Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, CONSUMER PROTECTION NEWS: FTC Consumer Protection Director Mufarrige promises reinvigorated fraud program, (May 14, 2026)

By Justin Marcus Smith, J.D.

While signaling a renewed effort to pursue fraud moving forward, Mufarrige focused on recent efforts to promote price transparency, including in healthcare, housing, and online ticketing.

FTC Consumer Protection Director Christopher Mufarrige described FTC priorities in remarks prepared for the May 11 Association of National Advertisers’ 2026 “Advertising Day on the Hill” conference. Mufarrige said the FTC is targeting both fraudsters and the firms that facilitate dishonest merchant misuse of the U.S. payment system to obtain payments from consumers. In doing so, it is focusing on enforcing the statutes Congress enacted. For example, Mufarrige said the FTC is vigorously enforcing the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act (ROSCA). Touted examples of ROSCA enforcement include the September 2025 landmark $2.5 billion settlement with Amazon about Prime subscriptions; the December 2025 $60 million settlement with Instacart also about grocery delivery subscriptions; and ongoing litigation against Uber, about deceptive billing, and JustAnswer, about costly recurring monthly subscriptions. Mufarrige said the FTC is also enforcing the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) and the COPPA Rule while encouraging the adoption of age verification technology. By enforcing statutes like these, Mufarrige suggested the FTC is carrying out Congressional will to help “make markets work for consumers.” Among the top priorities now are “promoting price transparency and giving consumers fair opportunities in the market for live entertainment tickets.”

Price transparency. Mufarrige said FTC price transparency cases such as StubHub, Lindsay Auto, Express Scripts, and Greystar, “all involve the same fundamentally deceptive conduct” surrounding price. Information costs may justify opacity in certain instances. For example, consumers do not need to know exactly how a car works to buy it, but consumers do need to know how much the car will cost.

Mufarrige said the FTC has a variety of tools to promote price transparency. These include the FTC Act, and more specifically ROSCA for informed consent about subscriptions and the material terms of consumer transactions, as well as the Commission’s Rule Against Unfair and Deceptive Fees (Fees Rule).

Mufarrige said recent enforcement actions “showcase” comprehensive use of these tools to promote price transparency. In April 2026, StubHub agreed to pay $10 million to settle FTC charges that the company violated the FTC Act and the Fees Rule in connection with total advertised NFL ticket prices. Also in April, Mufarrige said the FTC “secured full redress” for consumers to resolve allegations that Lindsay Automotive Group deceived car buyers in connection with total car purchase price.

In February, the FTC secured a settlement with Express Scripts, Inc. about formulary practices. The settlement requires increased price transparency for drugs like insulin. According to Mufarrige, the Express Scripts settlement may save patients up to $7 billion over 10 years. After that settlement, FTC Chair Ferguson ordered that the FTC should create a healthcare task force to address drug pricing issues. Mufarrige said this highlights the importance of price transparency and the attention the FTC will pay to it in coming years.

Beyond the healthcare markets, the FTC will also prioritize unlawful conduct in the housing sector. For example, Mufarrige recounted how the FTC already ordered Greystar to pay more than $23 million in connection with the total price of advertised rent. Greystar must change its fee practices to advertise total rent.

Mufarrige also described how the FTC is presently taking a different approach to rulemaking to promote price transparency. With the Noncompete Rule, the Negative Option Rule, and the CARS rule vacated, the FTC asserts it will now follow Congressional procedural safeguards, avoiding a “planner’s vision,” to instead apply simple FTC Act Section 5 principles to clear rulemaking. He said the Commission’s advance notice in connection with a forthcoming Rental Fees rule is a good example of this approach. He contended it is “black-letter” Section 5 law that firms cannot obscure or otherwise prevent consumers from understanding the true cost of renting a home inclusive of all mandatory fees. A similar effort is underway with respect to unfair or deceptive fee practices related to online food and grocery delivery platforms. That effort focuses on disclosure. Chair Ferguson recently indicated during Senate Testimony that the Commission is considering a policy statement on the use of personal data to set dynamic pricing and whether it is a Section 5 issue.

Live ticketing. Mufarrige contended the StubHub settlement shows how FTC work on price transparency dovetails with work to ensure affordable ticketing for live entertainment. He said the actions against StubHub, Ticketmaster, and Key Investment Group (KIG) are signs of vigorous enforcement of the Better Online Ticketing Sales Act (BOTS act) that go beyond Section 5 FTC Act enforcement.

Mufarrige continued that economic analysis is especially important for understanding the interplay between the primary and secondary, or resale, ticket markets. According to Mufarrige, a “unique feature” of the primary market is that many artists set the primary ticket prices below the market clearing price, thereby sacrificing some profit for the longer-term benefit of ticket accessibility calculated to avoid alienating fans. Yet in pricing below market, the artists are giving secondary market players an opportunity to arbitrage the market rate as well as a strong incentive to circumvent the per event ticket limits imposed by the artists. Mufarrige said that is why the FTC and seven state partners began pursuing Live Nation and Ticketmaster after filing the action against KIG. The government alleged Ticketmaster is allowing brokers to circumvent technological controls for enforcing the posted ticket limits. Mufarrige contended this is “akin to a hub and spoke relationship.” He concluded his remarks about ticketing with the observation that the FTC must act to give effect to the plain language of the BOTS Act and to give consumers “fair opportunities in the ticket market.”

Civil penalties. Mufarrige said the FTC, in responding to criticism about civil penalties, will focus now on tying them to concrete harm based on economic analysis. While deterrence is important, it must be “grounded in a real-world calculation of consumer injury.”

Compliance obligations. Mufarrige said the FTC means business when it comes to civil investigative demands (CIDs), as shown in the OkCupid matter. He said the OkCupid matter shows the tenacity the FTC will apply to pursing enforcement actions. He suggested that consumer protection issues often arise after in-house counsel or internal investigations have identified an issue which management then ignores. He warned that if internal surveys and analysis show consumers are not making free and informed decisions, that is a consumer protection problem. Mufarrige concluded his remarks that the FTC expects “good corporate citizens” to remedy problems they have already identified internally.

MainStory: TopStory Advertising ConsumerProtection FederalTradeCommissionNews