Walmart has agreed to pay $100 million to settle allegations that it deceived its delivery drivers about pay, costing them tens of millions of dollars in earnings.
The case, brought by the Federal Trade Commission and 11 states, accused the retailer of misleading workers about the base pay, incentive pay and tips they could earn, the agency said in a press release on Thursday.
Walmart did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has raised concerns over allegations that Apple is censoring conservative content on the Apple News app.
In a letter to Apple CEO Tim Cook, FTC chair Andrew Ferguson cited reports from Media Research Center, a right-leaning think tank, which accused Apple of excluding right-leaning outlets from the top 20 articles in the Apple News feed.
“These reports raise serious questions about whether Apple News is acting in accordance with its terms of service and its representations to consumers […] I abhor and condemn any attempt to censor content for ideological reasons,” Ferguson’s letter reads.
Ferguson, a Big Tech critic who Trump appointed to lead the competition regulator, noted the FTC doesn’t have any powers to require Apple to take ideological or political positions when curating news, but he said that if the company’s practices are “inconsistent” its terms of service or “reasonable expectations of consumers,” they may be in violation of the FTC Act.
Brendan Carr, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (another Trump appointee critical of Big Tech), supported Ferguson’s stance, writing, “Apple has no right to suppress conservative viewpoints in violation of the FTC Act.”
Ferguson has urged Apple to conduct a “comprehensive review” of its terms of service and ensure that the content curated on Apple News is consistent with its policies, and “take corrective action swiftly” if the curation isn’t in line.
The letter comes a day after President Donald Trump shared the report by Media Research Center on his social media platform, Truth Social. Trump has repeatedly accused Big Tech companies of censoring right-leaning content, though many major platforms have rolled back several measures to curb fake news and disinformation they had imposed in the years prior to his second stint at the White House.
Techcrunch event
Boston, MA | June 23, 2026
Apple’s relationship with the Trump administration has oscillated between warm and cold over the past year. Trump has criticized Big Tech, especially Apple, for manufacturing its devices in China, but after Cook promised to spend more than $600 billion over the next four years Stateside and moved to mend fences, relations between the Administration and the company have improved. Apple also dodged planned tariffs on smartphones made overseas and imported into the U.S.
The FTC last year also launched an investigation into “censorship by tech platforms,” seeking input from the public who felt they were silenced due to their political ideologies or affiliations. “Tech firms should not be bullying their users,” Ferguson said at the time. “This inquiry will help the FTC better understand how these firms may have violated the law by silencing and intimidating Americans for speaking their minds.”
Apple did not immediately return a request for comment.
Without meaningful deterrents, Big Tech companies will do what’s profitable, regardless of the cost to consumers. But a new bipartisan bill could add a check that would make them think twice, at least in one area. On Wednesday, Senators Ruben Gallego (D-AZ) and Bernie Moreno (R-OH) introduced legislation that would require social platforms to crack down on scam ads.
The Safeguarding Consumers from Advertising Misconduct (SCAM) Act would require platforms to take reasonable steps to prevent fraudulent or deceptive ads that they profit from. If they don’t, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and state attorneys general could take civil legal action against them.
The bill’s sponsors, Ruben Gallego (L) and Bernie Moreno (Ruben Gallego (Bluesky) / Bernie Moreno)
The backdrop to the SCAM Act is a Reuters report from last November. Meta reportedly estimated that up to 10 percent of its 2024 revenue came from scam ads. The company is said to have calculated that as much as $16 billion of its revenue that year was from scams, including “fraudulent e-commerce and investment schemes, illegal online casinos and the sale of banned medical products.”
Making matters worse, Meta reportedly refused to block small fraudsters until their ads were flagged at least eight times. Meanwhile, bigger spenders were said to have accrued at least 500 strikes without being removed. Executives reportedly wrestled with how to get the problem under control — but only without affecting the company’s bottom line. At one point, managers were told not to take any action that could cost Meta more than 0.15 percent of its total revenue. (See what I mean about needing meaningful deterrents?)
According to the FTC, Americans’ estimated total loss from fraud in 2024 (adjusted for underreporting) was nearly $19 billion. An estimated $81.5 billion of that came from seniors.
“If a company is making money from running ads on their site, it has a responsibility to make sure those ads aren’t fraudulent,” Sen. Gallego said in a statement. “This bipartisan bill will hold social media companies accountable and protect consumers’ money online.”
“It is critical that we protect American consumers from deceptive ads and shameless fraudsters who make millions taking advantage of legal loopholes,” Moreno added. “We can’t sit by while social media companies have business models that knowingly enable scams that target the American people.”
Before Electronic Arts goes private in a groundbreaking sale, some US lawmakers are pleading for some federal oversight. Democratic members of the US Congress, as part of the Congressional Labor Caucus, penned a letter asking the Federal Trade Commission to “thoroughly review” the $55 billion acquisition of EA.
EA confirmed the sale to the Public Investment Fund, or the sovereign wealth fund of Saudi Arabia, Silver Lake and Affinity Partners in September, but the deal is expected to close in the first quarter of 2027. Before the official change of ownership, the 46 House Democrats who signed the letter to the FTC are calling for more scrutiny into the impacts of the deal.
