Cases brought by the Federal Trade Commission, the Department of Justice and state attorneys general over subscriptions, cancellation, free trials, hidden fees and misleading prices. Each entry links to the official record.
SettledHidden feesJunk feesMisleading adsSubscriptions
Doxo
FTC · August 2026
In an April 2024 lawsuit, the FTC alleged that bill-payment company Doxo used search ads that made it appear to be consumers' actual billers, added undisclosed "delivery fees" and enrolled consumers in a subscription program without clearly disclosing its terms. According to the FTC, a federal court found in 2026 that Doxo violated ROSCA by failing to clearly disclose subscription terms and obtain consent; Doxo then agreed in August 2026 to a stipulated order that takes effect when signed by the court.
Amount: $2.1 millionRefunds: Unknown
Official record ↗
SettledJunk feesHidden fees
Chase Nissan LLC (Manchester City Nissan)
FTC and Connecticut · August 2026
The FTC and Connecticut, which sued in January 2024, alleged that the Connecticut dealership charged "certified pre-owned" fees on vehicles already advertised as certified and added charges, such as total loss protection, without consumers' knowledge or consent. Under a proposed stipulated order, the dealership and its owners and managers will pay $4 million for consumer redress, must disclose the total price most prominently and must obtain express, informed consent for all charges. The FTC release does not state that the defendants admitted the allegations.
Amount: $4 millionRefunds: Unknown
Official record ↗
SettledJunk feesHidden feesMisleading ads
Hopper Inc. and Hopper (USA), Inc.
FTC · July 2026
The FTC alleged that the travel booking app Hopper added preselected "Tip" and "VIP Support" charges that consumers could miss without scrolling, despite "no hidden fees" claims, and misrepresented features of add-on products such as Price Freeze and VIP Support. According to the FTC, the conduct violated the FTC Act and, for short-term lodging bookings since May 12, 2025, the Rule on Unfair or Deceptive Fees. Hopper agreed to a proposed stipulated order requiring a $35 million payment for consumer redress and clear disclosure of fees and total prices; news reports say Hopper stated the amount does not reflect the merit of the claims.
Amount: $35 millionRefunds: Unknown
Official record ↗
Lawsuit filed — allegations not provenSubscriptionsCancellationFree trialsMisleading pricing
Genesis Tech enterprise (Growthmind/Wisey)
FTC · June 2026
The FTC sued an enterprise of 15 companies behind apps and online products including MadMuscles, Harna, Unimeal, Wisey, PDF Guru, Lumi and Nebula, alleging that products advertised as free or low one-time cost carried auto-renewing subscriptions disclosed only in fine print, that consumers were charged without consent, and that cancellation was difficult. According to the FTC, the court temporarily halted the alleged practices at the FTC's request; the case will be decided by the court.
Refunds: No refund program announced
Official record ↗
SettledSubscriptionsCancellationHidden fees
Shutterstock, Inc.
FTC · May 2026
The FTC alleged that Shutterstock did not clearly disclose renewal terms and cancellation fees, charged consumers for subscriptions and auto-renewing content packs without express informed consent, and, before 2024, did not let consumers cancel online. Shutterstock agreed to a proposed stipulated order; the FTC said the payment will provide full relief to affected consumers.
Amount: $35 millionRefunds: Unknown
Official record ↗
SettledJunk feesHidden feesMisleading pricing
StubHub Holdings, Inc.
FTC · April 2026
The FTC alleged that StubHub violated the FTC Act and the FTC's Rule on Unfair or Deceptive Fees by advertising ticket prices without clearly disclosing up front the total amount consumers would pay, including mandatory fees, for purchases made shortly after the rule took effect in May 2025. According to the FTC, it had sent StubHub a warning letter in May 2025. StubHub agreed to a stipulated court order requiring it to pay $10 million for consumer redress; the FTC release does not state that the company admitted the allegations.
Amount: $10 millionRefunds: Unknown
Official record ↗
SettledJunk feesHidden feesMisleading pricing
Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. (Ticketmaster)
District of Columbia Attorney General · April 2026
The DC Attorney General's office alleged that Live Nation, which owns Ticketmaster, advertised ticket prices that excluded mandatory fees from 2015 until May 2025, did not adequately disclose the nature of its fees, and used countdown clocks and scarcity messages regardless of actual demand, in violation of the District's Consumer Protection Procedures Act. Live Nation agreed to pay $9.9 million under an Assurance of Voluntary Compliance, with up to $8.9 million to be refunded to customers. According to the office, details of a claims process were to be announced later.
