Penalty Amount
$52,900,000
The FTC filed a motion in federal court seeking to hold payment processor Cliq, Inc. and its operators in contempt for systematically violating a 2015 consent order. The defendants are accused of processing payments for high-risk and prohibited merchants, failing to screen for deceptive practices, and facilitating fraud avoidance tactics. The FTC is requesting at least $52.9 million in consumer relief, a permanent ban on the individuals from payment processing, and appointment of a receiver.
The FTC seeks compensatory relief of at least $52.9 million for consumers, a permanent ban on Andrew Phillips and John Blaugrund from the payment processing business, modification of the 2015 order, and appointment of a receiver to oversee Cliq's compliance.
In-house legal teams should review all vendor agreements with payment processors and customer/merchant agreements for clauses related to compliance with consent orders, fraud prevention, and merchant screening. Specifically, examine representations and warranties regarding lawful processing, obligations to implement and maintain fraud detection and transaction monitoring systems, requirements to maintain and adhere to a prohibited merchant list, and audit/cooperation clauses. Given the allegations of processing for high-risk/prohibited merchants and ignoring red flags, contracts may need amendments to include stricter underwriting standards, mandatory real-time screening against updated prohibited lists, enhanced reporting obligations, and clear termination rights for non-compliance with regulatory orders.
Entity
Cliq, Inc., Andrew Phillips, John Blaugrund
Also known as: Cliq
Industry
Financial ServicesOfficial Press Release
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2026/01/ftc-asks-court-hold-payment-processors-contempt-systematically-violating-2015-order
CardFlexMotionContempt
https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/CardFlexMotionContempt.pdf
payment processors involved i works scheme settle ftc charge
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2015/03/payment-processors-involved-i-works-scheme-settle-ftc-charges
ftc charges payment processors involved i works scheme
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2014/08/ftc-charges-payment-processors-involved-i-works-scheme
Federal Trade Commission Enforcement Page
https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement
"Cliq, Inc., formerly Cardflex, Inc., along with its operators, CEO Andrew Phillips and Chief Technology and Security Officer John Blaugrund"
"seeking at least $52.9 million in relief for consumers"
"violating their 2015 order with the agency"
"Processing hundreds of millions of dollars in payments for at least three clients on Mastercard’s Member Alert To Control High (MATCH) list"
"Failing to monitor high-risk clients’ sales and transactional activity to determine whether their businesses are engaged in practices that are deceptive"
The FTC, Utah, and Nevada sued Lens.com Inc., alleging that it advertised artificially low contact lens prices while hiding mandatory checkout charges and misleading consumers about its AutoRefill subscription. The complaint seeks to stop the alleged practices; the court has not yet decided the case, and no penalty or remedy has been imposed.
The FTC issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking seeking public comment on whether ad-optimization tools offered by online platforms may help scammers impersonate businesses and government agencies. This is a proposed regulatory inquiry, not an enforcement action against a named company; no penalty or remedy was imposed.
$2.5B
A federal court approved a revised order in the FTC's Amazon Prime case under which Amazon will accelerate and expand redress payments under the September 2025 $2.5 billion settlement, which resolved allegations that Amazon enrolled millions of consumers in Prime subscriptions without their consent and knowingly made cancellation difficult. More consumers now qualify for refunds, the maximum payment cap rises from $51 to $200, and all future payments will be distributed automatically starting October 1, 2026, with potential supplemental $149 payments by April 2027. Amazon has already issued more than $845 million in redress payments as of September 2026.
$225.0M
The FTC and the state of Washington filed a joint complaint and proposed stipulated order requiring Amway Corp. and two affiliates—World Wide Group, L.L.C. (WWG) and Leadership Team Development Inc. (LTD)—to pay a $225 million judgment, the largest monetary recovery ever obtained from an MLM in an FTC action, over allegations that they used deceptive earnings claims and unfair tactics to recruit Independent Business Owners. The complaint alleges the companies falsely promised substantial income and recruitment success, pressured IBOs to buy products they could not resell, and instructed IBOs to falsely report sales. Nearly all of the judgment will be used as redress for IBOs who lost money, and the proposed order imposes structural reforms including a 70% resale requirement, independent audits of sales records, and a ban on approved providers charging new IBOs for first-year training.
$100.0M
FleetCor Technologies Inc. (now Corpay Inc.) and its CEO Ronald Clarke agreed to pay $100 million to settle an FTC administrative action alleging the company charged small business customers hidden and unauthorized fees for fuel cards and misrepresented gas savings, fraud-control features, and fees. A federal district court granted the FTC summary judgment on all counts in 2023, and a federal appeals court upheld that judgment and the permanent injunction in 2026. The settlement funds will be used to provide redress to harmed business customers.
FTC staff published FAQs on price transparency to help the automobile industry comply with the FTC Act, reiterating that an advertised vehicle price must be the actual price any consumer can pay, excluding only government-required charges. The guidance follows warning letters the FTC sent to 97 auto dealership groups earlier in 2026 and signals continued litigation against dealers that advertise one price but charge more through undisclosed fees. No specific entity was charged and no penalty was imposed.