The letter noted some of the most consequential effects, including the worsening of an unstable industry, the potential for more layoffs and increased market dominance for EA. “We respectfully urge the Commission to conduct a thorough investigation into the labor market consequences of this proposed acquisition, including EA’s existing wage-setting power, the likelihood of post-transaction layoffs, the degree of labor-market concentration in relevant geographic and occupational markets, and the role of cross-ownership in shaping labor outcomes,” the letter read.
The letter already earned support from the Communications Workers of America union, who also supported a petition from the United Video Games union. As spotted by Eurogamer, the petition calls on regulators and elected officials to “scrutinize this deal and ensure that any path forward protects jobs and preserves creative freedom.”
The Federal Trade Commission lost its antitrust case against Meta last year, but the regulator hasn’t given up on its attempts to punish the social media company for its acquisitions of WhatsApp and Instagram. The FTC is appealing a ruling last year in which a federal judge found that the government hadn’t proven that Meta is currently operating as a monopoly.
“Meta has maintained its dominant position and record profits for well over a decade not through legitimate competition, but by buying its most significant competitive threats,” the FTC’s Bureau of Competition Director Daniel Guarnera said in a statement. “The Trump-Vance FTC will continue fighting its historic case against Meta to ensure that competition can thrive across the country to the benefit of all Americans and U.S. businesses.”
The FTC originally filed antitrust charges against Facebook in 2020 during President Donald Trump’s first term in office. The government argued that by acquiring apps it once competed with, Instagram and WhatsApp, the company had depressed competition in the space and ultimately hurt consumers. A trial last year saw testimony from several current and former executives, including CEO Mark Zuckerberg and former COO Sheryl Sandberg, who spoke at length about the pressure to compete with TikTok.
US District Judge James Boasberg was ultimately persuaded by Meta’s arguments, writing that the success of YouTube and TikTok prevented Meta from currently “holding a monopoly” even if the company had acted monopolistically in the past. If the FTC had won, it could have tried to force Meta to undo its acquisitions of WhatsApp and Instagram. Should it be successful in its appeal, that remedy could once again be on the table.
News of the FTC’s plan to appeal is also a blow to Zuckerberg, who has spent the last year courting Trump and hyping Meta’s plans to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on AI infrastructure in the United States. In a statement, Meta spokesperson Andy Stone said that the original ruling was “correct,” and that “Meta will remain focused on innovating and investing in America.”
Talk is cheap—but Polymarket lets you put your money where your mouth is. Nearly four years after being shut down by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), the online betting company that allows you to stake money on future events has become CFTC-compliant and relaunched for U.S. residents at the end of 2025.
Not everybody is thrilled about Polymarket’s return. Commentators across the political spectrum have warned that betting, on sports or on anything, can cause financial and psychological harm, especially for those with a history of addiction. It’s prudent to abstain from speculating with money you can’t afford to lose, but Americans should still welcome Polymarket’s comeback.
Shayne Coplan, an early ethereum investor and self-described cypherpunk, founded Polymarket in June 2020, when he was just 22 years old. The platform uses blockchain-backed smart contracts to operate “event markets”—futures-style markets where users bet on whether something will or will not happen. As Coplan has said, Polymarket “harness[es] the power of free markets to demystify the real world events that matter most to you” by using market prices to aggregate and transmit widely distributed knowledge—turning individual hunches into public information about the suspected likelihood of future events.
Leading up to the 2020 presidential election, Polymarket’s monthly trading volume hit $25.9 million. Nobody can move that much money without catching the attention of the government. The CFTC launched an investigation in October 2021. By January 2022, Polymarket had settled the CFTC’s charges—facilitating event markets without registering with the CFTC—by paying a civil penalty of $1.4 million and barring U.S. residents from the platform.
During its nearly three-year U.S. hiatus, Polymarket grew into the world’s largest prediction market, facilitating over $3 billion in monthly trades by October 2025. That same month, Intercontinental Exchange announced plans to invest as much as $2 billion in Polymarket after the company acquired a CFTC-registered contract market and clearinghouse in September.
This article originally appeared in print under the headline “The Return of Polymarket.”
Instacart has agreed to refund $60 million to customers to settle allegations that the grocery shopping service engaged in deceptive marketing and billing practices, the Federal Trade Commission said Thursday.
The agency alleged in a lawsuit that Instacart charged hidden fees and refused to issue refunds, raising the cost of groceries for consumers and harming shoppers.
“Instacart misled consumers by advertising free delivery services — and then charging consumers to have groceries delivered — and failing to disclose to consumers that signed up for a free trial that they would be automatically enrolled into its subscription program,” Christopher Mufarrige, director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, said in a statement.
The FTC said Instacart’s promise of free delivery to shoppers placing an order through the platform for the first time amounted to false advertising because the offer required that they pay a “service fee” to receive their groceries.
Instacart also failed to stand behind its “100% satisfaction guarantee” because it implied that it offered full refunds for dissatisfied customers, which the company failed to provide, regulators allege. Instead, customers whose orders were late or incomplete only received a small credit to use on a future order.
Instacart denied the FTC’s allegations, telling CBS News in a statement that the company provides “straightforward marketing, transparent pricing and fees, clear terms, easy cancellation, and generous refund policies — all in full compliance with the law and exceeding industry norms.”
Additionally, Instacart charged consumers for Instacart+ subscriptions, which offer perks like free or low-cost delivery, without their consent, the FTC said.
“We flatly deny any allegations of wrongdoing by the Federal Trade Commission, and we stand firmly behind the integrity and transparency of our programs. This settlement allows us to move forward and remain focused on delivering value for our customers, shoppers, and retail and brand partners in the communities we serve,” an Instacart spokesperson said in a statement.