Amount: $9.9 million (up to $8.9 million for customer refunds)Refunds: Unknown
Official record ↗
SettledSubscriptionsCancellationHidden feesFree trials
Adobe Inc.
DOJ on behalf of the FTC · March 2026
In a June 2024 complaint filed by the Justice Department on the FTC's referral, the government alleged that Adobe hid the early termination fee on its "annual, paid monthly" plan and made cancellation difficult, in violation of ROSCA. In March 2026 the Justice Department announced a proposed stipulated order requiring clearer fee disclosures, trial-conversion reminders and easier cancellation; the order takes effect if entered by the court. Adobe said it disagrees with the government's claims and denies wrongdoing.
Amount: $150 million ($75 million civil penalty and $75 million in free services to customers)Refunds: No refund program announced
Official record ↗
Lawsuit filed — allegations not provenSubscriptionsMisleading pricing
JustAnswer LLC
FTC · January 2026
The FTC alleged that JustAnswer advertised that consumers could "join" for $1 or $5 but enrolled them in recurring monthly subscriptions costing $28 to $125 without clearly disclosing the terms or obtaining affirmative consent, in violation of ROSCA and the FTC Act. The FTC seeks refunds and civil penalties; the case is listed as pending.
Refunds: No refund program announced
Official record ↗
Lawsuit filed — allegations not provenSubscriptionsCancellationFree trialsMisleading ads
Uber Technologies, Inc.
FTC, 21 states and the District of Columbia · December 2025
The FTC sued Uber in April 2025, alleging that it charged consumers for Uber One without consent, billed some free-trial users before trials ended, overstated savings, and made cancellation difficult, in violation of the FTC Act and ROSCA. In December 2025, 21 states and the District of Columbia joined an amended complaint, and a second amended complaint seeking civil penalties was filed in May 2026. Uber has denied the allegations, and the case is pending in federal court.
Refunds: No refund program announced
Official record ↗
SettledFree trialsHidden feesMisleading adsMisleading pricingSubscriptions
Instacart
FTC · December 2025
The FTC alleged that Instacart advertised "free delivery" while charging mandatory service fees, offered a "100% satisfaction guarantee" that typically resulted only in small credits, and enrolled consumers in Instacart+ free trials without adequately disclosing that they would be charged when the trial ended. Instacart agreed to a proposed stipulated order; the FTC said the payment will provide refunds to consumers charged for Instacart+ without express informed consent.
Amount: $60 million in consumer refundsRefunds: Unknown
Official record ↗
SettledJunk feesHidden feesMisleading pricing
Greystar
FTC and Colorado · December 2025
The FTC and the State of Colorado alleged that Greystar, the largest U.S. multifamily rental property manager, advertised rents that left out mandatory monthly fees, which in some cases were revealed only after consumers paid application fees or holding deposits. Greystar agreed to a proposed stipulated order barring misrepresentation of total monthly leasing prices and requiring disclosure of all mandatory fees before taking payment. The order requires $23 million to the FTC for consumer refunds and $1 million to Colorado; the FTC release does not state that Greystar admitted the allegations.
Amount: $24 million ($23 million to the FTC for refunds and $1 million to Colorado)Refunds: Unknown
Official record ↗
SettledJunk feesHidden feesMisleading pricing
Hyatt Corporation
Texas Attorney General · December 2025
The Texas Attorney General's office, which sued Hyatt in 2023, alleged that Hyatt advertised hotel room rates that excluded mandatory resort, destination or amenity fees revealed later in booking, in violation of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. In December 2025 Hyatt agreed to pay $1.25 million and to disclose mandatory fees so consumers can compare total room prices. The office's release does not state that Hyatt admitted wrongdoing.
Amount: $1.25 millionRefunds: No refund program announced
Official record ↗
SettledSubscriptionsCancellation
Amazon.com, Inc.
FTC · September 2025
The FTC alleged in a June 2023 lawsuit that Amazon enrolled consumers in Prime without their consent and made cancellation difficult, in violation of the FTC Act and ROSCA. In September 2025 Amazon agreed to a settlement resolving those allegations; the FTC's release does not describe any admission of wrongdoing. In September 2026 the FTC announced a court-approved revised order raising the maximum per-person payment to $200.
