Penalty Amount
$35,000,000
Shutterstock Inc. agreed to pay $35 million to settle FTC allegations that it charged consumers without their informed consent, failed to disclose auto-renewal and cancellation terms, and made cancellation difficult. The FTC alleged Shutterstock's subscription and on-demand pack offerings violated consumer protection laws through hidden fees and complicated cancellation processes.
Shutterstock must pay $35 million for consumer relief, is prohibited from misrepresenting subscription terms, must clearly disclose material terms, obtain express informed consent before charging, and maintain simple cancellation mechanisms for negative option features.
In-house legal teams should review vendor agreements for subscription-based services, particularly clauses related to auto-renewal, cancellation policies, and billing consent. Key areas include: ensuring clear and conspicuous disclosure of material terms (renewal, fees, cancellation) in customer-facing contracts; verifying that consent mechanisms (e.g., checkboxes, clickwrap) are express and informed; and auditing cancellation processes to ensure they are simple and not burdensome. Vendor agreements with marketing or advertising partners should also be checked for compliance with negative option rules.
Entity
Shutterstock Inc.
Industry
TechnologyOfficial Press Release
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2026/05/shutterstock-pay-35-million-settle-ftc-allegations-over-illegal-subscription-cancellation-practices
ShutterStock Complaint
https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/ShutterStock-Complaint.pdf
Shutterstock ExhibitA
https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/Shutterstock-ExhibitA.pdf
Federal Trade Commission Enforcement Page
https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement
"Shutterstock Inc."
"Shutterstock will pay $35 million"
"charging consumers for products without their informed consent and making it difficult to cancel subscriptions"
"FTC Act Section 5"
"prohibits Shutterstock from misrepresenting material terms of its subscription offerings and requires it to disclose material terms of its subscription offerings, obtain consumers’ express informed consent to charges and maintain simple cancellation mechanisms"
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.