Under the proposed settlement, the grocery service is banned from misrepresenting its delivery service costs and satisfaction guarantees. The company must also obtain consent from shoppers before they are enrolled in any Instacart subscriptions.
Separately, the FTC this week also expressed concern after an investigation by Consumer Reports and Groundwork Collaborative, a progressive advocacy group, said the company is testing technology that can result in different consumers paying significantly different prices for the same grocery items.
Instacart told CBS News that 10 of its retail partners are testing that approach to pricing, describing such practices as a standard way stores assess customer preferences.
Amazon has started issuing payments to eligible Prime members as part of a $2.5 billion settlement over federal allegations that it misled customers.
The online retailer agreed to the payouts in September to resolve a 2023 Federal Trade Commission lawsuit that accused Amazon of misleading customers into enrolling in Prime and making it hard for them to cancel their membership.
Under the settlement, Amazon agreed to offer $1.5 billion in refunds to customers. However, the e-commerce company neither admitted nor denied the FTC’s allegations. In a statement at the time, the company said that “Amazon and our executives have always followed the law.”
Here’s what to know about the Amazon refund, including how to determine if you qualify for the payment.
When are payments going out?
Amazon is issuing settlement refunds to eligible Prime Members, starting with automatic payments issued between Nov. 12 and Dec. 24 (see below for more details on how payments are being made).
“Our settlement required Amazon to pay those people who clearly qualify without them having to do anything,” Christopher Bissex, deputy director of public affairs at the FTC, told CBS News. “So those people are getting the automatic payments.”
Prime members who don’t receive an automatic refund can submit a claim starting on Dec. 24. Those customers will receive a notice about filing a claim no later than Jan. 26, 2026, according to Bissex.
How do I know if I qualify?
Only customers who signed up for Amazon Prime between June 23, 2019, and June 23, 2025, are eligible to receive a refund.
Customers qualify for an automatic payment if they signed up for Prime or unsuccessfully tried to cancel their membership through Amazon’s “challenged enrollment flow,” defined as “any version of the Universal Prime Decision Page, the Shipping Option Select Page, Prime Video enrollment flow, or the Single Page Checkout,” according to a September court order.
The FTC also said these customers must have used no more than three “Amazon Prime Benefits” in a 12-month period.
How do I get my payment?
Eligible customers will get a refund by PayPal or Venmo, which they must accept within 15 days, according to the FTC. Those who prefer a check should ignore the PayPal or Venmo refund.
“Once you do not claim the PayPal or Venmo payment, Amazon will mail you a check to your default shipping address listed on your Prime subscription,” the FTC said on its website. “If you get a check, please cash it within 60 days.”
How much money will I receive?
Eligible Prime customers could receive up to $51, according to the FTC.
The federal government’s yearslong case to label Meta a monopoly ended on Tuesday when a federal court ruled in favor of the tech giant. The ruling sets the important precedent that the current market in which a dominant firm competes is the relevant one to consider when determining whether or not it is a monopolist.
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) first brought the lawsuit against Meta in December 2020, during the first Trump administration, alleging that the tech giant had run afoul of the Sherman Antitrust Act by monopolizing the personal social networking market through its acquisition of then-nascent Instagram and WhatsApp in 2012 and 2014, respectively. The case was dismissed in 2021, but refiled later that year. In April, Lina Khan, who served as the FTC chair when the case was refiled, said that “there’s no expiration date when it comes to the illegality of a transaction.”
On Tuesday, Judge James Boasberg of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia contradicted Khan in his decision, saying the FTC must prove Meta continues to wield monopoly power “whether or not Meta enjoyed [such] power in the past.” Citing Heraclitus’ philosophy of universal flux, Boasberg says, “while it once might have made sense to partition apps into separate markets of social networking and social media, that wall has since broken down.”
Determining whether Meta is a social networking or social media company was the critical point of contention. The FTC argued that Meta occupied the “personal social networking” (PSN) market, which comprises Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, and MeWe. (Even the FTC excluded WhatsApp from its PSN market, despite complaining about Meta’s acquisition of it.) Successfully arguing that Meta was only a social networking company would make it easier to prove that it was a monopolist. Meta argued that, as a social media company, its competitors also include TikTok and YouTube, as well as social networking platforms.
Boasberg found the FTC’s market definition to be overly narrow, and agreed with Meta that TikTok and YouTube should be considered its competitors in the social media market. Boasberg determined this to be the case based on the preponderance of controlled and natural experiments that found strong evidence of substitution between Facebook and Instagram, both of whose most popular feature is short-form video content, with TikTok and YouTube.
By this more inclusive and accurate market definition, Boasberg ruled that Meta’s “modest share cannot establish monopoly power.” Even excluding YouTube from the social media market, Boasberg found that “Meta still would not hold a monopoly.”
While Boasberg redacted market share estimates from his opinion, we can be confident that Meta’s is at or below 33 percent, given his citation of U.S. v. Aluminum Co., which found 33 percent market share insufficient for monopoly power. Boasberg noted that the Supreme Court has never found a party with less than 75 percent market share to be a monopolist.
Meta’s victory over the FTC shows that markets evolve faster than antitrust litigation moves. In this case, antitrust enforcers assumed that Meta was immune to competition and that its acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp would foreclose the social networking market to newcomers. In reality, social networking and social media have become so intertwined that, if Meta hadn’t acquired Instagram and pivoted to focus on short-form video content, it could have gotten its lunch eaten by TikTok and YouTube.
