On January 6, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit largely affirmed an FTC enforcement action under Section 5 of the FTC Act, upholding summary judgment and a permanent injunction against a corporate payments provider. The FTC alleged that the company engaged in unfair or deceptive acts or practices (UDAP) in connection with fuel card products by misrepresenting discounts and card restrictions and by charging unauthorized add-on and late fees.
The FTC's case challenged advertising and billing practices related to fuel card programs, including claims about per-gallon savings, "fuel only" purchase limitations, and the absence of transaction fees. The district court granted summary judgment on all counts against the company and entered a permanent injunction requiring express informed consent for fees, prohibiting placement of material disclosures behind hyperlinks, and mandating that disclosures be unavoidable in digital interfaces.
The Eleventh Circuit agreed that the evidentiary record supported judgment as a matter of law. The court concluded that the challenged advertising created misleading net impressions despite fine-print disclaimers and that default enrollment in fees and late-fee practices caused unavoidable consumer injury. The court also upheld the scope of the injunction as a proper exercise of equitable authority, while vacating summary judgment on one advertising count against the company's chief executive officer due to insufficient evidence of knowledge.
Putting It Into Practice: The decision highlights the risks associated with aggressive fee monetization strategies that rely on default enrollment, dense disclosures, or fine-print qualifications. Payment product providers should reassess advertising claims, consent flows, and billing disclosures, particularly for legacy customers subject to older terms.
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.
