Federal Trade Commission

Sept. 26 (UPI) — Amazon has reached a $2.5 billion settlement with the Federal Trade Commission that is raising concerns from Democrats who say the tech giant was given a slap on the wrist.

The FTC announced the settlement Thursday in a case that was brought against Amazon in June 2023 during the Biden administration.

The settlement resolves allegations that Amazon misled millions of Americans to enroll in its Prime subscription via deceptive user interfaces and then made it difficult for them to cancel.

The announcement was made days after the trial began. The agreement requires approval by a district judge before it can go into effect.

“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 Chair Andrew Ferguson said in a statement.

“Today, we are putting billions of dollars back into Americans’ pockets, and making sure Amazon never does this again.”

Amazon, however, claims it did nothing wrong, and the settlement makes this issue no longer a distraction.

“Amazon and our executives have always followed the law and this settlement allows us to move forward and focus on innovating for customers,” it said in a statement.

“We work incredibly hard to make it clear and simple for consumers 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.”

Under the agreement, Amazon will pay a $1 billion civil penalty, which the FTC said was the largest ever in an FTC rule-violation case, as well as refund $1.5 billion to consumers, the second-highest restitution award obtained by the FTC.

Despite the agreement’s benchmark, Democrats are saying the monetary compensation is not enough as Prime aided Amazon in generating $11.7 billion in subscription services in the first quarter of this year alone. It also does not hold executives accountable, they said.

“The Trump administration’s settlement fails to hold Amazon executives accountable for their actions,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., said in a statement.

“This fine is less than 1% of Amazon’s revenue last year — it’s effectively a slap on the wrist.”

Lina Khan, the former FTC chairwoman, who brought the case against Amazon, described the settlement as “rescuing” Amazon from being found liabel in the trial and allowing it “to pay its way out.”

“A $2.5 billion fine is a drop in the bucket for Amazon and, no doubt, a big relief for the executives who knowingly harmed their customers,” she said in a statement.

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, 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 it decision does not threaten the independence of 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.

And he is now seeking to fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, a Biden appointee, based on the allegation she may have committed mortgage fraud when she took out two home loans in 2021.

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 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.”

Sept. 8 (UPI) — Whaleco Inc., operating as Temu, has been ordered by a federal court to pay a $2 million civil fine for violating federal law regarding its online marketplace, the U.S. Department of Justice said Monday.

The private U.S.-registered company, which mainly sells products from China, had the most downloaded app in the United States in 2024, according to Business of Apps. The company also sells products to customers in 90 countries.

DOJ and the Federal Trade Commission filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts alleging Temu didn’t sufficiently disclose certain information for high-volume third-party sellers, including addresses, or provide consistent reporting methods as required by law. This included consumers’ ability to electronically and telephonically report suspicious activity to the marketplace.

The agencies said they violated the INFORM Consumers Act.

“The Justice Department is committed to ensuring American consumers have information about third-party sellers online and mechanisms to report suspicious marketplace behavior,” Assistant Attorney General Brett A. Shumate of DOJ’s Civil Division said in a statement. “The Department will continue to ensure that online marketplaces follow the INFORM Consumers Act.”

Temu also was ordered to ensure compliance with the INFORM Consumers Act in the future.

Temu, which means “Team Up, Price Down,” was founded as Whaleco Inc. in Boston in 2022.

It is a subsidiary of PDD Holdings, a Chinese online retailer owned by Colin Huang. PDD Holdings also owns Pinduoduo, an online commerce platform in China.

In July, the European Commission charged Temu with breaking the EU’s Digital Services Act by failing to prevent the sale of usnafe products that violate its standards.

In an analysis, the European Commission found that shopping on Temu carries a high risk of finding unsafe products, such as small toys and small electronics.

In the EU, companies can be fined up to 6% of their annual total worldwide turnover.

Temu, with an estimated annual revenue of $53.9 billion in 2024, competes with Amazon, the No. 1 online retailer in the world with $391.4 billion in revenue last year.

“Temu is committed to bringing affordable products onto its platform to enable consumers and merchandise partners to fulfill their dreams in an inclusive environment,” the company said on its website.

Temu and another online retailer, Shein, have been hit by tariffs imposed on imports into the United States.