Former Federal Trade Commission chair Lina Khan says she doesn’t have any desire to run for elected office, but she sure knows how to stay on message like a politician. During her appearance on “The Adam Friedland Show,” hosted by comedian and top candidate for “Joe Rogan of the Left” Adam Friedland, she was repeatedly tested to keep the thread of her anti-monopoly, anti-corruption ideology by silly asides and a series of dick jokes. She emerged unshaken.
Early in the interview, Friedland observes that Khan, who is back in the news thanks to her role on incoming Mayor of New York Zohran Mamdani’s transition team, has a hard time lying. Shortly after, she gave a pretty perfect example of her honesty. When Friedland asked if she was a popular girl in high school, Khan said, “No, I was a newspaper editor.” Relatable.
Throughout the conversation, Khan kept an incredibly even keel. While she’d laugh at Friedland’s jokes, she’d almost immediately jump back on topic. That’s not to say she pulled her punches, though. For instance, she gave a pretty clear-eyed view of how we’re living in an era where, while history may not be directly repeating itself, it certainly seems to rhyme.
“There were a lot of factors that facilitated the rise of Nazism. The US, after World War II, actually commissioned various studies to be like ‘What just happened and what factors contributed to it?’, including trying to figure out what was happening in the economy. They did actually find that growing consolidation across the German economy had basically facilitated the rise of Nazism,” she said. “You had more monopolization in certain types of rubber and steel, and generally speaking, there’s long been a recognition that concentrated economic power can go hand-in-hand with concentrated political power. I think that’s an insight that has been lost more recently, but we’re kind of being forced to reckon with again.”
Friedland followed that exchange up by asking if, when Paramount completes its acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery, Bari Weiss will become the modern-day Joseph Goebbels, the propaganda minister of Nazi Germany. Khan laughed but didn’t respond, because she’s a pro.
Friedland did manage to get a handful of insights out of Khan that probably wouldn’t have come out in any other venue. For instance, Khan revealed that she does not have an Amazon Prime account and prefers to pick up her goods in person. He also got her to name a favorite Supreme Court justice, picking Louis Brandeis, best known for establishing the concept of the “right to privacy” and being an architect of what would become the Federal Trade Commission.
Friedland also set Khan up for some extended answers on the work that she was doing at the FTC and hopes to continue doing outside of the agency. Asked what her biggest “dub” was while serving as FTC chair, Khan answered, “We were very focused on healthcare markets because people depend on healthcare, and one of the initiatives we did was really try to figure out why are drug prices so high. One reason they’re so high is because pharma companies use all sorts of patent tricks. So we called out those pharma tricks and three of the four big manufacturers of asthma inhalers dropped the price from hundreds of dollars to just $35. So there are thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people who rely on inhalers who are paying less today.”
While Khan has a reputation as being the cop on the block for Big Tech, she really hammered the healthcare industry over the course of the interview. Asked what industry “fucks people the most,” Khan responded, “Healthcare.” When Friendland followed up by asking, “They have the most blood on their hand?” she said, “Yes.” Later, she stated plainly, “There are people who have died because they can’t afford their medicines in this country.”
She also drew a stark contrast between her approach to addressing corruption and the Trump administration’s take on it. “If you were breaking the law, but you were in a C-Suite, the government would go light on you. … I thought that was really problematic,” she said. “We were very clear that we were going to enforce the law in an even-handed way, no matter, kind of, what your political connections were. We just had to look at ‘Are you breaking the law or not?’ And I think that approach to enforcing the law upset some people.”
Meanwhile, she said the Trump administration has seen “a real backsliding” when it comes to enforcement. “They’ve also shifted gears. They allowed this big merger to go through between these two ad agencies, and one of the conditions of that was basically that they had to buy ads from Elon Musk, more or less, on his platforms under the purview that they couldn’t discriminate on political grounds,” she said. “It does seem like they are more eager to use the law to advance their political grievances.”
Friedland brought some ideas to Khan for future methods to identify corruption and collusion, should she ever end up back in the agency. For instance, he pitched her on a plan to show up to Burning Man and question executives while they’re rolling on Molly. “We didn’t have that good idea,” she said.
While Khan maintained a professional demeanor throughout the interview, she also spoke pretty plainly about what she sees happening in America today. “I think people are realizing that a lot of things that are bad in their lives are driven by corporations that are breaking the law.” Asked if those corporations are buying influence in politics, she responded, “Perhaps,” with a smile. She also said, “Taking on corporate power when they are breaking the law is very popular,” which sure seems like she’s making an observation on what might appeal to the public when it comes to these issues.
Despite that, Khan showed no real interest when asked if she had any ambitions for political office. She dismissed the idea of running for the Senate and said the Presidency was out because she wasn’t born in the US, leading Friedland to pitch her on becoming Queen of England and overseer of a flock of corgis. Still, she has ideas for how the government should operate, stating, “We do need a New Deal-style level of ambition” to address our current age of corruption.
A familiar face will be helping Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani set up his new administration before he takes office in 2026. Lina Khan, former Federal Trade Commission Chair under President Joe Biden, has been officially announced as one of Mamdani’s transition co-chairs, alongside Grace Bonilla, Maria Torres-Springer and Melanie Hartzog.
