The Federal Trade Commission has filed suit against REPS Company, alleging the ticket broker used unlawful and deceptive methods to evade ticket-purchase limits and acquire millions of tickets for high-demand live events. The case, brought as U.S. v. REPS Company, Inc., puts a spotlight on practices that have long drawn scrutiny in the live-entertainment market: bulk purchasing, circumvention of platform controls, and the use of technological workarounds to outmaneuver ordinary consumers.

According to the FTC, REPS allegedly manipulated online ticketing systems designed to enforce purchase caps and preserve fair access.

The Federal Trade Commission has announced a settlement with an auto dealership group over alleged price-transparency issues, underscoring that dealer advertising, pricing disclosures, and add-on fee practices remain a live enforcement priority. Even without a headline-grabbing court opinion attached, the matter is important: it shows the agency continuing to police how vehicle prices and fees are presented to consumers, particularly where advertised prices may not clearly reflect the actual amount a buyer is expected to pay.

For auto retailers and their counsel, the takeaway is straightforward.

The Federal Trade Commission announced a settlement with an auto dealership group that it framed as a win for price transparency, underscoring how aggressively the agency continues to police vehicle advertising and sales practices. Even without a fully detailed complaint publicly highlighted in the initial announcement, the action is notable as a same-day federal consumer-protection development with immediate relevance for dealerships, their counsel, and compliance teams.

At a high level, the settlement appears aimed at one of the FTC’s core concerns in the auto-retail space: whether advertised or quoted prices accurately reflect what consumers will actually pay.

The Federal Trade Commission has issued warning letters to 24 of the nation’s largest healthcare services companies, putting major hospital and health-system operators on notice that patient pricing practices remain a live consumer-protection priority. Although the agency has not filed an enforcement action, the letters are legally significant: they serve as a public signal that the FTC is scrutinizing whether providers’ pricing disclosures, estimates, and patient-facing cost information could mislead consumers.

The message from FTC leadership is straightforward.

The Federal Trade Commission, joined by the attorneys general of Utah and Nevada, has filed a new consumer-protection action against Lens.com, alleging the online contact-lens seller misrepresented prices in search advertisements and on its website over an extended period. According to regulators, the company used pricing tactics that made products appear cheaper than they actually were, a theory that puts digital advertising, checkout design, and price disclosures squarely at issue.

The case is notable not only because of the parties involved, but because it reflects continued FTC focus on “drip pricing” and other online marketing practices that can distort a consumer’s understanding of total cost.

The Federal Trade Commission has sued Humboldt Merchant Services, alleging the payment processor knowingly enabled scam operators and shell merchants to access the payments system for unauthorized billing and deceptive consumer charges. The agency’s theory is notable: rather than focusing only on the merchants that allegedly carried out the scams, the FTC is aiming at the infrastructure provider it says made those schemes possible.

According to the FTC, Humboldt processed payments for entities tied to sham businesses and billing operations that allegedly lacked legitimate merchant activity.

The Federal Trade Commission said it and five states have notified the court that they intend to file a stipulated order to resolve antitrust litigation against Zillow and Redfin, marking a potentially important development in platform-market enforcement.

The Federal Trade Commission has rescinded a Biden-era policy statement that had expanded expectations around breach notifications for certain health apps and connected-device providers. The move is part of a broader agency push toward regulatory streamlining, but it also sends a clear signal to the digital-health market: the FTC may be narrowing how aggressively it interprets and enforces health-data breach obligations outside traditional healthcare settings.

At issue is the FTC’s approach to the Health Breach Notification Rule, which applies to certain vendors of personal health records and related entities not covered by HIPAA.

The Federal Trade Commission and the State of Connecticut have announced a $4 million settlement with Manchester City Nissan over alleged deceptive-fee practices, marking another notable enforcement action aimed at dealer pricing transparency. The matter is particularly significant because it underscores continued coordination between federal and state regulators in policing so-called “junk fees” and other allegedly misleading charges in consumer transactions.

According to the FTC, the case focused on allegations that the dealership used deceptive fees in connection with vehicle sales.

The Federal Trade Commission has said it will file a stipulated order to resolve its litigation against Zillow and Redfin, signaling that a closely watched enforcement matter involving two of the best-known online real-estate platforms is nearing a negotiated finish rather than continuing through active court litigation.

Although the FTC’s announcement does not spell out the full terms, the move is notable on its own.

The U.S. Department of Justice has announced a $400 million settlement with TikTok and ByteDance resolving children’s privacy litigation under the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act. According to the government, the deal resolves a 2024 lawsuit alleging unlawful data practices involving minors and ranks among the largest recoveries ever obtained in a COPPA matter.

For companies operating consumer-facing digital platforms, the size of the settlement is the headline—but the broader takeaway is the government’s continued willingness to pursue major privacy penalties where minors are involved.

The Federal Trade Commission has weighed in behind a proposal before the Ohio Supreme Court that would reduce the American Bar Association’s central role in determining which law schools qualify graduates for bar admission. While the change is specific to Ohio’s attorney-licensing framework, the implications are much broader: it touches the long-running debate over whether a single private organization should wield outsized influence over entry into the legal profession.

For decades, ABA accreditation has functioned as the default gatekeeper for many state bar systems.

The FTC has secured what it says is the largest civil penalty ever obtained for a Hart-Scott-Rodino filing failure: a combined $12 million settlement with Edwards Lifesciences and Genesis MedTech over the acquisition of JC Medical. According to the agency, the companies structured the transaction to avoid premerger notification and waiting-period requirements under the HSR Act, prompting an enforcement action filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia by the DOJ on the FTC’s behalf.

That headline number matters.

The Federal Trade Commission has announced what it calls a major antitrust settlement with Caremark, resolving a closely watched case against one of the country’s largest pharmacy benefit managers. Even without the full settlement details in hand, the development is important: it signals that the FTC is continuing to press competition theories aimed at the role PBMs play in drug pricing, formulary design, and pharmacy reimbursement.

For antitrust and healthcare lawyers, the significance goes well beyond a single company.

The Federal Trade Commission has inserted itself into a debate with potentially long-term consequences for the legal profession: who gets to decide whether a lawyer’s education is good enough for bar admission. In a recent endorsement of an Ohio Supreme Court proposal, the FTC supported reducing the American Bar Association’s outsized role in determining whether a law school credential qualifies an applicant to sit for the bar.

That is more than an academic governance issue.