COMPLAINT 

 1 

 2 

 3 

 4 

 5 

 6 

 7 

 8 

 9 

 10 

 11 

 12 

 13 

 14 

 15 

 16 

 17 

 18 

 19 

 20 

 21 

 22 

 23 

 24 

 25 

 26 

 27 

 28 

DAVID C. SHONKA 

Acting General Counsel 

KATHERINE WORTHMAN, DC Bar No. 488800 

IOANA RUSU, DC Bar No. 1001603 

Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Mailstop CC-10232 

Washington, D.C. 20580 

Phone: (202) 326-2929 (Worthman) 

Facsimile: (202) 326-3768 

Email: kworthman@ftc.gov (Worthman); irusu@ftc.gov (Rusu) 

Colin Hector, CA Bar No. 281795 

Federal Trade Commission 

901 Market Street, Suite 570 

San Francisco, CA 94103 

Phone: (415) 848-5100 

Facsimile: (415) 848-5184 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

San Francisco Division 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., 

a Delaware corporation, 

 Defendant. 

Case No. ____________ 

COMPLAINT FOR PERMANENT 

INJUNCTION AND OTHER 

EQUITABLE RELIEF

Plaintiff, the Federal Trade Commission (“Commission” or “FTC”), for its Complaint 

alleges: 

1. The FTC brings this action under Section 13(b) of the Federal Trade Commission 

Act (“FTC Act”), 15 U.S.C. § 53(b), to obtain temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctive

Case 3:17-cv-00261 Document 1 Filed 01/19/17 Page 1 of 13
COMPLAINT PAGE 2 

 1 

 2 

 3 

 4 

 5 

 6 

 7 

 8 

 9 

 10 

 11 

 12 

 13 

 14 

 15 

 16 

 17 

 18 

 19 

 20 

 21 

 22 

 23 

 24 

 25 

 26 

 27 

 28 

relief, rescission or reformation of contracts, restitution, the refund of monies paid, disgorgement 

of ill-gotten monies, and other equitable relief for Defendant’s acts or practices in violation of 

Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a), in connection with its false, misleading, or 

unsubstantiated claims regarding driver earnings and its Vehicle Solutions Program. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

2. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1337(a), 

and 1345, and 15 U.S.C. §§ 45(a) and 53(b). 

3. Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1), (b)(2), (c)(2), and 

(d), and 15 U.S.C. § 53(b). 

INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT 

4. Defendant markets its services throughout the United States, including throughout 

the county of San Francisco.

PLAINTIFF 

5. The FTC is an independent agency of the United States Government created by 

statute. 15 U.S.C. §§ 41-58. The FTC enforces Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a), 

which prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce. 

6. The FTC is authorized to initiate federal district court proceedings, by its own 

attorneys, to enjoin violations of the FTC Act and to secure such equitable relief as may be 

appropriate in each case, including rescission or reformation of contracts, restitution, the refund 

of monies paid, and the disgorgement of ill-gotten monies. 15 U.S.C. §§ 53(b) and 56(a)(2)(A). 

DEFENDANT 

7. Defendant Uber Technologies Inc. (“Uber” or “Defendant”) is a Delaware 

corporation with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Defendant is a 

mobile ride-hailing business and transacts or has transacted business in this district and 

throughout the United States. 

Case 3:17-cv-00261 Document 1 Filed 01/19/17 Page 2 of 13
COMPLAINT PAGE 3 

 1 

 2 

 3 

 4 

 5 

 6 

 7 

 8 

 9 

 10 

 11 

 12 

 13 

 14 

 15 

 16 

 17 

 18 

 19 

 20 

 21 

 22 

 23 

 24 

 25 

 26 

 27 

 28 

COMMERCE 

8. At all times material to this Complaint, Defendant has maintained a substantial 

course of trade in or affecting commerce, as “commerce” is defined in Section 4 of the FTC Act, 

15 U.S.C. § 44. 

UBER’S BUSINESS ACTIVITIES 

Overview 

9. Uber distributes a mobile software application (the “App”) that connects 

entrepreneurial consumers who are transportation providers (hereinafter “Uber Drivers” or 

“Drivers”) with consumers seeking those services (hereinafter “passengers” or “customers”). 

Uber recruits and approves consumers to become Uber Drivers, sets the rates that Drivers charge 

for providing transportation, and collects a portion of the fares that Drivers charge for each ride. 

