Federal Trade Commission (FTC) chairman Andrew Ferguson has promised vigorous law enforcement under his leadership. Consistent with that promise, on June 10, 2025, the Commission announced a $1.9 million settlement with Florida-based Evoke Wellness and two of its corporate officers, resolving allegations that the company engaged in deceptive advertising and telemarketing practices targeting individuals seeking substance use disorder treatment.
At the heart of the FTC's complaint filed in the waning days of the Biden administration is a classic bait-and-switch: Evoke allegedly purchased Google search ads that prominently displayed the names of competing treatment centers. When consumers clicked those ads—believing they were contacting the named facility—they were routed instead to Evoke's internal call centers. According to the Commission, the representatives answering those calls were trained to reinforce the deception, often falsely stating that they were calling from or affiliated with the facility the consumer had originally searched for.
The FTC's complaint alleged violations of both the FTC Act and the Opioid Addiction Recovery Fraud Prevention Act of 2018 (OARFPA). This settlement signals OARFPA remains a tool the Ferguson-led FTC is prepared to use.
The proposed order resolves the FTC's complaint and was voted on unanimously by the Commission 3-0. In addition to the stiff monetary component of the settlement, which includes a partially suspended $7.5 million judgment (reduced to $1.9 million based on defendants' inability to pay), the stipulated order imposes broad injunctive relief.
Evoke and its principals are now permanently prohibited from misrepresenting any affiliation with other treatment centers or third parties and from using competitors' names in a misleading way in advertisements. The order also requires the implementation of a comprehensive compliance monitoring program, with specific obligations for overseeing call center practices and disciplining employees who deviate from approved scripts.
For advertisers and marketers in the healthcare space, this case highlights a few key lessons. First, while federal courts in Lanham Act cases have established that it's usually permissible to bid on a competitor's brand name in search ads, the FTC signals here that doing it in a way that actually misleads consumers about who's behind the ad—especially if combined with false claims—can easily become deceptive and illegal. Second, advertisers aren't just responsible for the content of their ads; they're also on the hook for what's said in call centers and other consumer interactions. The FTC's attention to scripts and agent training serves as a clear reminder: every step of the marketing process needs to be carefully reviewed for compliance.
As the FTC continues to pursue cases involving high-risk industries and sensitive sectors, marketers and their counsel should proactively audit their advertising and intake practices for potential red flags, particularly where third-party lead generation, brand name bidding, or affiliate marketing is involved.
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.