“Due to recent changes in global trade rules and tariffs, our operating expenses have gone up. To keep offering the products you love without compromising on quality, we will be making price adjustment starting April 25, 2025,” Temu said in a statement to U.S. shoppers.

That was in late April when there was a 145% duty on Chinese imports. The Trump administration has since lowered them temporarily to 10%. The pause is until Nov. 10.

WASHINGTON — Chief Justice John Roberts on Monday let President Trump remove a member of the Federal Trade Commission, the latest in a string of high-profile firings allowed for now by Supreme Court.

Trump first moved to fire Rebecca Slaughter in the spring, but she sued and lower courts ordered her reinstated because the law allows commissioners to be removed only for problems like misconduct or neglect of duty.

Roberts halted those decisions in a brief order, responding to an appeal from the Trump administration on the court’s emergency docket.

The Justice Department has argued that the FTC and other executive branch agencies are under Trump’s control and the Republican president is free to remove commissioners without cause.

Slaughter’s lawsuit over her firing will keep playing out, as Roberts asked her lawyers to respond to the Trump administration’s arguments by next week.

The court has previously allowed the firings of several other board members of independent agencies. It has suggested, however, that his power to fire has limitations at the Federal Reserve, a prospect that could soon be tested with the case of Fed Gov. Lisa Cook.

Monday’s order is the latest sign that the Supreme Court’s conservative majority has effectively abandoned a 90-year-old high court precedent that protected some federal agencies from arbitrary presidential action.

In the 1935 decision known as Humphrey’s Executor, the court unanimously held that presidents cannot fire independent board members without cause.

The decision ushered in an era of powerful independent federal agencies charged with regulating labor relations, employment discrimination, the airwaves and much else. But it has long rankled conservative legal theorists who argue the modern administrative state gets the Constitution all wrong because such agencies should answer to the president.

The agency at the center of the case was also the FTC, a point cited by lower-court judges in the lawsuit filed by Slaughter. She has ping-ponged in and out of the job as the case worked its way through the courts.

The FTC is a regulator created by Congress that enforces consumer protection measures and antitrust legislation. Its seats are typically comprised of three members of the president’s party and two from the opposing party.

Whitehurst writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Mark Sherman contributed to this report.

Federal Trade Commission Commissioners Rebecca Kelly Slaughter (L) and FTC Commissioner Alvaro Bedoya (R) listen as Chair of the Federal Trade Commission Lina Khan testifies before the House Judiciary Committee in a hearing on “Oversight of the Federal Trade Commission on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., in 2023. File Photo by Ken Cedeno/UPI | License Photo

Sept. 4 (UPI) — The Justice Department has asked the Supreme Court to allow President Donald Trump to fire a member of the Federal Trade Commission without cause, a direct challenge to a 90-year-old precedent that limits political influence on such agencies.

Trump attempted to fire to Democratic commissioners, Rebecca Kelly Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya in March. Both challenged the move, but Bedoya later dropped out of the case.

Solicitor General John D. Sauer said in the most recent court filing that the commission has more power now than it did at its inception, implying support for Trump’s ability to fire Slaughter by exercising his presidential authority under Article 2 of the Constitution.

“In this case, the lower courts have once again ordered the reinstatement of a high-level officer wielding substantial executive authority whom the President has determined should not exercise any executive power, let alone significant rulemaking and enforcement powers,” Sauer wrote.

Sauer asked the high court to expedite the case, sidestepping any more action by lower courts.

Slaughter remains listed as an active commissioner on the FTC’s website.

This move is the latest in a series of efforts by Trump to remove members of other independent federal agencies, which the Supreme Court has approved.

A 1914 law that established the agency said members of independent commission can only be removed from “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.”

Slaughter was appointed to the commission in 2018. Bedoya was originally appointed by Trump the same year. President Joe Biden re-appointed her in 2024.

July 18 (UPI) — Chevron, one of the world’s leading energy companies, completed its $53 billion acquisition of Hess after all legal hurdles were cleared, including the company’s vast oil fields off the coast of Guyana.

The deal involving the two public companies was originally announced on Oct. 23, 2023.