To maximize its revenue, Uber must amass a sufficient supply of Drivers to meet passengers’ 

transportation demands. 

10. Since at least May 2014, to recruit consumers to drive for Uber, Uber has 

disseminated or caused to be disseminated advertisements encouraging consumers to become 

Uber Drivers on various websites, including but not limited to Craigslist.com and Uber’s own 

website. In its advertisements, Uber claims that Uber Drivers can earn specific high hourly and 

yearly earnings. Notwithstanding these representations, in many instances Drivers have not 

earned the high earnings touted by Uber. 

11. Since at least November 2013, to further recruit Drivers, the company has offered 

an auto program, known as Uber’s “Vehicle Solutions Program,” which connects prospective 

Drivers with auto companies to buy or lease a vehicle they can use to drive for Uber. Uber has 

made numerous claims touting the low cost and unlimited mileage of its auto program, even 

though Uber has had no basis with which to make these claims. Indeed, the company has had no 

oversight of, nor has the company monitored, the terms and conditions of its Drivers’ auto 

agreements through the Vehicle Solutions Program. Further, Drivers in Uber’s Vehicle 

Solutions Program – which has connected Drivers with subprime auto companies and dealers – 

Case 3:17-cv-00261 Document 1 Filed 01/19/17 Page 3 of 13
COMPLAINT PAGE 4 

 1 

 2 

 3 

 4 

 5 

 6 

 7 

 8 

 9 

 10 

 11 

 12 

 13 

 14 

 15 

 16 

 17 

 18 

 19 

 20 

 21 

 22 

 23 

 24 

 25 

 26 

 27 

 28 

have in many instances received worse than industry average rates, made payments for hundreds 

of dollars more per month than advertised, and entered into leases imposing costs for mileage. 

12. Uber’s earnings and auto claims have enticed numerous consumers to become 

Uber Drivers and purchase or lease vehicles through Uber’s Vehicle Solutions Program. Based 

on Uber’s representations, consumers have paid at least $1,000 to enter into leases or retail 

installment contracts for new or used vehicles at higher costs and worse terms than those 

advertised. When Uber’s promised earnings have not materialized, and Drivers have attempted 

to cancel their auto agreements, they have incurred significant monetary harm. Uber has 

collected significant revenues from its Drivers’ fares, including tens of millions of dollars from 

Drivers participating in the Vehicle Solutions Program. Uber’s practices have caused its Drivers 

to suffer millions of dollars of injury. 

How Uber Works 

13. Passengers book transportation services from an Uber Driver using a publicly 

available version of the Uber App that can be downloaded to a smartphone. When a passenger 

submits a transportation request through the Uber App, the request is transmitted to the nearest 

available Driver signed into the App. Once a Driver has accepted a request, the App alerts the 

customer of the Driver’s name and vehicle information and facilitates passenger pick-up. 

Following completion of the trip, Uber bills the cost of the trip to the customer. Uber later remits 

a portion of the amount it collects to the Driver, after deducting any fees that Uber collects. 

14. Uber offers multiple transportation service options to its customers, including a 

relatively lower cost option called “uberX” as well as higher cost options such as “UberSelect,” 

“UberBlack,” and UberSUV.” The majority of Uber Drivers provide their own vehicles. 

15. For each service option available, Uber has set minimum standards that its 

Drivers’ vehicles must meet in order to qualify for use with Uber. These standards vary per 

service option and city. For example, an uberX Driver in New York City must have a vehicle 

that is model year 2010 or later and seats at least four passengers comfortably, while an 

UberBlack Driver must have a 2010 or later luxury vehicle that seats at least six passengers 

comfortably. In San Francisco, an uberX vehicle must be model year 2001 or later and also must 

Case 3:17-cv-00261 Document 1 Filed 01/19/17 Page 4 of 13
COMPLAINT PAGE 5 

 1 

 2 

 3 

 4 

 5 

 6 

 7 

 8 

 9 

 10 

 11 

 12 

 13 

 14 

 15 

 16 

 17 

 18 

 19 

 20 

 21 

 22 

 23 

 24 

 25 

 26 

 27 

 28 

seat four passengers comfortably, while an UberBlack vehicle must be model year 2010 or later 

and a luxury sedan that seats six people comfortably. 

16. Uber has classified its Drivers as independent contractors, not employees. 

Drivers have paid all expenses associated with operating a car service, including using their own 

cars and paying for all gas and tolls. 

