Court Rules
All enforcement actions
SettlementCritical RiskMultistate

FTC, DOJ Ban MyLife's Negative Option Marketing, Secure $21M for Consumers

MyLife.com, Inc.December 15, 2021Federal Trade Commission

Penalty Amount

$33,900,000

Summary

The FTC and DOJ settled with MyLife.com, Inc. and its CEO for deceiving consumers with misleading background reports that falsely implied criminal records and for engaging in difficult-to-cancel subscription practices. MyLife violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act, Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act, and Telemarketing Sales Rule. The settlement includes a permanent ban on negative option marketing, $33.9 million in judgments for consumer refunds, and a monitoring program.

Remedy

Permanent ban on negative option marketing, $33.9 million in judgments for consumer refunds (with $16 million partially suspended), and requirement for MyLife to implement a monitoring program for FCRA compliance.

BanMonetary PenaltyConsent DecreeCompliance ProgramConsumer Refunds

Contract Impact

In-house legal teams should review all customer-facing subscription agreements, service terms, and any vendor/data provider contracts where background reports are involved. Key clauses to scrutinize include: negative option/auto-renewal provisions, cancellation and termination procedures (ensuring they are simple and not 'difficult-to-cancel'), disclosures related to report content and limitations (especially regarding criminal/arrest records), billing and payment terms, refund policies, and any representations about data accuracy. Given the FCRA violation, contracts involving consumer reports must include robust compliance warranties and indemnification clauses. Changes may be needed to simplify cancellation processes, add clear, non-misleading disclosures about what reports contain (or do not contain), implement explicit consent for billing cycles, and strengthen FCRA-related obligations and audit rights.

Contract Search Terms

negative option marketingauto-renewing subscriptioncancellation mechanismbackground report disclosureFCRA complianceteaser reportbilling transparencysubscription termsconsumer consent for billingrefund policy

Laws Cited

Fair Credit Reporting ActRestore Online Shoppers’ Confidence ActTelemarketing Sales Rule

Violation Types

Entity Details

Entity

MyLife.com, Inc.

Also known as: MyLife.com

Industry

Data Broker

Multistate Coalition

Official Sources

Source Evidence

Entity Name
"MyLife.com, Inc."
Fine Amount
"Tinsley and MyLife agreed to separate judgments totaling $33.9 million."
Laws Cited
"violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA)"
Laws Cited
"violated the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act"
Laws Cited
"violated the Telemarketing Sales Rule"
Violation Types
"deceived consumers with misleading 'teaser background reports'"

Related Enforcement Actions

FTC

MyLife.com, Inc.

The FTC filed a complaint against MyLife.com, Inc. and its CEO for deceiving consumers with 'teaser background reports' that falsely claimed to include criminal and arrest records, and for violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act by failing to ensure accuracy and permissible purpose. The company also engaged in misleading billing practices under the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act and Telemarketing Sales Rule.

FTC

12 Unnamed Nudify Tool Providers

The FTC sent warning letters to 12 companies offering 'nudify' tools that generate nonconsensual intimate images, for failing to comply with the TAKE IT DOWN Act (TIDA) by not providing a mechanism for victims to request removal of such content. The letters urge immediate compliance with TIDA, which requires platforms to remove nonconsensual intimate images within 48 hours of a valid request. Noncompliant companies may face future legal action and civil penalties of up to $53,088 per violation.

FTC

Covered Platforms

The FTC began enforcing the TAKE IT DOWN Act on May 19, 2026, a law requiring covered platforms to establish a process for victims to request removal of nonconsensual intimate images and delete such content within 48 hours of a valid request. The agency launched a consumer complaint portal, issued compliance guidance for businesses and consumers, and sent reminder letters to major platforms including Meta, TikTok, and X about their obligations under the law. No specific penalties or enforcement actions against individual companies were announced in this release.

FTC

Cliq Inc.

$6.5M

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.

FTC

Chris Terry, Isis Terry, IM Mastery Academy, IYOVIA, iMarketsLive, IM Academy

$795.8M

The FTC and State of Nevada settled charges with lead defendants of the IM Mastery Academy MLM scheme, including Chris and Isis Terry and their affiliated companies, over false earnings claims used to promote financial training programs and a multi-level marketing venture. The stipulated order imposes a $795.8 million judgment, with defendants surrendering nearly $90 million in assets including luxury real estate, vehicles, jewelry, and a yacht, totaling over $100 million with prior judgments from other involved defendants. The order also bans defendants from selling trading-training services, prohibits false earnings claims, and restricts deceptive practices including negative-option misrepresentations and telemarketing violations.

FTC

B.E.S.T. GDR LLC, d/b/a Premium Home Service

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.