Chevron, headquartered in Houston, received a favorable arbitration ruling from the International Chamber of Commerce, denying Exxon Mobil’s claim of a right of first refusal over Hess’ assets in the Stabrock Block, an oil development site off Guyana adjacent to Brazil and Venezuela in South America.

Hess, headquartered in New York, has a 30% stake in the oil reserve. Exxon leads the project with 45%. China National Oil Corp., which also challenged the acquisition, has 25% stake.

“We disagree with the ICC panel’s interpretation but respect the arbitration and dispute resolution process,” Exxon said in a statement to CNBC after the ruling. “We welcome Chevron to the venture and look forward to continued industry-leading performance and value creation in Guyana for all parties involved.”

Chevron Chairman and CEO Mike Wirth said in a statement: “This merger of two great American companies brings together the best in the industry. The combination enhances and extends our growth profile well into the next decade, which we believe will drive greater long-term value to shareholders.”

Also on Friday, the Federal Trade Commission cleared CEO John Hess to join Chevron’s Board of Directors, pending board approval.

“I’m pleased with the FTC’s unanimous decision,” Wirth said. “John is a respected industry leader, and our board would benefit from his experience, relationships and expertise.”

John Hess said: “We are proud of everyone at Hess for building one of the industry’s best growth portfolios, including Guyana, the world’s largest oil discovery in the last 10 years, and the Bakken shale, where we are a leading oil and gas producer. The strategic combination of Chevron and Hess creates a premier energy company positioned for the future.”

Chevron already is the leader in reserves worldwide.

The company has 463,000 acres off high-quality inventory in Bakken in North Dakota, Montana and Canada, as well of 31,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day in the Gulf of Mexico/America and gas assets in Southeast Asia with 57,000 barrels per day. Chevron also has assets in the Permian Basin in West Texas/southeastern New Mexico, DJ Basin in northeastern Colorado/southeastern Wyoming, Eastern Mediterranean, Kazakhstan and Australia.

“This accretive transaction is expected to drive significant free cash flow and production growth into the 2030s,” Chief Financial Officer Eimear Bonner said. “We are quickly integrating our two companies and expect to achieve $1 billion in annual run-rate cost synergies by the end of 2025. All of this should enable even higher returns to shareholders over the long-term.”

Hess shareholders will receive 1.0250 shares of each Chevron share.

The combined company’s capital expenditures budget is projected to be between $19 billions and $22 billion, Chevron said.

Chevron’s stock price was down 0.95% to 149.94 a few hours before closing on the New York Stock Exchange. Hess stock was halted on Friday due to the sale.

Chevron produces crude oil and natural gas; manufactures transportation fuels, lubricants, petrochemicals and additives; and develops technologies.

Chevron is a descendant of Standard Oil that broke away in 1911 and merged with Texaco in 2001. Exxon Mobil is also a descendant of Standard Oil.

Chevron in 2025 had the third-largest revenue of a U.S. company at $193 billion, behind Exxon-Mobil with $340 billion and Shell at $281 billion.

Saudi Aramco is the top publicly traded company with revenue of $478 billion, according to CompaniesMarketCap. Chevron ranks sixth worldwide with Exxon Mobil fourth.

Hess ranked 88th in the world with $12.5 billion.

Hess Oil and Chemical was founded in 1933 by Leon Hess in Asbury Park. N.J. The company opened its first oil refinery in 1966. In 1968, Hess merged with Amerada and changed its name to Hess Corp.

Hess, which has 1,797 employees, sold its gas stations to Speedway, which was acquired by 7-Eleven in 2021.

July 9 (UPI) — The Justice Department on Wednesday announced that it had sent more than 20 subpoenas to doctors and clinics performing gender-affirming care for minors, as the Trump administration ramps up its attacks on this marginalized community.

No information about the doctors and clinics subpoenaed was provided by the Justice Department, though it suggested the subpoenas were part of investigations into “healthcare fraud, false statements and more.”

“Medical professionals and organizations that mutilate children in the service of a warped ideology will be held accountable by this Department of Justice,” Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a statement.

On June 18, the Supreme Court upheld a Tennessee law restricting access to gender-affirming care for minors.

The subpoenas come despite every major American medical association supporting gender-affirming care for both adults and youth, including the American Academy of Pediatrics.