17. Uber has set the Drivers’ fares for each service option in each city based on 

Uber’s own formula, calculated using either a per-mile rate or a per-minute rate on top of a base 

fare. Uber charges a service fee for each trip, which Uber has calculated as a percentage of the 

Drivers’ total fare for the trip, usually 20%. Prior to calculating its service fee, Uber also has 

charged each Driver a one dollar “safe-rides” fee to cover the cost of screening Drivers and cars 

for safety. Uber has deducted these fees from the amount remitted to the Driver each week. 

Defendant’s Earnings Claims 

18. To induce individuals to become Uber Drivers, Uber has advertised and marketed 

the earning potential of its Drivers on Craigslist, its company website, and other advertising and 

marketing media. Uber has publicized high annual and hourly earnings to entice consumers to 

become Uber Drivers. However, once Drivers have begun to receive their paychecks, Drivers 

have discovered their actual earnings were substantially less than Uber has claimed. 

19. For example, from at least May 2014 until August 2015, Uber published a 

statement from the CEO on its website titled, “An Uber Impact: 20,000 Jobs Created On The 

Uber Platform Every Month.” In this post, Uber claimed that its uberX Drivers’ “median income 

is more than $90,000/year/driver in New York and more than $74,000/year/driver in San 

Francisco.” Multiple news sources disseminated this statement, including Businessinsider.com, 

CNBC.com, Forbes.com, and Slate.com. In August 2015, Uber revised the CEO’s entry on its 

website so that the post reads: “[T]he potential income a driver on uberX can make in a year is 

more than $90,000 in New York and more than $74,000 in San Francisco.” 

20. Notwithstanding these representations, for at least the year preceding the CEO’s 

statement (May 2013-May 2014), the median uberX Driver in New York City earned $29,000 

less annually than Uber claimed and the median uberX Driver in San Francisco earned $21,000 

Case 3:17-cv-00261 Document 1 Filed 01/19/17 Page 5 of 13
COMPLAINT PAGE 6 

 1 

 2 

 3 

 4 

 5 

 6 

 7 

 8 

 9 

 10 

 11 

 12 

 13 

 14 

 15 

 16 

 17 

 18 

 19 

 20 

 21 

 22 

 23 

 24 

 25 

 26 

 27 

 28 

less annually than Uber claimed in its website post when Drivers’ hours are standardized to a 40-

hour work week. Moreover, less than 10 percent of all Drivers in New York and San Francisco 

have earned the stated income. 

21. Uber has inflated its hourly Drivers’ earnings in job listings as well. For example, 

from at least January 2015 through March 2015, Uber represented in Craigslist advertisements 

that its Drivers make high hourly rates in cities across the country even when working flexible 

and part-time hours. Specifically, Uber placed the following advertisements for Driver positions 

in various markets: 

a. “Make $16/hour” in Atlanta, GA; 

b. “Make $16/hour” in Baltimore, MD; 

c. “Make $25/hour” in Boston, MA; 

d. “Make $21/hour” in Chicago, IL; 

e. “Make $15/hour” in Dallas, TX; 

f. “Make $20/hour” in Denver, CO; 

g. “Make $17/hour” in Houston, TX; 

h. “Make $20/hour” in Los Angeles, CA; 

i. “Make $16/hour” in Miami, FL; 

j. “Make $18/hour” in Minneapolis, MN; 

k. “Make $21/hour” in New Jersey; 

l. “Make $20/hour” in Orange County, CA; 

m. “Make $25/hour” in Philadelphia, PA; 

n. “Make $20/hour” in Phoenix, AZ; 

o. “Make $20/hour” in San Diego, CA; 

p. “Make $29/hour” in San Francisco, CA; and 

q. “Make $21/hour” in Washington, DC. 

22. As with its website post, Uber’s representations in these Craigslist advertisements 

overstate Drivers’ earnings as higher than the median hourly earnings in these markets. For 

example, Uber’s data on hourly earnings indicates that, in Boston, Minneapolis, and, 

Case 3:17-cv-00261 Document 1 Filed 01/19/17 Page 6 of 13
COMPLAINT PAGE 7 

 1 

 2 

 3 

 4 

 5 

 6 

 7 

 8 

 9 

 10 

 11 

 12 

 13 

 14 

 15 

 16 

 17 

 18 

 19 

 20 

 21 

 22 

 23 

 24 

 25 

 26 

 27 

 28 

Philadelphia, for the four weeks preceding January 5, 2015, for all Drivers in each of those cities, 

fewer than 10% of Drivers averaged Uber’s promised hourly rate. In 14 additional cities, for all 