Mamdani’s platform is focused on affordability, with fighting corporate corruption a key way he hopes to lower prices for New Yorkers. Mamdani’s proposed policies include working to ban hidden fees and non-compete clauses, while funding challenges to utility company rate hikes. It’s not surprising that Khan and Mamdani would be aligned. As Chair, Khan is best known for trying to rebuild the FTC’s anti-monopolist backbone, but she was similarly interested in banning non-compete clauses and hidden junk fees. Khan has also publicly expressed her appreciation for the Mamdani campaign’s focus on small businesses in The New York Times Opinion section.
“I think what we saw last night was New Yorkers not just electing a new mayor, but clearly rejecting a politics where outsized corporate power and money too often end up dictating our politics,” Khan said at a press conference announcing her new role. “And a clear mandate for change, where New Yorkers can get ahead and where all workers and small businesses can thrive, not just get by.”
While Mamdani has served as a New York state assemblyman, his relative lack of experience has been used as a consistent criticism of his candidacy for mayor. Clearly, that didn’t matter to voters, but Mamdani’s chosen transition team members suggest he plans to surround himself with people who are experienced. In the case of Khan, that includes a transition co-chair who’s willing to be openly critical of corporate power. The Trump administration has effectively remade the FTC in its image, but there’s more than one place the influence of big businesses can be checked.
Two consumers allege that Amazon misled customers by promoting false discounts on its site during its summer Prime Day sale.
In a proposed class action lawsuit filed in September in a federal court in Washington state, plaintiffs Cathy Armstrong of California and Oluwa Fosudo of Maryland, claim that Amazon used “fictional” list prices to calculate its recent Prime Day percentage discounts, making deals appear better than they actually were.
The lawsuit details a number of examples of what plaintiffs refer to as “fake sales” during the four-day Prime Day event, which ran July 8-11.
One such example is a pair of headphones advertised by Amazon on Prime Day as being on sale for 44% off a list price of $179.95, according to the complaint. Plaintiffs, however, claim that the actual list price for the item has always been in the range of “$130 to $160,” making the 44% Prime Day discount “inflated fiction.”
“Amazon uses these fake Prime Day Percentage Discounts, offered under the extreme time pressure of the brief Prime Day window, to lure consumers to purchase products,” the court filing states.
In another example, the lawsuit mentions an 8-inch Android tablet for kids listed as “40% off,” based on a strikethrough list price of $119.99. However, in the 90 days leading up to the sale, the tablet was being offered between $50 and $85, with a median price of $72, according to the court filing. That means the supposedly time-limited Prime Day Deal of $72.18 was actually higher than the $50 price Amazon offered it for in April, and about the same price the tablet usually goes for on Amazon, the lawsuit states.
“But for Amazon’s false and misleading representations, Plaintiffs would also have shopped around for better prices in the marketplace or waited to purchase the items at a better price,” according to the complaint.
The lawyers who brought the suit on behalf of the plaintiffs declined to comment, citing the pending litigation.
They filed the proposed class action lawsuit after Popular Information, a Substack newsletter focused on corporate and political accountability, published a story calling out some of the allegedly deceptive tactics Amazon used during its Prime Day event.
Amazon declined to comment.
On its corporate website, the company calls the recent four-day sale its biggest Prime event to date, and states that customers “saved billions on deals.” The e-commerce giant held a separate Prime Day event this week from Oct. 7-8.
Amazon in September agreed to pay $2.5 billion to settle federal claims it misled customers into signing up for Prime and made it difficult for them to cancel their membership. As part of the settlement, Amazon must pay a $1 billion civil penalty — the largest ever in an FTC rule violation case.
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is suing home-search website Zillow, alleging that it paid rival Redfin $100 million to eliminate competition in the online listing business. The suit refers to a deal inked back in February between the two companies in which Redfin allegedly agreed to become “an exclusive syndicator of Zillow listings.”
The allegations suggest that Redfin began copying over listings from Zillow instead of creating its own listings, which gave Zillow much more control over the space. The suit also accuses Redfin of agreeing to end contracts with advertising customers in an alleged attempt to cede more ground to Zillow.
The FTC went on to suggest that this anti-competitive practice would lead to higher prices and worsening terms for both renters and advertisers. “This agreement is nothing more than an end run around competition that insulates Zillow from head-to-head competition on the merits with Redfin for customers advertising multifamily buildings,” the lawsuit said.
Zillow released a statement on the suit, which was published by CNN. The statement called the previous deal with Redfin “pro-competitive and pro-consumer” and noted that “our listing syndication with Redfin benefits both renters and property managers and has expanded renters’ access to multifamily listings across multiple platforms.”
Redfin also disagrees with the allegations from the FTC, saying that “by the end of 2024, it was clear that the existing number of Redfin advertising customers couldn’t justify the cost of maintaining our rentals sales force.” The company went on to suggest that “partnering with Zillow cut those costs and enabled us to invest more in rental-search innovations on Redfin, directly benefiting apartment seekers.”
The FTC further alleges that Redfin laid off hundreds of workers as part of the deal, going on to help Zillow hire some of these employees. Basically, the agency is accusing Zillow of acquiring a large part of Redfin’s business, all while hiding behind the idea of a partnership to avoid scrutiny. The FTC has asked the court to end the agreement and consider a divestiture of assets.
