC’s focus on impersonation and platforms that facilitate fraud, see our client alert: FTC Enforcement Priorities and NAD Updates: Takeaways from the National Advertising Division 2026 Annual Conference.

Bureau of Consumer Protection; Small Business; FinTech; Subscriptions; Advertising and Marketing

• The FTC announced that it, seven state attorneys general, and California officials representing Los Angeles County and San Francisco sued Toast Inc. and affiliated entities over allegedly deceptive pricing, unauthorized charges, and difficult subscription cancellation practices. Toast provides point-of-sale hardware, software, payment processing, and financing to restaurants. According to the complaint, the company enrolled customers in add-on subscriptions without consent and failed to adequately disclose charges associated with its advertised $0 hardware and software plan, including early termination fees of $150 for each remaining contract month. The plaintiffs also allege that Toast imposed a $0.99 fee on certain restaurant patrons’ online orders without adequate disclosure or consent, required a multi-step cancellation process that left customers paying unwanted recurring charges, and accelerated outstanding Toast Capital loan balances when customers canceled or changed providers. The complaint further challenges Toast’s advertised “24/7/365” customer support, alleging that customers could not reliably obtain assistance. The action alleges violations of the FTC Act, the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act, and state laws, including California’s Unfair Competition Law. The plaintiffs seek injunctive and monetary relief, including civil penalties and restitution under state law. For more information, see Crowell & Moring’s client alert Federal, State, and Local Regulators Sue Toast Over B2B Advertising and Subscriptions.

Monday, November 2, 2026

Bureau of Consumer Protection; Advertising and Marketing; Credit and Finance; Payments and Billing

• The FTC and Washington State announced a proposed settlement with Riverside Payments, Inc., its affiliate Cascade Equipment Leasing LLC, and their operators over allegations that they deceived small businesses about payment-processing costs and cancellation terms. The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, alleges that defendants touted substantial savings and “risk-free” cancellation while obscuring fees, automatically renewing multiyear contracts, and a $695 early termination charge, and making cancellation difficult, in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)), Section 521 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (15 U.S.C. § 6821), and the Washington Consumer Protection Act (Wash. Rev. Code § 19.86.020). The proposed order would impose a $32 million judgment, suspended upon payment of $600,000 based on defendants’ inability to pay, and require a 60-day opportunity for customers to rescind merchant-processing agreements without penalty, clear disclosure of material terms, express informed consent to negative-option billing (where a customer’s failure to take affirmative action is interpreted as consent to be billed for a recurring charge), and a simple cancellation mechanism. The Commission vote authorizing the staff to file the complaint and stipulated final order was 2-0. This is part of a broader push by the FTC to partner with states to take action against allegedly misleading sales claims, unexpected costs, and difficulty canceling services. For more information, see Crowell & Moring’s client alert Federal, State, and Local Regulators Sue Toast Over B2B Advertising and Subscriptions.

Friday, November 6, 2026

Bureau of Consumer Protection; Southeast Regional Office; Advertising and Marketing; Payments and Billing

• The FTC announced a proposed multimillion dollar settlement with single-family rental property manager Progress Residential and its private equity owner, Pretium Partners, resolving allegations brought with Arizona, Colorado, Indiana and Utah concerning deceptive rental pricing and other unlawful practices. The FTC described the action as its largest enforcement matter against a landlord. The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, alleges that the companies advertised rents excluding mandatory fees, misrepresented homes as move-in ready, improperly withheld security deposits, failed to follow through on its customer service promises, and used unlawful non-disparagement provisions, in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)); Section 2 of the Consumer Review Fairness Act (15 U.S.C. § 45b); Section 521 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (15 U.S.C. § 6821); and violations of Arizona, Colorado, Indiana, and Utah state laws. Subject to court approval, the settlement would provide $48.5 million – $49.75 million to the FTC for consumer redress and $1.25 million to Arizona, require Progress to prominently advertise total monthly rent inclusive of mandatory recurring fees, establish security-deposit safeguards, and prohibit inspection misrepresentations, standardized non-disparagement clauses, and certain unfair customer-service practices. The Commission vote authorizing the staff to file the complaint and proposed stipulated order was 2-0.