Consumers Affected
6,205
The FTC alleged that GOAT failed to ship some priority-processing orders as promised and did not offer customers the required option to accept a delay or cancel for a prompt refund. It also alleged that GOAT failed to honor its Buyer Protection refund policy; under the settlement, the company provided direct refunds and the FTC is sending additional redress payments to 6,205 customers.
GOAT directly refunded more than $736,000 to affected customers in 2025. The FTC is now sending checks or PayPal payments to 6,205 additional customers; the release says the redress payments total more than $100,000.
Review customer terms, marketplace seller agreements, and logistics/vendor contracts for enforceable shipping deadlines, prompt notice when an order will be delayed, and customers’ ability to cancel for a prompt refund. Confirm that refund and buyer-protection promises are supported by operational procedures, apply to products that are inauthentic, incorrect, or not as described, and do not permit substitution of partial refunds or store credit where a full refund is promised. Vendor agreements should allocate responsibility for shipment tracking, delay reporting, refund processing, complaint handling, and records needed to demonstrate compliance.
Entity
GOAT USA, Inc.
Industry
Retail"online marketplace GOAT"
"FTC’s Mail, Internet or Telephone Order Merchandise Rule"
"failed to mail some priority processing orders as fast as promised and did not offer buyers the option of agreeing to the delay or cancelling the order and receiving a prompt refund"
"the company frequently denied those refund requests, only provided partial refunds or issued in-store credits."
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.