New: a trial court in 1 of every 10 U.S. counties. Read the post
Court Rules
All enforcement actions
Enforcement ActionCritical Risk

Court Orders Operator of Timeshare Exit Scheme to Pay $140 Million Related to FTC Allegations the Scheme Took Millions from Consumers

Christopher CarrollApril 20, 2026Federal Trade Commission

Penalty Amount

$140,000,000

Summary

Following an FTC investigation, a federal court granted summary judgment against timeshare exit scheme operator Christopher Carroll, ordering him to pay $140 million total ($95 million in consumer redress, $45 million civil penalty) for defrauding consumers out of over $90 million. The scheme used deceptive direct mail and in-person pitches, falsely claimed affiliation with timeshare companies, failed to provide refunds, and violated the FTC’s Cooling-Off Rule by forcing consumers to sign non-cancellable contracts. Carroll is also permanently banned from marketing timeshare exit services or engaging in deceptive door-to-door sales.

Remedy

The court ordered Christopher Carroll to pay $140 million total, consisting of $95 million in redress to consumers and a $45 million civil penalty. Carroll is permanently banned from advertising, marketing, promoting, or offering any timeshare exit services, engaging in deceptive door-to-door sales, or other deceptive conduct outlined in the complaint. The order also imposes a permanent injunction barring the specified deceptive practices.

Monetary PenaltyConsumer RefundsInjunctionBan

Contract Impact

In-house legal teams, particularly those in the real estate or timeshare industries, should review customer-facing and consumer contracts to ensure full compliance with the FTC Cooling-Off Rule, including explicit three-business-day cancellation rights for door-to-door sales. Marketing vendor agreements and sales presentation contracts must be audited to prohibit deceptive claims such as false affiliation with third-party timeshare companies, undisclosed exorbitant fees, and unenforceable non-cancellation clauses. Refund policy clauses should be clear, enforceable, and honored in practice, while all consumer contracts should include representations and warranties against deceptive practices and indemnification provisions for FTC rule violations. Companies using direct mail or in-person sales pitches should also review advertising vendor agreements to align with truth-in-advertising standards.

Contract Search Terms

Cooling-Off Rule compliancecontract cancellation clauserefund policydeceptive marketing representationsdoor-to-door sales termsfalse affiliation clausetimeshare service agreement

Laws Cited

FTC Cooling-Off Rule

Violation Types

Entity Details

Entity

Christopher Carroll

Industry

Real Estate

Official Sources

Source Evidence

Entity Name
"Christopher Carroll"
Fine Amount
"$140 million"
Laws Cited
"FTC’s Cooling-Off Rule"
Violation Types
"falsely claiming to be associated with timeshare companies; falsely telling consumers that they couldn’t exit a timeshare without paying the defendants’ exorbitant fees; failing to provide promised refunds; and forcing consumers to sign contracts that they were told they couldn’t cancel in violation of the FTC’s Cooling-Off Rule"
Remedy Types
"permanently bans Carroll from advertising, marketing, promoting, or offering for sale any timeshare exit service; from engaging in any deceptive door-to-door sales; and from engaging in other deceptive and misleading conduct"

Related Enforcement Actions

FTC

REPS & Company Inc.

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.

FTC

Digital Forensics Corporation LLC

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.

FTC

Greenway Auto Group

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.

FTC

24 healthcare services companies (not individually named)

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.

FTC

Premier Franchising Group LLC and Franchise Fastlane LLC

$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.

FTC

Lens.com Inc.

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.