This isn’t the only current legal dispute that Zillow finds itself in. A real estate brokerage company called Compass issued its own lawsuit back in June, accusing Zillow of engaging in anticompetitive practices.
Federal regulators are accusing online real estate firm Zillow of paying rival Redfin $100 million to discourage competition in home rental advertising, harming both renters and property managers.
In a lawsuit filed Tuesday in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, the Federal Trade Commission alleged the companies struck an “unlawful agreement that eliminates Redfin as a competitor” in the market for placing home rental ads on so-called internet listing services, which the agency notes are widely used by consumers.
Zillow and Redfin, which both operate large real estate listing networks, in February agreed that Redfin would stop competing in the ad market for multifamily properties for nine years and help transition its customers to Zillow, the FTC alleged.
“Paying off a competitor to stop competing against you is a violation of federal antitrust laws,” Daniel Guarnera, director of the FTC’s Bureau of Competition, said in a statement. “Zillow paid millions of dollars to eliminate Redfin as an independent competitor in an already concentrated advertising market — one that’s critical for renters, property managers and the health of the overall U.S. housing market.”
In a statement to CBS news, a Zillow spokesperson said the company’s listing agreement with Redfin “benefits both renters and property managers and has expanded renters’ access to multifamily listings across multiple platforms.”
“It is pro-competitive and pro-consumer by connecting property managers to more high-intent renters so they can fill their vacancies and more renters can get home,” the spokesperson added.
A spokesperson for Redfin said the company “strongly disagrees” with the government’s allegations. “Our partnership with Zillow has given Redfin.com visitors access to more rental listings and our advertising customers access to more renters,” the spokesperson said in a statement.
Mary Cunningham is a reporter for CBS MoneyWatch. Before joining the business and finance vertical, she worked at “60 Minutes,” CBSNews.com and CBS News 24/7 as part of the CBS News Associate Program.
(CNN) — Amazon will soon have to refund some Prime members as part of a $2.5 billion settlement with the Federal Trade Commission – $1.5 billion of which will be returned directly to customers. It’s the FTC’s largest-ever settlement and the second-highest refund award in history.
The FTC said in a statement Thursday that Amazon “used sophisticated subscription traps” to trick online shoppers into enrolling in the company’s Prime services. It wrapped up a two-year dispute over the e-commerce giant allegedly manipulating consumers into signing up and then making it difficult for subscribers to cancel.
The FTC estimated that about 35 million customers were “harmed by (Amazon’s) deceptive Prime enrollment practices” and could be eligible for a refund.
Here’s what you need to know.
Who’s eligible?
Anyone who signed up for Amazon Prime or “unsuccessfully attempted to cancel” their Prime subscription in the United States between June 23, 2019, and June 23, 2025, is eligible for a share of the settlement.
How much are the refunds?
Customers who used “no more than 3 Prime Benefits” within a year of enrollment and signed up for Amazon Prime through a “challenged enrollment flow” will receive an automatic refund from Amazon. The FTC’s final order said customers eligible for the refund enrolled for Amazon Prime services viathe Universal Prime page, the shipping option select page, Prime Video, or the Amazon’s single page checkout.
Automatic payments will be issued first and within 90 days of the FTC order. Those customers will be paid back for up to the total amount of the membership fees they paid, but no more than $51.
Anyone who submits a validclaim to Amazon and is approved will also be paid up to $51.
Claims for unintentional enrollment will be paid after automatic payments are issued, for the total amount of membership fees paid (up to $51) while they had an Amazon Prime subscription.
Prime subscribers who were unable to cancel will be refunded in the next group, for the total amount of membership fees paid, up to $51.
If the remaining funds aren’t enough to refund all claimants, Amazon will refund on a “pro rata basis, taking into account the total amount” claimants were eligible to receive and the number of Prime Benefits used. As is typical with massive settlements such as this one, that pro rata arrangement means many customers will probably receive less than the maximum refund allowed by the settlement – and significantly less than the fees they paid Amazon.
How to file a claim
A website with details on the claims process and information about the settlement has not yet been made public.
When it is available, links to the website will be on amazon.com and the Amazon Prime page, or a similar page on the company’s app, according to the FTC’s final order.
The settlement says that within 30 days after Amazon finishes its automatic payments, anyone eligible to submit a claim will be notified by e-mail and mailed letters.
When is the deadline to submit a claim?
Claims eligible customers will have “up to 180 days after receiving the claims form to submit it to Amazon via electronic mail,” pre-paid mail, or the settlement website, according to the order.
How has Amazon responded?
Amazon said that the company and its executives “have always followed the law” in a Thursday statement.
“We work incredibly hard to make it clear and simple for customers to both sign up or cancel their Prime membership, and to offer substantial value for our many millions of loyal Prime members around the world. We will continue to do so, and look forward to what we’ll deliver for Prime members in the coming years,” the company added.
Amazon agreed to pay $2.5 billion to settle a Federal Trade Commission case over whether it duped customers into signing up for Prime and made it difficult for customers to cancel their membership.
As part of the settlement, announced Thursday, Amazon will provide $1.5 billion in refunds to customers that were harmed by what FTC referred to as “deceptive Prime enrollment practices.” About 35 million Prime customers who were impacted by the practices could qualify for $51 each as part of the settlement, the FTC said in legal documents.
Amazon is also required to pay a $1 billion civil penalty, the largest in any FTC rule violation case to date. The FTC said the $1.5 billion payout to customers is the second-highest restitution award in the agency’s history.