Gender-affirming care includes a range of therapies, from psychological, behavioral and medical interventions, with surgeries for minors being exceedingly rare. According to a recent Harvard study, cisgender minors and adults were far more likely to undergo analogous gender-affirming surgeries than their transgender counterparts.

Despite the support of the medical community and the evidence, conservatives, Republicans and the Trump administration have continued to target this community with legislation affecting their medical care and rights.

The subpoenas were announced the same day that the Federal Trade Commission hosted a day-long workshop titled “The Dangers of Gender-Affirming Care for Minors,” during which Melissa Holyoak, an FTC commissioner, said that while they cannot make policy decisions limiting gender-affirming care, they can target the medical practice for deceptive statements.

“The FTC has previously enforced — and will continue to enforce — against deceptive representations made by medical practitioners, including claims in connection with treatments for transgender children,” she said, according to a copy of her remarks.

Also on Wednesday, the Department of Justice sued California over alleged Title IX violations concerning transgender athletes competing in women’s and girls’ sports.

The Democratic-led state has refused to comply with the Trump administration’s ban on transgender women and girls competing in sports that align with their gender identity.

Since returning to the White House in January, President Donald Trump has signed several executive orders targeting transgender Americans, including one directing the federal government to recognize only two sexes determined at “conception,” another restricting gender-affirming care for youth and a third banning transgender Americans from the military.

July 9 (UPI) — Just days before federal government was to enforce the so-called click-to-cancel rule, an appeals court struck it down, finding the Federal Trade Commission had failed to follow procedural requirements under the law.

Known colloquially as the click-to cancel rule, the Negative Option Rule was to go into effect July 14, forcing companies to make it as easy for consumers to cancel enrollment in subscriptions and programs as it was for them to enroll.

The rule has received pushback from various industry associations and individual businesses who filed a legal challenge against it in October, arguing it is “arbitrary” and “capricious” under the Administrative Procedure Act due to its scope and the FTC failed to follow procedural requirements under the FTC Act.

In its ruling Tuesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit generally agreed.

“While we certainly do not endorse the use of unfair and deceptive practices in negative option marketing, the procedural deficiencies of the Commission’s rulemaking process are fatal here,” the court wrote in its 23-page ruling, adding that “vacatur of the entire Rule is appropriate in this case because of the prejudice suffered by petitioners as a result of the commission’s procedural error.”

According to the ruling, the FTC specifically failed to issue a preliminary regulatory analysis of the rule as required due to its annual effect on the U.S. economy being found to be more than $100 million.

The FTC had argued that it was not required to prepare such analysis as its initial estimate of annual economic impact did not surpass that threshold.

Lina Khan, former FTC commissioner during the Biden administration, which was behind the click-to-cancel rule, blamed the Trump administration for dragging its feet on implementing it, as it was first set to go into effect in May, and urged supporters of the rule to contact their local politicians.

“The rule was set to go into effect in May but this @FTC slow-walked it — and now a court has tossed it out, claiming industry didn’t get enough of a say,” she said on X.

“Anyone frustrated by how difficult firms make it to cancel subscriptions can tell the @FTC commissioners to re-issue the rule and urge members of Congress to make it law.”

Mark Meador, the current FTC commissioner, blamed the Biden administration, saying it “cut corners and didn’t follow the law.”

“Process matters,” he said on X.

Meanwhile, America’s Communications Association Connects lauded the ruling, saying the FTC overstepped its authorities, which could have had wider implications for how businesses handle all areas of transactions.

“It sought to impose compliance requirements that made it more difficult for our members to provide the best value and customer experience possible,” ACA Connects, which represents some 500 smaller and medium-sized broadband, video and phone services providers, said in a statement.

“We’re glad the Eighth Circuit recognized this reality today.”

May 15 (UPI) — Federal Trade Commission Chairman Andrew Ferguson said the agency will do more to promote economic activity and protect consumers than it did under the Biden administration.

The challenges before the FTC “are as formidable as ever,” Ferguson told the House Appropriations Financial Services and General Government Subcommittee’s FTC budget hearing on Thursday morning.

“Our resources have been spread thin by the previous administration’s mismanagement,” Ferguson said, but he “resolutely believes” in the FTC’s mission.

