Penalty Amount
$600,000
The FTC and Washington alleged that Riverside Payments and affiliates misrepresented savings and cancellation terms, concealed fees and auto-renewing contracts, and obtained consumers’ financial information using false or fraudulent statements. The proposed stipulated order requires a $600,000 payment, customer notice and a period to rescind agreements without penalty, and prohibits deceptive claims while requiring clear disclosures, informed consent for negative-option billing, and a simple cancellation method.
The defendants will pay $600,000 toward a $32,083,921 judgment, with the balance suspended subject to conditions. They must notify customers that for 60 days they may rescind merchant-processing agreements without an early termination fee or other penalty, stop misrepresenting material terms and claims, clearly disclose material transaction terms before obtaining billing information, obtain express informed consent for negative-option billing, and provide a simple cancellation method.
Review customer-facing payment-processing and equipment-leasing agreements for clear, prominent disclosure of all fees, auto-renewal periods, termination penalties, and cancellation procedures, including consistency between sales materials and the contract. Check vendor and payment-processing agreements for limits on collecting and using financial or billing information, requirements to obtain express informed consent before negative-option billing, and obligations to provide customers a simple cancellation method and timely notices. Ensure any customer-facing savings or cost claims are supportable and that cancellation guarantees are honored in practice.
Entity
Riverside Payments Inc.
Industry
Financial ServicesOfficial Press Release
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2026/11/ftc-washington-take-action-against-payment-processor-deceiving-small-businesses-about-costs
Riverside Order
https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/Riverside-Order.pdf
Riverside Complaint
https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/Riverside-Complaint.pdf
Federal Trade Commission Enforcement Page
https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement
"Payment processor Riverside Payments Inc., its affiliate Cascade Equipment Leasing LLC and their operators will pay $600,000"
"will pay $600,000 to resolve Federal Trade Commission and Washington state allegations"
"The FTC alleges that Riverside’s practices violated the FTC Act and the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act by obtaining consumers’ financial information by using false or fraudulent statements."
"failing to clearly inform the businesses that they were being enrolled in automatically renewing contracts for payment-processing services and to lease equipment."
"by obtaining consumers’ financial information by using false or fraudulent statements."
"The defendants also will be prohibited from: misrepresenting the costs, savings, cancellation conditions or any other material fact about any good or service they sell"
FTC staff announced warning letters to 25 healthcare plan marketers and lead generators about deceptive or unfair claims concerning plan benefits, coverage, costs, and enrollment incentives. The letters do not allege wrongdoing by their recipients or impose penalties; they encourage companies to review their advertisements for compliance.
The FTC summarized enforcement actions and other efforts targeting businesses and individuals allegedly impersonating government agencies or legitimate businesses. The release reports more than $80 million in consumer redress across prior actions and takedowns of 19 websites, but it does not announce a new settlement or impose a specific penalty.
The FTC and state and local co-plaintiffs filed a lawsuit alleging Toast imposed hidden and unauthorized fees, enrolled restaurants in add-ons without consent, obstructed subscription cancellations, and misrepresented customer support availability. The complaint is pending in federal court; the press release announces no monetary penalty or imposed remedy.
The FTC issued information orders to nine companies to examine whether they use personal data and other factors to set individualized consumer prices or gig-worker compensation. This is a study and information-gathering inquiry, not a finding that the companies violated the law; recipients must respond within 45 days of receiving the orders.
The FTC and 20 states sued Dollar General, alleging that it repeatedly charged customers more at checkout than advertised prices and failed to correct the problem despite consumer complaints and corporate knowledge. The complaint alleges violations of federal and state laws; the case is pending, and the press release does not report a penalty or final remedy.
The FTC filed a complaint alleging that GovAssist LLC, Entry LLC, and Scott Zuckerman used deceptive paid search ads, misleading service and pricing claims, and fake reviews to deceive consumers seeking passport services. The complaint alleges violations of the FTC Act, the Impersonation Rule, and the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act; the case will be decided by the court, and no penalty or remedy is reported as imposed.