Skip to main content

$1.2 Million in Refunds to Consumers Harmed by Deceptive Investment Claims by Wealthpress



The Federal Trade Commission is sending $1.2 million in refunds to consumers who paid for the advice of supposed experts based on deceptive claims of substantial investment profits.

The FTC sued Wealthpress in January 2023 along with two of its owners, Roger Scott and Conor Lynch, alleging that the company used deceptive claims of likely profits to sell consumers investment advising services—often touting that the services’ recommendations were based on a specific “algorithm” or “strategy” created by a purported expert. The company charged consumers hundreds or even thousands of dollars for access to these services but could not show that services they offered purchasers were likely to reap substantial profits. Indeed, many consumers lost substantial amounts of money in attempting to follow the services’ advice.

The defendants in the case agreed to a settlement that required them to pay more than $1.2 million in monetary relief along with $500,000 in civil penalties. The settlement also prohibits them from making any claims about earnings without having written evidence to back those claims up.

The FTC is sending payments to 19,857 consumers. Most consumers will get a check in the mail. Recipients should cash their checks within 90 days, as indicated on the check. Eligible consumers who did not have an address on file will receive a PayPal payment, which should be redeemed within 30 days.

Popular posts from this blog

More Than $5 Million in Refunds to Consumers Harmed by Bogus Credit Repair Scheme

  The Federal Trade Commission is sending more than $5 million in refunds to consumers harmed by a deceptive credit card debt relief scheme known as ACRO Services. The FTC filed a lawsuit  in November 2022  against ACRO Services, which operated under multiple names such as American Consumer Rights Organization, Consumer Protection Resources, Reliance Solutions, Thacker & Associates, and Tri Star Consumer Group. The complaint charged the company and its owners with running a deceptive telemarketing operation that made numerous phony debt relief promises to consumers, including that they could greatly reduce or eliminate consumers’ credit card debt in 12 to 18 months. They charged consumers thousands of dollars in unlawful upfront enrollment fees and told them it was part of the debt that will be eliminated as part of the program. Consumers were also charged monthly fees ranging from $20-$35 for “credit monitoring” services. The individual defendants agreed to a se...

Williams-Sonoma Will Pay Record $3.17 Million Civil Penalty for Deceptive use of Made in the USA

  Home products company Williams-Sonoma will be required to pay a record civil penalty of $3.175 million for violating a 2020 Federal Trade Commission order requiring the retailer to tell the truth about whether the products it sells are Made in USA. In a  complaint   filed by the Department of Justice upon notification and referral from the FTC, the agency charges that Williams-Sonoma listed multiple products for sale as being “Made in USA” when in fact they were made in China and other countries. The company  has agreed to a settlement   that requires them to pay the civil penalty, which is the largest ever in a Made in USA case. “Williams-Sonoma claimed its products were made in the United States even though they were made in China,” said FTC Chair Lina M. Khan. “Williams-Sonoma’s deception misled consumers and harmed honest American businesses. Today’s record-setting civil penalty makes clear that firms committing Made-in-USA fraud will not get a free pass.”...

Adobe used hidden fee to trap people into paying for subscription plans

Maybe you want to try out a product for a little while before you make a long-term decision. So, you sign up for a monthly subscription plan. Everything is fine until you want to cancel and it turns out to be a yearly subscription with monthly payments. Surprise! That’s what the FTC says happened to people who signed up for monthly subscriptions with Adobe. When people signed up on Adobe’s website for access to its software, the FTC says Adobe pre-selected the option for its “annual paid monthly” plan that put subscribers on the hook for a whole year of payments, paid in monthly increments — a fact that Adobe failed to explain or properly disclose. The lawsuit says Adobe used similar tactics when people signed up for a free trial and didn’t cancel before the trial ended. Adobe automatically placed them on the “annual paid monthly” plan without making it clear they were entering a one-year contract. When people tried to cancel before the year was up, they had to pay a hefty early te...