Drivers in each of those cities, fewer than 30% of Drivers averaged Uber’s promised hourly rate: 

City Craigslist Advertisement 

Quoted Hourly Fare 

Percent of Drivers 

Averaging Quoted 

Hourly Fare 

Atlanta $16 Fewer than 30% 

Baltimore $16 Fewer than 20% 

Boston $25 Fewer than 10% 

Chicago $21 Fewer than 20% 

Dallas $15 Fewer than 30% 

Denver $20 Fewer than 20% 

Houston $17 Fewer than 30% 

Los Angeles $20 Fewer than 20% 

Miami $16 Fewer than 50% 

Minneapolis $18 Fewer than 10% 

New Jersey $21 Fewer than 30% 

Orange County $20 Fewer than 20% 

Philadelphia $25 Fewer than 10% 

Phoenix $20 Fewer than 30% 

San Diego $20 Fewer than 20% 

San Francisco $29 Fewer than 20% 

Seattle $20 Fewer than 30% 

Washington, D.C. $21 Fewer than 20% 

23. During and after the time period Uber has made these unsubstantiated earnings 

claims, in many markets, most Drivers have not made the claimed amount. In many instances, 

Drivers have not made the promised amounts even when factoring in non-hourly earnings, such 

Case 3:17-cv-00261 Document 1 Filed 01/19/17 Page 7 of 13
COMPLAINT PAGE 8 

 1 

 2 

 3 

 4 

 5 

 6 

 7 

 8 

 9 

 10 

 11 

 12 

 13 

 14 

 15 

 16 

 17 

 18 

 19 

 20 

 21 

 22 

 23 

 24 

 25 

 26 

 27 

 28 

as payments for time-limited promotions and other incentives. These promotions and incentives 

often have been contingent on working specific late-night hours, accepting a minimum 

percentage of trip requests, completing a set number of trip requests within a limited time period, 

driving in a certain geographic area, or fulfilling other requirements. 

Defendant’s Vehicle Solutions Program 

24. Since at least November 2013, Uber has induced consumers to become Uber 

Drivers by touting its Vehicle Solutions Program through its marketing materials. Uber has 

directed prospective and current Drivers interested in the program to specific auto companies, 

and often to specific employees at auto dealerships. Uber has entered into contracts with three 

subprime auto companies to offer auto deals to Uber Drivers as part of the program. Auto 

payments are deducted automatically from Drivers’ total weekly fares, before any earnings are 

remitted to the Uber Driver. 

25. From November 2013 to April 2015, over 5,000 Drivers entered into deals with 

one of the three auto companies through Uber’s program, with nearly all Drivers entering into 

that company’s four-year “lease-to-own financing option” available only to Uber Drivers. To 

participate in this program, Drivers are required to pay at least $1,000 for a down payment and 

$1,000 for security deposit, which many Drivers have elected to distribute over the lease term. 

26. The two other auto companies have financed vehicle sales for Uber Drivers 

through Uber’s Vehicle Solutions Program exclusively using retail installment contracts. One 

company participated in the program from November 2013 to May 2015, and the other company 

participated from November 2013 until at least April 2016. Drivers first have entered into retail 

installment contracts to purchase vehicles with the dealerships, and the dealerships have then 

assigned or transferred the contracts to one of these two finance companies. Since November 

2013, one company has funded over 1,500 financing contracts, and the other company has 

funded over 400 financing contracts for Uber Drivers. 

 

Case 3:17-cv-00261 Document 1 Filed 01/19/17 Page 8 of 13
COMPLAINT PAGE 9 

 1 

 2 

 3 

 4 

 5 

 6 

 7 

 8 

 9 

 10 

 11 

 12 

 13 

 14 

 15 

 16 

 17 

 18 

 19 

 20 

 21 

 22 

 23 

 24 

 25 

 26 

 27 

 28 

Defendant’s Auto Finance Representations 

27. Uber has made a number of claims about the terms and conditions of its Vehicle 

Solutions Program. 

28. For example, Uber has disseminated or caused to be disseminated advertisements 

touting the low cost of using its Vehicle Solutions Program to obtain a vehicle. For example, 

Uber has stated that consumers could “own a car for as little as $20/day” ($140/week); or lease a 

car with “payments as low as $17 per day” ($119/week), and “starting at $119/week,” with the 

ability to purchase the vehicle for only $1 at the end of the lease period. Further, Uber has 

claimed in marketing materials directed at prospective and current Drivers that it “connects 

drivers with any kind of credit history to the best financing options available.” Uber has 

described these “financing options” to include financing contracts as well as a “lease-to-own 

financing option.” 