Prime customers who are eligible for the payout include those who may have signed up for a membership via the company’s “Single Page Checkout” between June 23, 2019 to June 23, 2025. Amazon must distribute the payments to all affected customers within 90 days, according to the court order.
“The evidence showed that Amazon used sophisticated subscription traps designed to manipulate consumers into enrolling in Prime, and then made it exceedingly hard for consumers to end their subscription,” FTC Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson said in a statement, adding, “Today, we are putting billions of dollars back into Americans’ pockets, and making sure Amazon never does this again.”
Amazon neither admitted nor denied the allegations in the complaint, according to the legal documents. In a statement shared with CBS News, the company said Amazon and its executives have “always followed the law” and that the settlement allows them to “move forward and focus on innovating for customers.”
In addition to offering compensation to impacted customers, the FTC said Amazon was also required to make changes to its Prime enrollment and cancellation practices, which documents showed that company executives and employees knowingly discussed. The changes included adding a “clear and conspicuous” button to its site for customers to decline a Prime membership offer.
In addition, the e-commerce giant was told to make it easier for Prime members to cancel their membership.
“The process cannot be difficult, costly, or time-consuming,” the FTC said in its statement.
A spokesperson for Amazon said in an email that the changes outlined by the FTC press “have already made, many of them years ago.”
The FTC’s efforts to make it easier for customers to cancel subscriptions extend beyond Amazon. In 2024, the commission approved a “click-to cancel rule,” which would have allowed consumers to more quickly end streaming services, gym memberships, product deliveries and other subscriptions. The rule had been set to take effect July 14, but was blocked by a federal court that month.
“We hope the FTC resurrects the click-to-cancel rules to protect millions of consumers from shady sales tactics,” said Teresa Murray, consumer watchdog director at U.S. PIRG Education Fund, a nonprofit public interest group, in en email. “In the meantime, we hope this Amazon settlement sends a strong message to any company operating in ways that could conceivably confuse customers or thwart their efforts to not be customers any more.”
Thursday’s settlement, which came two days after a jury trial kicked off in Seattle, represents the culmination of a two-year case that the FTC began in June 2023.
Amazon Prime provides subscribers with perks that include faster shipping, video streaming and discounts at Whole Foods for a fee of $139 annually, or $14.99 a month.
It’s a key and growing part of Amazon’s business, with more than 200 million members. In its latest financial report, the company reported in July that it booked more than $12 billion in net revenue for subscription services, a 12% increase from the same period last year.
That figure includes annual and monthly fees associated with Prime memberships, as well as other subscription services such as its music and e-books platforms.
In a separate case, the FTC is looking into whether Amazon has allegedly engaged in monopolistic behavior that allows it to inflate prices and suppress competition from rivals in violation of antitrust laws.
Mary Cunningham is a reporter for CBS MoneyWatch. Before joining the business and finance vertical, she worked at “60 Minutes,” CBSNews.com and CBS News 24/7 as part of the CBS News Associate Program.
Amazon will pay a record civil penalty to settle a case with the Federal Trade Commission. The agency accused Amazon of tricking consumers into signing up for a Prime membership without their consent and making it hard for customers to cancel in a lawsuit filed in 2023.
To settle the charges, Amazon has agreed to pay a $1 billion civil penalty and $1.5 billion to refund customers. The company also agreed to “ease unlawful enrollment and cancellation practices for Prime,” per the FTC.
The agency says the civil penalty is the largest ever for a case involving a breach of its rules — it had accused Amazon of violating the FTC Act and the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act. The $1.5 billion in consumer redress will provide “full relief for the estimated 35 million consumers impacted by unwanted Prime enrollment or deferred cancellation,” the FTC said. It added that this is the second-highest restitution award it has ever obtained.
Moreover, Amazon will be prohibited from using some of the dark patterns (i.e. deceptive design practices) it has employed to dissuade customers from canceling Prime memberships. For instance, the settlement precludes it from displaying a button that reads, “No, I don’t want Free Shipping” during the cancellation flow. Instead, it will have to show a “a clear and conspicuous button for customers to decline Prime,” per the terms of the settlement, which does not include an admission of guilt on Amazon’s part.
The company will also have to provide clearer information about a Prime subscription to consumers during the sign-up process. This will include details about the price, whether the subscription auto-renews and how to cancel.
“Amazon and our executives have always followed the law and this settlement allows us to move forward and focus on innovating for customers,” Amazon spokesperson Mark Blafkin said in a statement provided to Engadget. “We work incredibly hard to make it clear and simple for customers to both sign up or cancel their Prime membership, and to offer substantial value for our many millions of loyal Prime members around the world. We will continue to do so, and look forward to what we’ll deliver for Prime members in the coming years.”
Update September 25, 1:47PM ET: Added Amazon’s statement and clarified that the settlement doesn’t include an admission of guilt.
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court said Monday it will decide on reversing a 90-year precedent that has protected independent agencies from direct control by the president.
The court’s conservative majority has already upheld President Trump’s firing of Democratic appointees at the National Labor Relations Board and Merit Systems Protection Board. And in a separate order on Monday, it upheld Trump’s removal of a Democratic appointee at the Federal Trade Commission.
Those orders signal the court is likely to rule for the president and that he has the full authority to fire officials at independent agencies, even if Congress said they had fixed terms.
The only hint of doubt has focused on the Federal Reserve Board. In May, when the court upheld the firing of an NLRB official, it said its decision does not threaten the independence of the Federal Reserve.
