Consumers Affected
6,205
The FTC alleged that GOAT failed to ship some priority-processing orders as promised and did not offer customers the required option to accept a delay or cancel for a prompt refund. It also alleged that GOAT failed to honor its Buyer Protection refund policy; under the settlement, the company provided direct refunds and the FTC is sending additional redress payments to 6,205 customers.
GOAT directly refunded more than $736,000 to affected customers in 2025. The FTC is now sending checks or PayPal payments to 6,205 additional customers; the release says the redress payments total more than $100,000.
Review customer terms, marketplace seller agreements, and logistics/vendor contracts for enforceable shipping deadlines, prompt notice when an order will be delayed, and customers’ ability to cancel for a prompt refund. Confirm that refund and buyer-protection promises are supported by operational procedures, apply to products that are inauthentic, incorrect, or not as described, and do not permit substitution of partial refunds or store credit where a full refund is promised. Vendor agreements should allocate responsibility for shipment tracking, delay reporting, refund processing, complaint handling, and records needed to demonstrate compliance.
Entity
GOAT USA, Inc.
Industry
Retail"online marketplace GOAT"
"FTC’s Mail, Internet or Telephone Order Merchandise Rule"
"failed to mail some priority processing orders as fast as promised and did not offer buyers the option of agreeing to the delay or cancelling the order and receiving a prompt refund"
"the company frequently denied those refund requests, only provided partial refunds or issued in-store credits."
The FTC sent warning letters to 24 large healthcare services companies, cautioning that incomplete, inaccurate, or untimely pricing information for scheduled medical care may be unfair or deceptive. The letters urge recipients to review their price-disclosure practices and take corrective action; they announce no fine or formal order.
$1.9M
The FTC alleged that Premier Franchising Group LLC and Franchise Fastlane LLC made deceptive and unsubstantiated claims about the Premier Martial Arts franchise opportunity and violated the Franchise Rule. The proposed settlements require the companies to pay a combined $1.85 million to compensate franchisees, prohibit certain misrepresentations, and require Franchise Rule compliance; certain franchisees may also cancel their agreements without penalty.
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.