29. Uber also has represented in its marketing material that Drivers opting to lease 

cars through its Vehicle Solutions Program would have “unlimited miles.” 

30. Uber has not had any basis for making these claims. Uber has not collected, 

received, or monitored any Driver-specific data regarding the terms of its Vehicle Solutions 

Program. Indeed, when Drivers have complained to Uber about the Program, Uber repeatedly 

has responded with the following or a substantially similar note: 

Please contact your lender to discuss your payments, accruals, or amounts owed[,] as 

Uber does not keep track of this information. The lender indicates your weekly payment 

and we assist the lender in deducting that payment. 

31. Despite the claims that Drivers can make low weekly payments, the median 

weekly payment for Uber Drivers who entered into a lease from late 2013 through at least April 

2015 has been over $200, while the median weekly payment for Uber Drivers who opted to 

purchase their vehicles through Uber’s Vehicle Solutions Program during the same time period 

has been over $160. Further, information Uber had at the time it made the claims indicate that 

the claims are false. Uber’s communications with at least one auto company have acknowledged 

payment terms and conditions that are inconsistent with Uber’s promises to Drivers. 

Case 3:17-cv-00261 Document 1 Filed 01/19/17 Page 9 of 13
COMPLAINT PAGE 10 

 1 

 2 

 3 

 4 

 5 

 6 

 7 

 8 

 9 

 10 

 11 

 12 

 13 

 14 

 15 

 16 

 17 

 18 

 19 

 20 

 21 

 22 

 23 

 24 

 25 

 26 

 27 

 28 

32. And Drivers in Uber’s Vehicle Solutions Program – which has connected Drivers 

with subprime auto companies and dealers – have in many instances received worse interest rates 

than industry averages, contrary to Uber’s promise to connect Drivers with any type of credit 

history to the best financing available. Uber’s marketing material to dealers has acknowledged 

that the lease-to-own option was a “one size fits all” product with an “implied APR of 19.5%,” 

significantly higher than even the industry average interest rates for consumers with deep 

subprime credit scores. Additionally, the average rate of the other auto deals for Uber Drivers 

has been higher than the industry average for consumers with similar credit scores. Numerous 

Drivers who have purchased cars through Uber’s Vehicle Solutions Program have received 

interest rates on their retail installment contracts that are more than double the industry average 

rate for consumers with similar credit scores. 

33. Further, despite Uber’s unlimited mileage claims, the leases imposed annual 

mileage limits of 37,500 and 40,000. Specifically, Drivers’ leases have provided that Drivers 

who elect to end the leases early, due to any reason including discovering that they are not 

earning amounts promised by Uber or termination by Uber, and who surrender the car rather than 

purchase it outright, are obligated to pay an excess mileage charge of $.20 per mile for any 

mileage over the set limit. 

VIOLATIONS OF THE FTC ACT 

34. Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a), prohibits “unfair or deceptive acts 

or practices in or affecting commerce.” Misrepresentations or deceptive omissions of material 

fact constitute deceptive acts or practices prohibited by Section 5(a) of the FTC Act. 

COUNT I 

Deceptive Income Claims in Violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act 

35. In numerous instances in connection with the advertising, marketing, and 

promotion of its Driver positions, Defendant has represented, expressly or by implication, that 

consumers in specific cities are likely to earn substantial income, including specific annual and 

hourly amounts, as set forth in Paragraphs 19 and 21. 

Case 3:17-cv-00261 Document 1 Filed 01/19/17 Page 10 of 13
COMPLAINT PAGE 11 

 1 

 2 

 3 

 4 

 5 

 6 

 7 

 8 

 9 

 10 

 11 

 12 

 13 

 14 

 15 

 16 

 17 

 18 

 19 

 20 

 21 

 22 

 23 

 24 

 25 

 26 

 27 

 28 

36. In many instances, the representations set forth in Paragraph 35 are false, 

misleading, or were not substantiated at the time the representations were made. 

37. Therefore, the making of the representations as set forth in Paragraph 35 of this 

Complaint constitutes deceptive acts or practices in violation of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act. 

