The FTC filed a complaint against National Amendment Assistance and related entities for allegedly deceiving homeowners into paying unlawful upfront fees for mortgage relief services falsely associated with the CARES Act. The court granted a temporary restraining order, and the FTC seeks redress for affected consumers.
The court entered a temporary restraining order against the defendants. The FTC seeks redress for affected consumers, including monetary relief and an injunction against further deceptive practices.
In-house legal teams should review vendor agreements with mortgage assistance service providers to ensure compliance with the MARS Rule, particularly clauses prohibiting upfront fees before a written agreement is executed. Customer contracts should include clear consent mechanisms and disclosures about government affiliations. Additionally, data sharing agreements with financial institutions must comply with the GLB Act to prevent unauthorized use of customer information.
Entity
National Amendment Assistance
Industry
Financial ServicesOfficial Press Release
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2026/06/ftc-sues-stop-deceptive-mortgage-assistance-relief-operation-targets-homeowners
2523119naatro
https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/2523119naatro.pdf
2523119naacomplaint
https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/2523119naacomplaint.pdf
Federal Trade Commission Enforcement Page
https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement
"National Amendment Assistance (also doing business as N.A.A.)"
"null"
"FTC Act, Mortgage Assistance Relief Services (MARS) Rule, and the GLB Act"
"misled consumers into paying unlawful upfront fees by claiming their mortgage relief program was associated with the federal CARES Act"
"June 3, 2026"
$930K
The FTC finalized orders requiring CMG Media Corporation (doing business as Cox Media Group), MindSift LLC, and 1010 Digital Works LLC to pay a total of $930,000 for falsely claiming they offered an AI-powered service that could target ads based on conversations captured from consumers' smart devices, and that consumers had opted into such targeting. The orders also prohibit the companies from making misrepresentations about their advertising services, voice data collection, and consumer consent.
The FTC announced it is seeking public comment on a proposed enforcement policy statement regarding personalized pricing, which is the use of personal data to set prices based on what a company believes an individual consumer is willing to spend. The statement warns that undisclosed collection or use of personal data for personalized pricing could violate the FTC Act's prohibition on unfair or deceptive practices. The Commission voted 2-0 to authorize the Federal Register notice.
$4.0M
The FTC and Connecticut secured a $4 million settlement with Chase Nissan LLC (doing business as Manchester City Nissan) over allegations the dealership charged consumers unauthorized fees, including double-charging for 'certified pre-owned' vehicles and inserting charges like total loss protection into financing agreements without consent. The settlement requires $4 million in consumer redress, prohibits misrepresentations about vehicle certification and warranties, mandates prominent disclosure of the maximum total vehicle price, and requires express informed consent for all charges.
The FTC filed a complaint against Credit Glory LLC and related entities for deceptive credit repair practices, including false promises, impersonating debt collectors, charging illegal upfront fees, and using negative option billing without consent. A federal court temporarily halted the operation.
The FTC issued a policy statement abandoning disparate-impact liability, stating it will no longer bring claims based on this theory. It also modified compliance obligations for several companies based on past decisions.
The FTC, along with Utah and California, filed a complaint against Hims & Hers alleging the telehealth provider shared consumers' sensitive health information with third-party advertising platforms without consent, and deceived consumers about billing and cancellation practices. The complaint alleges violations of the FTC Act and the Restore Online Shoppers' Confidence Act.