Displaying 1 - 20 of 237
IntelliVision Technologies Corp.; Analysis of Proposed Consent Order To Aid Public Comment
Intellivision, In the Matter of
Announcing settlement with IntelliVision Technologies over allegations that the company made false claims about its AI-powered facial recognition software.
FTC Takes Action Against IntelliVision Technologies for Deceptive Claims About its Facial Recognition Software
Evolv Technologies
Announcing settlement Evolv Technologies over allegations that the company made false claims about its AI-powered security screening system
FTC Takes Action Against Evolv Technologies for Deceiving Users About its AI-Powered Security Screening Systems
Concurring Statement of Commissioner Andrew N. Ferguson in Matter of FTC v. Evolv Technologies Holdings, Inc.
DoNotPay, Inc..; Analysis of Proposed Consent Order To Aid Public Comment
Dissenting Statement of Commissioner Melissa Holyoak Joined by Commissioner Andrew N. Ferguson In the Matter of Rytr, LLC
Concurring Statement of Commissioner Andrew N. Ferguson In the Matter of DoNotPay, Inc.
FTC Announces Crackdown on Deceptive AI Claims and Schemes
Dissenting Statement of Commissioner Andrew N. Ferguson Joined by Commissioner Melissa Holyoak In the Matter of Rytr LLC
Rytr LLC, In the Matter of
According to the FTC’s complaint, Rytr’s service generated detailed reviews that contained specific, often material details that had no relation to the user’s input, and these reviews almost certainly would be false for the users who copied them and published them online. In many cases, subscribers’ AI-generated reviews featured information that would deceive potential consumers who were using the reviews to make purchasing decisions. The complaint further alleges that at least some of Rytr’s subscribers used the service to produce hundreds, and in some cases tens of thousands, of reviews potentially containing false information.
The proposed order settling the Commission’s complaint is designed to prevent Rytr from engaging in similar illegal conduct in the future. It would bar the company from advertising, promoting, marketing, or selling any service dedicated to – or promoted as – generating consumer reviews or testimonials.
Empire Holdings Group LLC, et al. FTC v.
The FTC has charged a business opportunity scheme with falsely claiming to help consumers build an “AI-powered Ecommerce Empire” by participating in its training programs that can cost almost $2,000 or by buying a “done for you” online storefront for tens of thousands of dollars. The scheme, known as Ecommerce Empire Builders (EEB), claims consumers can potentially make millions of dollars, but the FTC’s complaint alleges that those profits fail to materialize.
As a result of the FTC’s complaint, a federal court issued an order temporarily halting the scheme and putting it under the control of a receiver. The FTC’s case against the scheme is ongoing and will be decided by a federal court.
Ascend Ecom
The FTC has filed a lawsuit against an online business opportunity scheme that it alleges has falsely claimed its “cutting edge” AI-powered tools would help consumers quickly earn thousands of dollars a month in passive income by opening online storefronts. According to the complaint, the scheme has defrauded consumers of at least $25 million.
According to the FTC’s complaint, the operators of the scheme charge consumers tens of thousands of dollars to start online stores on ecommerce platforms such as Amazon, Walmart, Etsy, and TikTok, while also requiring them to spend tens of thousands more on inventory. Ascend’s advertising content claimed the company was a leader in ecommerce, using proprietary software and artificial intelligence to maximize clients’ business success.
DoNotPay
The FTC is taking action against DoNotPay, a company that claimed to offer an AI service that was “the world’s first robot lawyer,” but the product failed to live up to its lofty claims that the service could substitute for the expertise of a human lawyer.
DoNotPay has agreed to a proposed Commission order settling the charges against it. The settlement would require it to pay $193,000, provide a notice to consumers who subscribed to the service between 2021 and 2023 warning them about the limitations of law-related features on the service. The proposed order also will prohibit the company from making claims about its ability to substitute for any professional service without evidence to back it up.