Amount: $2.5 billion ($1 billion civil penalty and $1.5 billion in consumer redress)Refunds: Refunds sent ↗ Official record ↗
SettledSubscriptionsCancellation
Chegg, Inc.
FTC · September 2025
The FTC alleged that Chegg made it difficult to cancel auto-renewing subscriptions to its homework-help and writing tools and charged nearly 200,000 consumers after they had requested cancellation, in violation of the FTC Act and ROSCA. Chegg agreed to a proposed stipulated order requiring a simple cancellation method; the FTC said the payment will be used for consumer refunds.
Amount: $7.5 millionRefunds: Unknown
Official record ↗
Lawsuit filed — allegations not provenSubscriptionsMisleading ads
Iconic Hearts Holdings, Inc. (Sendit)
DOJ on behalf of the FTC · September 2025
In a complaint filed by the Justice Department on the FTC's referral, the government alleged that the Sendit app sent fake anonymous messages, sold a "Diamond Membership" by promising to reveal senders, and did not clearly tell buyers they would be billed up to $9.99 weekly, in violation of ROSCA, the FTC Act and the COPPA Rule. The case is pending and will be decided by the court.
Refunds: No refund program announced
Official record ↗
Lawsuit filed — allegations not provenJunk feesHidden feesMisleading pricing
Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. and Ticketmaster L.L.C.
FTC and 7 states · September 2025
The FTC, joined by Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Nebraska, Tennessee, Utah and Virginia, sued Live Nation and Ticketmaster in federal court in California, alleging among other things that Ticketmaster advertised ticket prices lower than what consumers ultimately paid by adding mandatory fees late in checkout, and misrepresented its ticket purchase limits. The FTC is seeking civil penalties and other monetary relief. According to news reports, in late September 2026 the court denied the companies' motion to dismiss and the case is proceeding; the allegations have not been proven.
Refunds: No refund program announced
Official record ↗
SettledSubscriptionsCancellationMisleading ads
Match Group, Inc.
FTC · August 2025
In a case filed in 2019, the FTC alleged that Match did not adequately disclose the conditions of its "guarantee" offer, suspended accounts of users who disputed charges, and made it difficult to cancel subscriptions. In August 2025 Match agreed to a stipulated order to resolve the charges; the FTC said the payment will be used for consumer redress.
Amount: $14 millionRefunds: Unknown
Official record ↗
Lawsuit filed — allegations not provenSubscriptionsCancellation
Fitness International, LLC and Fitness & Sports Clubs, LLC (LA Fitness)
FTC · August 2025
The FTC sued the operators of LA Fitness and related gym chains, alleging that they made it exceedingly difficult to cancel memberships and add-on services, including by limiting in-person cancellation and refusing phone or email requests, in violation of the FTC Act and ROSCA. An amended complaint was filed in January 2026, and the case is listed as pending.
Refunds: No refund program announced
Official record ↗
SettledSubscriptionsCancellationHidden feesMisleading ads
Cleo AI, Inc.
FTC · March 2025
The FTC alleged that cash-advance app Cleo AI overstated how much money subscribers could get and how fast, charged extra fees for faster advances, and made it hard to cancel its subscription, including telling consumers they could not cancel while an advance was outstanding. Cleo agreed to a proposed settlement requiring clear subscription disclosures, express consent and a simple cancellation method. In October 2026 the FTC announced more than $15.8 million in refunds to about 2.1 million customers.
Official record ↗
SettledCancellationHidden feesJunk feesMisleading adsMisleading pricingSubscriptions
Grubhub Inc.
FTC and Illinois Attorney General · December 2024
The FTC and the Illinois Attorney General alleged that Grubhub advertised low prices and then added fees, charged Grubhub+ subscribers delivery fees despite "free" or "$0" delivery claims, and put roadblocks in the way of cancelling Grubhub+; the complaint also included allegations about driver pay and restaurant listings. Grubhub agreed to a proposed stipulated order, and in August 2026 the FTC announced more than $23.8 million in payments to about 640,000 drivers and diners.
Amount: $140 million judgment, partially suspended; $25 million to be paidRefunds: Refunds sent ↗ Official record ↗
SettledJunk feesMisleading pricingMisleading ads
Leader Automotive Group and AutoCanada
FTC and Illinois Attorney General · December 2024
The FTC and Illinois alleged that Leader Automotive Group, a group of Illinois car dealerships, advertised prices that were often unavailable, charged for add-ons consumers did not authorize or were falsely told were required, and charged certification and reconditioning fees for work allegedly not performed. Leader and its parent AutoCanada agreed to a proposed $20 million monetary judgment to be used for consumer refunds, which the FTC described as the largest it had secured against an auto dealer. The case against one former executive was not part of the settlement.
