ARTICLE
26 January 2024

FTC Settles With Cash-Advance Fintech For Alleged Deceptive And Discriminatory Practices

SM
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton

Contributor

Sheppard Mullin is a full service Global 100 firm with over 1,000 attorneys in 16 offices located in the United States, Europe and Asia. Since 1927, companies have turned to Sheppard Mullin to handle corporate and technology matters, high stakes litigation and complex financial transactions. In the US, the firm’s clients include more than half of the Fortune 100.
On January 23, the FTC entered into a settlement agreement with a cash-advance fintech app for $3 million over violations of the FTC Act, the Restore Online Shoppers' Confidence Act (ROSCA), and ECOA.
United States Technology
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

Listen to this post

On January 23, the FTC entered into a settlement agreement with a cash-advance fintech app for $3 million over violations of the FTC Act, the Restore Online Shoppers' Confidence Act (ROSCA), and ECOA.

The FTC's complaint alleges that the company and its founders lured consumers into paying $1.99 to download its app based on the promise that consumers could then access up to $50 in cash advances immediately as part of their membership. Despite these claims, when consumers signed up, they were only able to access $20 in advances and were charged a $4 fee to receive that amount "instantly." The complaint also charges that the company used "dark patterns and other tricks" to make it difficult for customers to cancel their subscriptions.

The company was also charged with illegally discriminating against consumers who receive public assistance. The FTC alleges that the company failed to consider any income received through a public assistance program in determining whether a consumer was eligible to receive an advance, and it declined advances to consumers whose income came from public assistance. Despite this, the company still charged these consumers for its monthly subscription fee, even though they could not receive the services offered by it.

The settlement agreement requires the company and its co-founders pay $3 million to the FTC to be used to provide refunds to consumers. It also prohibits them from deceiving consumers about their products, requires them to get consumers' express, informed consent for charges, and provide an easy method for cancellation. The order also prohibits the defendants from deploying discriminatory practices and requires them to enact a fair lending program.

Putting it into Practice: As we have previously reported, this settlement illustrates an issue that the FTC is working to eradicate: the use of dark pattern techniques to manipulate consumer activity through confusing and misleading cancellation processes (see our previous blog posts here, here, here, and here, as well as our webinar titled "Who Turned Out the Lights?: FTC Steps Up 'Dark Patterns' Enforcement of Retailers" on this topic). Companies that utilize subscriptions, especially those that operate with negative renewal or negative option plans, should ensure that they are providing clear disclosures to consumers wishing to alter or cancel their services.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More