With summer upon us, the FTC is turning up the heat—from mortgage relief scams and healthcare merger divestitures to DEI antitrust probes and contempt proceedings against a repeat offender. All this and more after the jump.
June 2
Bureau of Consumer Protection; Consumer Protection; Advertising and Marketing; Online Advertising and Marketing; Social Media
- The FTC filed a complaint against multilevel marketer Amare Global Holdings Inc. (d/b/a Amare and Amare Global), a seller of dietary supplements, and its three principals: former Chief Science Officer Shawn Talbott, founding brand partner Patrick Hintze, and current CEO David Chung.
The FTC’s complaint alleges that the defendants violated the FTC Act by making unsubstantiated claims that Amare’s dietary supplements would lower cortisol, normalize serotonin/dopamine/GABA, and treat or cure depression, anxiety, and ADHD in children and adults. The complaint further alleges that Amare made deceptive earnings claims to prospective “brand partners”—participants in the multilevel marketing business who work as marketers and recruiters—by representing that recruits could earn specific stated amounts of income regardless of their sales experience or social media following.
June 3
Bureau of Consumer Protection; Consumer Protection; Debt Relief; Advertising and Marketing; Credit and Finance; Credit and Loans
- A U.S. district court in California granted a temporary restraining order against National Amendment Assistance (d/b/a N.A.A.), Accounting Business Consultants Inc. (CA), Accounting Business Consultants Inc. (NV), Accounting Servicing Providers Inc., Amster Beene Partners Inc., Assertive Loan Advisors Inc., Independent Accounting Consulting Inc., United Administration Counseling Inc., and United Bookkeeping Services Inc., along with their three officers—Marinus Pieter Van Zweeden, Martin Howard Rub, and Susan Jane Bustamante. The FTC’s May 2026 complaint alleges that since at least 2022, the defendants deceptively marketed and operated a mortgage assistance relief scam, falsely promising homeowners mortgage relief under the CARES Act, in violation of the FTC Act and the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. The complaint further alleges that the defendants collected unlawful upfront fees in violation of the Mortgage Assistance Relief Services Rule.
Bureau of Consumer Protection; Consumer Protection; Online Advertising and Marketing; Privacy and Security; Consumer Privacy; Social Media
- The FTC is seeking public comment on a petition by X Corp. (f/k/a Twitter) to set aside or modify its 2022 settlement order with the FTC. X Corp.’s petition to reopen, set aside, or in the alternative modify the order argues that the order should be terminated by the end of 2026 on the grounds that the company has built a new privacy and data-protection program, that the order imposes unnecessary costs duplicative of existing domestic and international privacy frameworks, and that setting aside the order would advance First Amendment values and U.S. leadership in artificial intelligence. The public comment period runs 30 days, with comments due by July 2, 2026.
June 4
Bureau of Consumer Protection; Consumer Protection; Advertising and Marketing
- The FTC issued a report to Congress summarizing its oversight efforts related to private adoption. The fiscal year 2026 funding bill directed the Commission to continue monitoring for unfair or deceptive practices in this area and to produce a report within 120 days. In September 2024, the FTC issued warning letters to 31 intermediary companies regarding fair and honest advertising obligations and noted that the Consumer Review Fairness Act prohibits adoption intermediaries from including provisions in agreements that restrict or penalize clients for leaving negative reviews.
June 5
Bureau of Competition; Competition
- On June 5, 2026, the FTC announced that Diversity Lab LLC, a for-profit diversity, equity and inclusion consultancy, had ceased operations and filed paperwork to dissolve as a business entity following an FTC investigation. Earlier this year, the FTC opened a formal inquiry into whether agreements among law firms participating in Diversity Lab’s Mansfield Certification program were collusive in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and Section 5 of the FTC Act. Under the program, firms considered, and in some cases certified, that they had applied 30% demographic quotas based on race, gender, and other characteristics in their final employment decisions. In January 2026, FTC Chairman Ferguson issued warning letters to 42 law firms that had participated in the program.
Bureau of Consumer Protection; Consumer Protection; Privacy and Security; Consumer Privacy; Data Security
- The FTC finalized a modified order against Illuminate Education Inc. following a public comment period. The order relates to a prior FTC’s complaint, which alleged that the company’s data security failures led to a data breach affecting the personal data of 10.1 million students, including email and mailing addresses, dates of birth, student records, and health-related information. The complaint further alleged that Illuminate failed to implement reasonable security measures despite being alerted to network vulnerabilities by a third-party vendor nearly two years before the breach, and failed to notify affected schools of the breach in a timely manner. Under the finalized order, Illuminate must implement a comprehensive information security program, limit data collection and retention to what is reasonably necessary, follow a publicly available data retention schedule, delete unnecessary personal information, and notify the FTC of any data breach reported to a government agency. The order also prohibits Illuminate from misrepresenting its data security and privacy practices or breach notification timelines.
June 9
Bureau of Consumer Protection; Consumer Protection; Debt Relief; Consumer Refunds; Credit and Finance; Credit and Loans; Mortgages
- The FTC announced that it is returning nearly $3 million to consumers in connection with a prior enforcement action involving the Golden Home Services mortgage relief scheme. According to the FTC’s press release, the FTC and the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation filed the underlying federal complaint, alleging that the defendants targeted financially distressed homeowners with claims that they could obtain loan modifications, stop foreclosure proceedings, or otherwise secure meaningful mortgage relief, while charging for services that did not deliver the promised results. The FTC based its claims on Section 5 of the FTC Act and the FTC’s Mortgage Assistance Relief Services Rule, which governs deceptive representations and certain fee practices in the mortgage-assistance context. A federal court ultimately banned the operators of the mortgage relief scam from the telemarketing and debt relief businesses and required them to turn over $19 million as a result of the lawsuit.
June 10
Bureau of Competition; Competition; Merger; Health Care; Health Professional Services
- The FTC announced that it has finalized a consent order resolving competitive concerns related to Sevita Health’s acquisition of BrightSpring Health Services Inc.’s community living business. According to the FTC’s press release, the transaction raised concerns that the combination would reduce competition in markets where the parties provide overlapping healthcare and related services, in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act and Section 5 of the FTC Act.
The FTC’s concerns centered on overlapping intermediate care facilities (ICFs) in certain markets within Indiana, Louisiana, and Texas. To resolve those concerns, the final consent order requires Sevita to divest 128 ICFs in those three states to Dungarvin Group, Inc. The agency’s action reflects its continued scrutiny of healthcare transactions involving providers with competing services in the same geographic markets.
June 12
Bureau of Consumer Protection; Consumer Protection; Advertising and Marketing; Online Advertising and Marketing; Health Claims; Children; Jobs; Work-at-Home
- The FTC announced that it has filed a contempt motion against Amare Global and three individuals—Shawn Talbott, Patrick Hintze, and Hiep Tran—alleging they violated a prior court order by making unsubstantiated health-related claims. According to the FTC’s press release, the agency contends that the defendants continued to market products using claims that competent and reliable scientific evidence did not support, despite the restrictions of a 2005 order that Talbott entered into with the FTC in the Window Rock case. The FTC’s position is that this conduct violates both Section 5 of the FTC Act and the existing court order governing the defendants’ advertising practices.
The filing is another reminder that, where a company is already subject to an FTC order, the agency may pursue contempt remedies if it believes the defendants continue to engage in prohibited claims or practices.