The FTC chairman said the agency must undertake measures to address its resource constraints to ensure it operates as efficiently and effectively as possible while fulfilling its mission.

“No economic system in history has better promoted the common good than the American free-enterprise system,” he said. “No economic system has contributed more to human flourishing.”

The nation’s free-enterprise system “promotes the common good of all Americans only if we protect it from anti-competitive business practices, anti-competitive consolidation and fraud,” Ferguson told the subcommittee.

Focus on ‘vigorous law enforcement’

He said the Trump administration has taken the FTC back to its “roots,” and “vigorous law enforcement” is the agency’s focus.

The FTC is the only federal agency that protects consumers and promotes competition in most economic sectors, Ferguson explained.

“Congress established the FTC to be a cop on the beat for our markets, not to make the rules,” Ferguson told the subcommittee.

“We don’t get to pick and choose what laws we like and what laws we don’t,” he said. “We enforce the laws that the people, through their representatives in Congress, have decided best promote competition and fairness.”

The FTC’s current budget is $425.7 million, and costs for its 1,221 personnel account for about two-thirds of its budgetary expenses, Ferguson said.

The agency recently eliminated 94 full-time employees to reach its current number of full-time employees.

Ferguson said more reductions will be made until the agency has its fewest full-time employees in a decade.

Eliminating an ‘ideological bent’ against mergers

The FTC under the Biden administration “took an aggressive and unprecedented approach” to rule-making” and “stretched its statutory authority” and at times “took a hostile view of mergers and acquisitions,” subcommittee Chairman Rep. David Joyce, R-Ohio, said.

He asked Ferguson how the FTC would take a different approach under his leadership.

Ferguson said the FTC had an “ideological bent against mergers and acquisitions” under the Biden administration.

“Mergers and acquisitions are a very critical part of how the economy grows and how we get innovation,” he said. “At the same time, protecting Americans from monopolies and anti-competitive conduct is very important.”

If the FTC thinks a deal is anti-competitive and it can win in court, “we’re going to go to court,” Ferguson said.

If the FTC decides it can’t win in court, he said, “we’re going to get out of the way quickly.”

The FTC under the Biden administration prohibited remedies or negotiations to address complications arising from proposed mergers and acquisitions, Ferguson said, but it will under his watch.

“The remedies have to be real. They have to be enforceable,” he explained, “and we have a strong preference for structural remedies over behavioral remedies.”

He said it’s possible to address anti-competitive aspects of a proposed merger instead of blocking it.

Such an approach is the primary difference in how the FTC will work now compared to how it handled such matters under the Biden administration, Ferguson said.

Addressing problems for workers, small businesses

Rep. Glenn Ivey, D-Md., raised several issues that he said “hamstring” workers, small businesses and consumers.

Such issues include right-to-repair equipment by small businesses, click-to-cancel provisions among online businesses, and non-compete clauses that could stop workers from moving on to other employment.

Ivey said he hopes the FTC will address such matters and then pivoted to the recent and unexpected firings of two Democratic commissioners in the FTC by the Trump administration.

The two filed legal challenges to their removals and say there was no reason for their firings.

Ivey said it’s important to ensure independent commissions remain independent and have a partisan balance.

Thorough review of prescription drug prices, pharmacy closures

Rep. Ashley Hinson, R-Iowa, addressed pharmacy closures and said a solution is needed to ensure people have access to prescription drugs and pay fair prices.

She asked if the FTC intends to complete a study on pharmaceutical costs and the effect on consumers that was started under the Biden administration.

Ferguson said the FTC needs to produce a “very, very thorough accounting” of the matter and is “promoting a ton of resources” to the issue so federal and state governments have a full understanding of what is being done.

“I want it done as quickly as possible,” he said, “but I do not want speed to be the enemy of thoroughness.”

During additional testimony, Ferguson said the FTC is working to prevent illegal telemarketing calls, fraud that targets older Americans and service members, deceptive billing and cancellation policies, and unlawful ticket practices.

The FTC also is working to prevent unlawful data security and privacy practices while protecting American consumers.

The Trump administration is requesting another $425.7 million FTC budget for fiscal year 2026.

Ferguson said the FTC returned $333 million in value to consumers during the 2024 fiscal year.

The nearly two-hour hearing concluded just before noon EDT.