Amount: $20 millionRefunds: Unknown
Official record ↗
SettledSubscriptionsFree trials
Legion Media, LLC and related companies
FTC · September 2024
The FTC alleged that Legion Media and related companies enrolled consumers without their knowledge in recurring "continuity plans" for CBD and keto-related products, in violation of the FTC Act, ROSCA and the Electronic Fund Transfer Act. A federal court approved settlements in September 2024 that ban the defendants from negative option marketing and require them to give up assets valued at about $40 million; in December 2025 the FTC announced more than $27.6 million in refunds.
Amount: Asset turnover valued at about $40 million (larger judgments suspended)Refunds: Refunds sent ↗ Official record ↗
SettledJunk feesHidden feesMisleading pricing
Invitation Homes Inc.
FTC · September 2024
The FTC alleged that Invitation Homes, the largest U.S. landlord of single-family homes, advertised rents that omitted mandatory fees that could exceed $1,700 per year, and also alleged improper security deposit withholding and other practices. The company agreed to a proposed settlement requiring $48 million for consumer refunds; the FTC release does not state that the company admitted the allegations. In 2026 the FTC sent more than 444,000 checks totaling over $47.2 million.
Official record ↗
SettledSubscriptionsCancellationMisleading ads
Care.com, Inc.
FTC · August 2024
The FTC alleged that Care.com overstated the number of available jobs and caregivers' likely earnings, and made it hard for subscribers to cancel through multi-page questionnaires and confusing cancellation flows. Care.com agreed to a proposed stipulated order, and in June 2025 the FTC announced more than $8.1 million in refunds to about 194,000 consumers.
Official record ↗
SettledSubscriptionsMisleading ads
NGL Labs, LLC
FTC and Los Angeles District Attorney · July 2024
The FTC and the Los Angeles District Attorney alleged that the anonymous messaging app NGL sent fake messages, sold an "NGL Pro" subscription by claiming it would reveal senders' identities, and failed to clearly disclose and get consent for recurring weekly charges, in violation of ROSCA. NGL agreed to a stipulated order, and in January 2026 the FTC opened a refund claims process that accepted claims until April 6, 2026.
Amount: $5 million ($4.5 million for consumer redress and a $500,000 civil penalty to the Los Angeles District Attorney)Refunds: Unknown ↗ Official record ↗
SettledSubscriptionsCancellation
Cerebral, Inc.
DOJ on behalf of the FTC · April 2024
According to the complaint, filed by the Justice Department on the FTC's referral, the telehealth firm Cerebral promised consumers they could "cancel anytime" but used a complex, multi-step cancellation process and kept charging consumers while delaying requests, in violation of ROSCA; the complaint also included health-data privacy allegations. Cerebral agreed to a settlement in April 2024, and in May 2025 the FTC announced more than $5 million in refunds to about 40,000 consumers.
Amount: About $7 million (nearly $5.1 million for refunds and $2 million of a $10 million civil penalty, with the remainder suspended)Refunds: Refunds sent ↗ Official record ↗
SettledJunk feesHidden feesMisleading pricing
Marriott International, Inc.
Colorado Attorney General · February 2024
The Colorado Attorney General's office said state officials found that Marriott misrepresented the total price of its hotel rooms by leaving out mandatory fees. Under an agreement with the office, Marriott must clearly disclose mandatory fees and make the total price the most prominent figure in ads and offers, show total prices in price-sorted search results, and explain what its fees cover. The office's release does not state a monetary payment or that Marriott admitted wrongdoing.
Refunds: No refund program announced
Official record ↗
SettledSubscriptionsCancellationHidden feesMisleading ads
FloatMe
FTC · January 2024
The FTC alleged that FloatMe charged a $1.99 monthly membership while overstating the cash advances available, charged a fee for instant access, and used a cancellation process that was difficult and error-prone. A court entered a settlement order in January 2024 requiring express consent for charges and an easy cancellation method, and in September 2024 the FTC announced more than $2.6 million in refunds.
