The FTC and State of Illinois, via the Department of Justice, filed a complaint against B.E.S.T. GDR LLC (d/b/a Premium Home Service) and its owner Yosef Bernath for creating thousands of fake home repair business listings with fabricated five-star reviews to deceive consumers. The defendants allegedly routed consumer calls to unqualified representatives, arranged for unlicensed technicians, and violated the FTC Act, Reviews and Testimonials Rule, Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, and Illinois consumer protection laws. No monetary penalty has been imposed yet as the case is in initial filing stages.
In-house legal teams should review vendor agreements with marketing, lead generation, and review management vendors to ensure they prohibit the creation of fake business listings, fabricated reviews, and deceptive endorsements, and require compliance with the FTC Act and Reviews and Testimonials Rule. Clauses governing online advertising, testimonial collection, and consumer financial information collection should be updated to mandate truthful representations, prohibit fraudulent statements to obtain financial data, and align with federal and state consumer protection laws. Customer-facing service agreements should also be reviewed to eliminate deceptive claims about local presence, technician availability, and service quality. Additionally, agreements with third-party call centers or offshore representatives should include clauses requiring accurate disclosures to consumers about service provider location and technician qualifications.
Entity
B.E.S.T. GDR LLC, d/b/a Premium Home Service
Industry
OtherOfficial Press Release
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2026/05/ftc-illinois-take-action-stop-deceptive-conduct-company-created-thousands-business-listings-fake
best gdr llc et al united states state illinois v timeline i
https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/cases-proceedings/best-gdr-llc-et-al-united-states-state-illinois-v-timeline-item-2026-05-11
commr meador premium home service statement
https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/commr-meador-premium-home-service-statement.pdf
Federal Trade Commission Enforcement Page
https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement
"Illinois-based B.E.S.T. GDR LLC, which does business as PHS"
"violated the FTC Act by making deceptive claims about being a local home-repair business operating from a specific address, making deceptive claims about sending technicians on a specific date and time from a local business, and making deceptive claims related to fake reviews"
"violated the Reviews and Testimonials Rule by writing, creating, buying, or selling fake reviews and seeking and using fake reviews from employees and relatives"
"violated the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act by making false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements to obtain consumers’ financial information"
"The complaint also alleges PHS violated Illinois consumer protection laws."
"May 11, 2026"
The FTC, Utah, and Nevada sued Lens.com Inc., alleging that it advertised artificially low contact lens prices while hiding mandatory checkout charges and misleading consumers about its AutoRefill subscription. The complaint seeks to stop the alleged practices; the court has not yet decided the case, and no penalty or remedy has been imposed.
The FTC issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking seeking public comment on whether ad-optimization tools offered by online platforms may help scammers impersonate businesses and government agencies. This is a proposed regulatory inquiry, not an enforcement action against a named company; no penalty or remedy was imposed.
$2.5B
A federal court approved a revised order in the FTC's Amazon Prime case under which Amazon will accelerate and expand redress payments under the September 2025 $2.5 billion settlement, which resolved allegations that Amazon enrolled millions of consumers in Prime subscriptions without their consent and knowingly made cancellation difficult. More consumers now qualify for refunds, the maximum payment cap rises from $51 to $200, and all future payments will be distributed automatically starting October 1, 2026, with potential supplemental $149 payments by April 2027. Amazon has already issued more than $845 million in redress payments as of September 2026.
$225.0M
The FTC and the state of Washington filed a joint complaint and proposed stipulated order requiring Amway Corp. and two affiliates—World Wide Group, L.L.C. (WWG) and Leadership Team Development Inc. (LTD)—to pay a $225 million judgment, the largest monetary recovery ever obtained from an MLM in an FTC action, over allegations that they used deceptive earnings claims and unfair tactics to recruit Independent Business Owners. The complaint alleges the companies falsely promised substantial income and recruitment success, pressured IBOs to buy products they could not resell, and instructed IBOs to falsely report sales. Nearly all of the judgment will be used as redress for IBOs who lost money, and the proposed order imposes structural reforms including a 70% resale requirement, independent audits of sales records, and a ban on approved providers charging new IBOs for first-year training.
$100.0M
FleetCor Technologies Inc. (now Corpay Inc.) and its CEO Ronald Clarke agreed to pay $100 million to settle an FTC administrative action alleging the company charged small business customers hidden and unauthorized fees for fuel cards and misrepresented gas savings, fraud-control features, and fees. A federal district court granted the FTC summary judgment on all counts in 2023, and a federal appeals court upheld that judgment and the permanent injunction in 2026. The settlement funds will be used to provide redress to harmed business customers.
FTC staff published FAQs on price transparency to help the automobile industry comply with the FTC Act, reiterating that an advertised vehicle price must be the actual price any consumer can pay, excluding only government-required charges. The guidance follows warning letters the FTC sent to 97 auto dealership groups earlier in 2026 and signals continued litigation against dealers that advertise one price but charge more through undisclosed fees. No specific entity was charged and no penalty was imposed.