Penalty Amount
$1,500,000
The FTC finalized an order against Publishing.com LLC and its principals for misleading consumers about potential earnings from self-publishing products. The company will pay $1.5 million and must substantiate future earnings claims, and is prohibited from making misrepresentations about refunds and endorsements.
The order requires Publishing.com and its principals to pay $1.5 million, prohibits making unsubstantiated earnings claims, requires disclosure of material connections with endorsers, and requires honoring refund policies.
In-house legal teams should review marketing and advertising agreements, influencer and endorsement contracts, and terms of service to ensure earnings claims are substantiated and refund policies are clear. They should also check vendor agreements for review generation and ensure disclosure of material connections.
Entity
Publishing.com LLC
Industry
Media & EntertainmentOfficial Press Release
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2026/07/ftc-approves-final-order-against-publishingcom-settling-allegations-it-misled-consumers
2423055c4836publishingcomfinalorder
https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/2423055c4836publishingcomfinalorder.pdf
Federal Trade Commission Enforcement Page
https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement
"Publishing.com LLC"
"$1.5 million"
"misled consumers about how much money consumers were likely to earn using their self-publishing products."
"failed to disclose when reviews were written by company employees or other interested people"
"will pay $1.5 million and be required to substantiate earnings claims in the future."
$1.5M
The FTC alleged that Publishing.com LLC and its principals misled consumers with unsubstantiated earnings claims about their self-publishing programs, failed to disclose material connections with testimonial writers, and imposed hidden conditions on refund requests. The company agreed to pay a $1.5 million penalty and is subject to a proposed consent order prohibiting deceptive earnings claims, misrepresentations about refunds, and undisclosed endorsements. The consent agreement is subject to a 30-day public comment period before becoming final.
$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.