Official record ↗
SettledSubscriptionsCancellationHidden feesMisleading ads
Bridge It, Inc. (Brigit)
FTC · November 2023
The FTC alleged that Brigit advertised "instant" cash advances of up to $250 with its $9.99-per-month Plus subscription that few consumers received, charged fees for transfers it called free, and blocked cancellation while an advance was outstanding, in violation of the FTC Act and ROSCA. Brigit agreed to a proposed settlement, and in November 2024 the FTC announced more than $17 million in refunds.
Official record ↗
Court orderJunk feesHidden feesMisleading pricing
Marriott International, Inc.
Pennsylvania Attorney General · April 2023
Under a 2021 settlement with the Pennsylvania Attorney General's office, which described Marriott's practice of leaving resort and similar fees out of the total price until late in booking as "drip pricing," Marriott agreed to disclose mandatory fees clearly throughout the booking process. In April 2023 the office announced that, after Marriott missed agreed deadlines, the company agreed to a court order requiring compliance by May 15, 2023 and to pay $225,000.
Amount: $225,000Refunds: No refund program announced
Official record ↗
SettledHidden feesJunk feesMisleading ads
Grubhub Holdings, Inc. and Grubhub, Inc.
District of Columbia Attorney General · December 2022
The DC Attorney General's office sued Grubhub in March 2022 under the District's Consumer Protection Procedures Act, alleging that the company charged hidden fees and used deceptive marketing tactics. In December 2022 Grubhub agreed to a consent judgment requiring $3.5 million, including $2.7 million in restitution to affected customers (as account credits or checks) and an $800,000 civil penalty. The office's release does not state that Grubhub admitted wrongdoing.
Amount: $3.5 million ($2.7 million restitution and $800,000 civil penalty)Refunds: Unknown
Official record ↗
SettledSubscriptionsCancellationJunk feesHidden fees
Vonage
FTC · November 2022
The FTC alleged that Vonage required customers to cancel by phone through a hard-to-reach retention line, imposed early termination fees that were not clearly disclosed, and kept charging some customers after they cancelled. Vonage agreed to a stipulated order requiring express consent and a simple cancellation method, and in October 2023 the FTC announced nearly $100 million in refunds to about 389,000 consumers.
Official record ↗
SettledJunk feesMisleading pricing
Passport Automotive Group
FTC · October 2022
The FTC alleged that Passport Automotive Group, a Maryland-based dealer group, advertised vehicles at set prices and then added fees it falsely claimed were required, and charged Black and Latino customers more in financing costs and fees, in violation of the FTC Act and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. Under a proposed court order, Passport and two executives agreed to pay $3.38 million for consumer refunds and to obtain express, informed consent before charging fees. The FTC sent refunds in 2023 and a second round later.
Amount: $3.38 millionRefunds: Refunds sent
Official record ↗
SettledJunk feesHidden fees
Ed Napleton Automotive Group
FTC and Illinois Attorney General · April 2022
The FTC and the Illinois Attorney General alleged that eight Napleton dealerships added charges for add-on products to purchase contracts without consumers' authorization or by falsely describing them as free or required, and charged Black customers more for financing and add-ons. Napleton agreed to a $10 million settlement, most of it for consumer relief. The FTC has since sent refunds in two rounds.
Official record ↗
SettledSubscriptionsCancellationFree trials
Age of Learning, Inc. (ABCmouse)
FTC · September 2020
The FTC alleged that Age of Learning did not adequately disclose that ABCmouse memberships and free-trial extensions would renew automatically and indefinitely, and that its promised "Easy Cancellation" process was lengthy and confusing. The company agreed to a settlement including a $10 million judgment and changes to its negative option practices; in April 2021 the FTC announced more than $9.7 million in refunds.
Amount: $10 millionRefunds: Refunds sent
Official record ↗
SettledSubscriptionsFree trialsCancellation
NutraClick, LLC
FTC · September 2020
The FTC alleged that NutraClick did not clearly disclose the material terms of its negative option offers for supplements and beauty products, including the true deadline for cancelling free trials, in violation of ROSCA and a 2016 court order. NutraClick agreed to a settlement that includes a negative option marketing ban, and the FTC later sent refunds to affected consumers.
Official record ↗
Compiled from official FTC, Department of Justice and state attorney general announcements and case pages as of October 2026, with some details confirmed through news and law-firm summaries. Case status can change after a listing is written; the official record controls. This page reports public government actions and is not a statement by AblePro about any company. General information, not legal advice.
FAIR OR NOT