The court described it as “a uniquely structured, quasi-private entity that follows in the distinct historical tradition of the First and Second Banks of the United States.” Trump did not share that view. He threatened to fire Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell during the summer because he had not lowered interest rates.
Trump’s lawyers sent an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court last week seeking to have Cook removed now.
Long before Trump’s presidency, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. had argued that the president has the constitutional power to control federal agencies and to hire or fire all officials who exercise significant executive authority.
But that view stands in conflict with what the court has said for more than a century. Since 1887, when Congress created the Interstate Commerce Commission to regulate railroad rates, lawmakers on Capitol Hill believed they had the authority to create independent boards and commissions.
Typically, the president would be authorized appoint officials who would serve a fixed term set by law. At times, Congress also required the boards have a mix of both Republican and Democratic appointees.
The Supreme Court unanimously upheld that understanding in a 1935 case called Humphrey’s Executor. The justices said then these officials made judicial-type decisions, and they should be shielded from direct control by the president.
That decision was a defeat for President Franklin Roosevelt who tried to fire a Republican appointee on the Federal Trade Commission.
In recent years, the chief justice and his conservative colleagues have questioned the idea that Congress can shield officials from direct control by the president.
In Monday’s order, the court said it will hear arguments in December on “whether the statutory removal protections for members of the Federal Trade Commission violate the separation of powers and, if so, whether Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, 295 U. S. 602 (1935), should be overruled.”
Justice Elena Kagan has repeatedly dissented in these cases and argued that Congress has the power to make the law and structure the government, not the president.
Joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, she objected on Monday that the court has continued to fire independent officials at Trump’s request.
“Our emergency docket should never be used, as it has been this year, to permit what our own precedent bars,” she wrote. “Still more, it should not be used, as it also has been, to transfer government authority from Congress to the President, and thus to reshape the Nation’s separation of powers.”
Amazon faces a court hearing in Seattle this week to face allegations by federal regulators that the e-commerce giant duped customers into signing up for its Prime membership while also making it difficult for them to cancel their subscriptions.
The case, announced by the Federal Trade Commission in 2023, centers on claims that Amazon engaged in what the agency said amounted to a “years-long effort” to trick millions of customers into automatically renewing their Prime subscriptions, specifically by using user-interface designs that were “manipulative, coercive or deceptive.”
When it announced legal action against Amazon two years ago, the FTC said consumers who used Amazon to make purchases were presented with numerous options to subscribe to Prime, but that it was less clear how to buy an item without signing up for a membership. In some cases, the button for Amazon users to complete their purchase did not clearly indicate that they were also agreeing to enroll in Prime, according to regulators.
The government’s lawsuit also alleges that Amazon obfuscated the process to cancel a Prime subscription by forcing customers to jump through several hoops to end their membership.
An FTC spokesperson declined to comment on the case.
Amazon denies that its practices misled consumers. An Amazon spokesperson said in an email to CBS MoneyWatch on Monday that “neither Amazon nor the individual defendants did anything wrong.”
“We remain confident that the facts will show these executives acted properly and we always put customers first,” the spokesperson added.
Jury selection in the trial is scheduled to begin Monday, followed by opening arguments and possible witness testimony on Tuesday. The trial, which is being held at the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, is expected to last up to four weeks. The outcome will be decided by a the jury.
Prime members, who pay $14.99 monthly or $139 a year, get free shipping on certain items, faster delivery times and access to Prime Video, Amazon’s streaming service, among other benefits.
In a separate suit, the FTC has also accused Amazon of engaging in illegal behavior that allows it to inflate prices and suppress competition from rivals in violation of antitrust laws. Amazon denies that its practices reduce competition and hurt consumers.
Mary Cunningham is a reporter for CBS MoneyWatch. Before joining the business and finance vertical, she worked at “60 Minutes,” CBSNews.com and CBS News 24/7 as part of the CBS News Associate Program.
DENVER — Denver7 is always looking for ways to help you shop smarter. We’ve covered the ways that shopping second-hand can help you save money. But if you’re doing that online, it can come with some risks.
We spoke with Manager of Fraud Investigations at Ent Credit Union Lynzi Crippen about red flags you should watch out for as a buyer.
“You should do your research and see what the cost of it is brand new,” she explained.
Crippen said you should compare that cost with the price you see listed. If that sale price is much lower, it’s probably too good to be true.
Spotting scams when shopping secondhand on online marketplaces
There are many reasons why a price might be lower than what is typically on the market. Crippen said it could mean a product is damaged, it’s been recalled or it’s not what’s advertised.
Crippen also suggested avoiding a deposit.
“You can’t recover that money if you’re scammed,” she said. “Unfortunately, you’re out of your money and you don’t have that product.”
If you’re selling something in an online marketplace, you’ll have to look out for scams too. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) suggests you never deposit a check for more than the selling price, and don’t share any kinds of verification codes with someone you don’t know.
In any case, Crippen suggests buying and selling locally so you can meet up with the other party in person. The buyer can take a look at the product, and the seller can make sure the payment goes through.
If you do meet in person, Crippen said you should meet in a safe public place. That could be a store, a bank, or even a police station.
Coloradans making a difference | Denver7 featured videos
Denver7 is committed to making a difference in our community by standing up for what’s right, listening, lending a helping hand and following through on promises. See that work in action, in the videos above.