Consumer fraud case where the FTC sued JustAnswer LLC for deceiving consumers into enrolling in a costly recurring monthly subscription by falsely claiming low one-time fees. The company did not obtain affirmative consent or clearly disclose subscription terms, violating ROSCA and the FTC Act. The FTC seeks an injunction, consumer refunds, and civil penalties.
The FTC seeks an injunction to stop the deceptive practices, consumer refunds for those harmed, and civil penalties against JustAnswer and its CEO.
In-house legal teams should review all customer-facing agreements, particularly those for subscription-based services or 'free trial' offers. Focus on clauses governing billing, payment terms, automatic renewals, and cancellation. Specifically examine whether the agreement requires an unambiguous, affirmative act (e.g., checking a box) to consent to a recurring subscription, and whether the total cost and recurring nature of the charge are disclosed clearly and conspicuously before payment. Contracts may need revision to ensure the initial offer price is not misleadingly presented as a one-time fee when a subscription is the default, and to implement a simple, accessible cancellation mechanism that aligns with ROSCA's requirements.
Entity
JustAnswer LLC
Also known as: JustAnswer
Industry
TechnologyOfficial Press Release
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2026/01/ftc-sues-justanswer-deceiving-consumers-enrolling-costly-recurring-monthly-subscription
JustAnswerComplaint FILED
https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/JustAnswerComplaint_FILED.pdf
Federal Trade Commission Enforcement Page
https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement
"JustAnswer LLC"
"violates ROSCA and the FTC Act."
"without obtaining consumers’ affirmative consent"
"does not disclose the terms clearly and conspicuously"
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.