COUNT II 

Deceptive Auto Finance Claims in Violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act 

38. In numerous instances in connection with the advertising, marketing, and 

promotion of its Driver positions, Defendant has represented, expressly or by implication, that: 

a. consumers are likely to own or lease a vehicle for an inexpensive daily or 

weekly amount such as: “Starting at $119/week,” “For as little as $20/day,” and 

“For as low as $17 per day;” 

b. Defendant connects Drivers with any kind of credit history to the best 

financing or leasing options available. 

39. In many instances, the representations set forth in Paragraph 38 are false, 

misleading, or were not substantiated at the time the representations were made. 

40. Therefore, the making of the representations as set forth in Paragraph 38 of this 

Complaint constitutes deceptive acts or practices in violation of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act. 

COUNT III 

Deceptive Unlimited Mileage Claims in Violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act 

41. In numerous instances in connection with the advertising, marketing, and 

promotion of its Driver positions, Defendant has represented, expressly or by implication, that 

consumers would have “Unlimited Mileage” when leasing a vehicle through Defendant’s 

Vehicle Solutions Program. 

42. In many instances, the representations set forth in Paragraph 41 are false, 

misleading, or were not substantiated at the time the representations were made. 

43. Therefore, the making of the representations as set forth in Paragraph 41 of this 

Complaint constitutes deceptive acts or practices in violation of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act.

 

Case 3:17-cv-00261 Document 1 Filed 01/19/17 Page 11 of 13
COMPLAINT PAGE 12 

 1 

 2 

 3 

 4 

 5 

 6 

 7 

 8 

 9 

 10 

 11 

 12 

 13 

 14 

 15 

 16 

 17 

 18 

 19 

 20 

 21 

 22 

 23 

 24 

 25 

 26 

 27 

 28 

CONSUMER INJURY 

44. Consumers have suffered and will continue to suffer substantial injury as a result 

of Defendant’s violations of the FTC Act. In addition, Defendant has been unjustly enriched as a 

result of its unlawful acts or practices. Absent injunctive relief by this Court, Defendant is likely 

to continue to injure consumers, reap unjust enrichment, and harm the public interest. 

THIS COURT’S POWER TO GRANT RELIEF

43. Section 13(b) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 53(b), empowers this Court to grant 

injunctive and other such relief as the Court may deem appropriate to halt and redress violations 

of any provision of law enforced by the FTC. The Court, in the exercise of its equitable 

jurisdiction, may award ancillary relief, including rescission or reformation of contracts, 

restitution, the refund of monies paid, and the disgorgement of ill-gotten monies, to prevent and 

remedy any violation of any provision of law enforced by the FTC. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

Wherefore, Plaintiff FTC, pursuant to Section 13(b) of the FTC Act, § 53(b), and the 

Court’s own equitable powers, requests that the Court: 

A. Enter such preliminary and ancillary relief as may be necessary to avert the 

likelihood of consumer injury during the pendency of this action and to preserve the possibility 

of effective final relief, including, but not limited to, a temporary and preliminary injunction, an 

evidence preservation order, and expedited discovery; 

B. Enter a permanent injunction to prevent future violations of the FTC Act by 

Defendant; 

C. Award such relief as the Court finds necessary to redress injury to consumers 

resulting from Defendant’s violations of the FTC Act, including, but not limited to, rescission 

and reformation of contracts, restitution, the refund of monies paid, and the disgorgement of illgotten monies; 

D. Award Plaintiff the costs of bringing this action, as well as such other and 

additional relief as the Court may determine to be just and proper. 

Case 3:17-cv-00261 Document 1 Filed 01/19/17 Page 12 of 13
COMPLAINT PAGE 13 

 1 

 2 

 3 

 4 

 5 

 6 

 7 

 8 

 9 

 10 

 11 

 12 

 13 

 14 

 15 

 16 

 17 

 18 

 19 

 20 

 21 

 22 

 23 

 24 

 25 

 26 

 27 

 28 

Dated: _____1/19/2017____________ Respectfully submitted, 

David C. Shonka 

Acting General Counsel 

/s/Katherine Worthman 

Katherine Worthman 

(Phone: 202-326-2929) 

(E-mail: kworthman@ftc.gov) 

Ioana Rusu 

(Phone: 202-326-2077) 

(Email: irusu@ftc.gov) 

 Attorneys for Plaintiff Federal Trade 

Commission 

Case 3:17-cv-00261 Document 1 Filed 01/19/17 Page 13 of 13