Penalty Amount
$6,500,000
A federal court held Cliq Inc. and its executives Andrew Phillips and John Blaugrund in civil contempt for multiple violations of a 2015 FTC order requiring the payment processor to prevent enabling consumer fraud. The court found the defendants facilitated fraud by processing transactions for high-risk merchants, avoiding fraud monitoring, failing to conduct required underwriting, and ignoring chargeback thresholds. The court imposed $6.5 million in civil contempt sanctions against the defendants.
The U.S. District Court for Nevada imposed $6.5 million in civil contempt sanctions against Cliq Inc., formerly Cardflex Inc., and its operators Andrew Phillips and John Blaugrund for multiple violations of a 2015 federal court order, including facilitating fraud, failing to conduct required underwriting, and ignoring chargeback thresholds.
In-house teams should review vendor agreements with payment processors and merchant services providers, focusing on clauses related to underwriting requirements, chargeback thresholds, and fraud/risk monitoring obligations. Specifically, check for requirements that processors conduct mandatory business information verification, screen for shell companies, and comply with MATCH list (high-risk merchant) exclusions. Additionally, review clauses governing chargeback limits, mandatory reporting of suspicious merchant activity, and prohibitions on facilitating transactions for unverified or high-risk merchants. Merchant agreements should also be reviewed to ensure they require merchants to provide accurate business information and prohibit shifting transactions between closed and active accounts to evade monitoring.
Entity
Cliq Inc.
Industry
Financial ServicesOfficial Press Release
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2026/05/federal-court-holds-payment-processor-cliq-contempt-violating-ftc-order
Cardflex ContemptOrder
https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/Cardflex-ContemptOrder.pdf
Federal Trade Commission Enforcement Page
https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement
"Cliq Inc, formerly known as Cardflex Inc."
"$6.5 million"
"May 13, 2026"
"the court determined the defendants violated multiple core provisions of the 2015 federal court order by facilitating fraud on behalf of several scammers."
"the court imposed $6.5 million in civil contempt sanctions against the defendants."
"Assisted and facilitated two groups of merchants in avoiding fraud and risk monitoring programs, including by processing so-called “friendly” transactions to mask true chargeback rates and helping a group of merchants both process under different names and shift transactions from closed accounts to other live accounts."
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.
The FTC rescinded its 2021 Policy Statement on Breaches by Health Apps and Other Connected Devices, which had purported to apply the Health Breach Notification Rule to health apps and connected devices that collect consumer health information. The rescission follows the Commission's 2024 update to the Health Breach Notification Rule, which already covers health apps and connected devices like fitness trackers, and implements an executive order directing agencies to eliminate obsolete guidance documents. No company was charged or penalized; this is a deregulatory action.