Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, CONSUMER PROTECTION NEWS: FTC's settlement agreement regarding Doxo bill payment website awaits judge's signature, (Aug 18, 2026)

By Kenneth H. Ryesky, M.B.A., J.D.

Proposed stipulated order authorizes FTC to monitor compliance by sending agents posing undercover as consumers or suppliers, "without the necessity of identification or prior notice."

The FTC announced that a proposed stipulated order has been submitted for approval and signature by a federal district court judge in Seattle that would resolve claims brought by the FTC that an online bill payment company and two of its co-founders used misleading search ads to impersonate consumers’ billers and misled consumers about millions of dollars in fees they tacked on to consumers’ bills. The FTC complaint alleged that the defendants used deceptive ads to trick consumers into using its payment platform (FTC v. Doxo, Inc., No. 2:24-cv-00569-TSZ (W.D. Wash. Aug. 17, 2026)).

Background. Doxo, Inc. (Doxo) operates a website that provides online bill payment services. Following complaints from consumers, the Washington State Attorney General and the FTC conducted investigations. The investigations found that Doxo engaged in many improper practices, including but not limited to (1) misrepresenting itself to consumers as an authorized bill payment intermediary through which debts could be paid; (2) charging add-on "junk fees" to consumers who used Doxo's services; (3) using so-called "roach motel" dark pattern tactics to complicate consumer rejection or cancellation of negative options; and (4) delaying (and sometimes failing entirely to tender) actual payments to consumers' creditors after sending false confirmations to the consumers that the payment had been made. Doxo persisted in such practices even after receiving warnings from the FTC and/or the Washington attorney general that such practices were improper.

In addition to the direct monetary harm to the consumers through overcharges and junk fees, the delays in remitting the payments to the billers resulted in further harms such as (1) attempts by bill collectors to collect bills which Doxo had led its website users to believe had in fact been paid; (2) many consumers making a second duplicative payment directly to the biller in order to avoid the trouble of resolving the biller's contention of non-payment; (3) utility shut-offs; (4) insurance policy lapses; (5) legal problems stemming from tax and/or child support payment delinquencies.

On April 25, 2024, the FTC filed a complaint against Doxo and its two co-founder individuals in federal district court, alleging violations of (1) the FTC Act [15 U.S.C. § 45(a)]; (2) the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act [15 U.S.C. § 6821]; and (3) the Restore Online Shoppers' Confidence Act [15 U.S.C. § 8403]. On July 14, 2026, Doxo and its two co-founders agreed to the entry of a proposed stipulated order to settle the case; counsel for the FTC signed off on the proposed order and submitted it for the court approval on August 17, 2026.

Misrepresentation. The proposed order prohibits and enjoins Doxo from making various enumerated misrepresentations. These include but are not limited to misrepresentations regarding (1) the website's affiliation with billing entities; (2) the actual amount of money the consumers will pay to Doxo; (3) the purpose of any fee or charge to the consumer; (4) obtaining consumer information from a bank or other financial institution; and (5) negative options. Notwithstanding the negative option misrepresentation prohibition, Doxo may still use negative options, but in doing so must give full disclosure to website users in a clear and conspicuous manner under express informed consent.

Monetary aspects. The proposed order provides that Doxo will remit to the FTC the sum of $2.1 million. The order gives the FTC discretion to deposit that money into a consumer redress fund or otherwise apply it to effect a remedy reasonably related to Doxo's practices alleged in the complaint.

Enforcement. The stipulated order, when approved, would explicitly entail various means of enforcement. Doxo, the two co-founders, and any other person given a copy of the approved order are required to provide the FTC with information it requests in order to effect victim redress.

The proposed order has a five-year enforcement period, during which time Doxo must fully cooperate with the FTC by providing information, documents, and/or testimony. A copy of the order must be provided to all Doxo principals, officers, directors, and employees having managerial responsibilities relevant to the order. Doxo shall obtain signed and dated acknowledgments from such individuals that they have received the copy of the order. The foregoing conditions shall apply to any successor entity that might arise during the five-year enforcement period.

Doxo must timely provide all documents and information otherwise requested by the FTC. Records of revenues, personnel, and consumer complaints are to be maintained by Doxo, retained for five years, and provided to the FTC upon demand. The FTC may contact Doxo directly without going through its counsel. For the purposes of construction, modification, and enforcement of the order, the court will retain jurisdiction.

The Case is No. 2:24-cv-00569-TSZ.

Judge: Zilly, T.

Attorneys: James Doty for the FTC. Courtland L. Reichman (Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP) for Doxo Inc.

Companies: Doxo Inc.

News: ConsumerProtection FederalTradeCommissionNews WashingtonNews