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.
The FTC issued warning letters (corrective notices) to the 12 companies, requiring immediate compliance with TIDA, including implementing a process for victims to request removal of nonconsensual intimate images and removing such content within 48 hours of a valid request. No monetary penalties or other remedies are imposed at this time, but noncompliance may lead to future enforcement actions with civil penalties up to $53,088 per violation.
In-house legal teams should review platform terms of service, vendor agreements with content moderation and AI tool providers, and user data processing agreements to ensure compliance with the TAKE IT DOWN Act. Key clauses to audit include content takedown procedures (mandating 48-hour removal of nonconsensual intimate images), user-facing mechanisms for submitting removal requests, consent verification processes for intimate imagery, and prohibitions on hosting or generating nonconsensual intimate content (including nudify tools). Teams should also update vendor contracts to require TIDA compliance, impose penalties for noncompliance, and ensure employee training clauses cover proper handling of removal requests and identification of nonconsensual intimate images.
Entity
12 Unnamed Nudify Tool Providers
Industry
Technology"12 companies that offer so-called “nudify” tools"
"TAKE IT DOWN Act (TIDA)"
"failing to provide individuals with a process through which victims can request the removal of nonconsensual intimate images appearing on their platforms"
"May 20, 2026"
"sent warning letters today"
"warning letters"
The FTC referred a complaint against REPS & Company Inc. and company executives, alleging they bypassed ticket-issuer security controls and purchasing limits to acquire millions of tickets for resale. The complaint was filed by the Department of Justice, and the case will be decided by the court; the press release does not report a penalty or other remedy imposed.
The FTC sued Digital Forensics Corporation LLC and affiliated defendants, alleging they misled sextortion victims with promises of investigative and monitoring services that often were not provided, and used fake positive reviews. A federal court granted the FTC’s request to temporarily halt the defendants’ activities; the complaint remains for the court to decide.
The FTC alleged that Greenway Auto Group advertised vehicle prices thousands of dollars below the amounts consumers actually paid and used mailers falsely suggesting recipients had won cash prizes. Greenway agreed to an order requiring transparent pricing and prohibiting deceptive prize mailers and other misrepresentations; the press release does not state a monetary penalty.
The FTC sent warning letters to 24 large healthcare services companies, cautioning that incomplete, inaccurate, or untimely pricing information for scheduled medical care may be unfair or deceptive. The letters urge recipients to review their price-disclosure practices and take corrective action; they announce no fine or formal order.
$1.9M
The FTC alleged that Premier Franchising Group LLC and Franchise Fastlane LLC made deceptive and unsubstantiated claims about the Premier Martial Arts franchise opportunity and violated the Franchise Rule. The proposed settlements require the companies to pay a combined $1.85 million to compensate franchisees, prohibit certain misrepresentations, and require Franchise Rule compliance; certain franchisees may also cancel their agreements without penalty.
The FTC, Utah, and Nevada sued Lens.com Inc., alleging that it advertised artificially low contact lens prices while hiding mandatory checkout charges and misleading consumers about its AutoRefill subscription. The complaint seeks to stop the alleged practices; the court has not yet decided the case, and no penalty or remedy has been imposed.