FTC Wins Eleventh Circuit Ruling Over Hidden Fees and Deceptive Marketing

An Eleventh Circuit panel unanimously upheld a federal district court’s summary judgment ruling in favor of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) concerning advertising and disclosure practices related to a national fuel card program. The decision affirms the FTC’s authority to seek and obtain broad injunctive relief for unfair or deceptive acts and practices, particularly where fee disclosures and consent mechanisms are found to be inadequate.

In its opinion, the three-judge panel rejected a number of arguments challenging the scope of the district court’s relief and confirmed that forward-looking injunctive measures were appropriate given the record before it. The panel affirmed summary judgment on all five counts of the FTC’s complaint against the company and on four of five counts asserted against its chief executive officer.

The ruling may bring to a close more than seven years of litigation, spanning multiple changes in FTC leadership and enforcement priorities, as well as the Supreme Court’s decision in AMG Capital Management, LLC v. FTC, which narrowed the agency’s ability to obtain monetary relief under Section 13(b) of the FTC Act.

Procedural Background

The FTC filed suit in December 2019 in the Northern District of Georgia against a publicly traded fuel card marketer and its CEO, alleging violations of the FTC Act.

The FTC alleged that marketing materials emphasized promised fuel savings while failing to clearly and conspicuously disclose certain fees that materially affected the total cost to customers. In August 2022, the district court granted summary judgment for the FTC on liability. Following the Supreme Court’s AMG ruling, however, the district court denied the FTC’s request for $550 million in monetary relief and imposed a comprehensive injunction. (The district court had previously rebuffed an attempt by the FTC in February 2022 to dismiss or stay the district court proceedings, so that it could pursue an administrative action before an ALJ and recover redress under Section 19(a)(2).)

Key Aspects of the Eleventh Circuit Ruling

Broad FTC injunctions are here to stay: The district court entered a permanent injunction requiring changes to how fees are disclosed and how customer consent is obtained. Among other things, the injunction requires clear, conspicuous, and unavoidable disclosures and a separate affirmative act of express informed consent before charging fees or enrolling customers in add-on services. The Eleventh Circuit concluded that the injunction was within the district court’s discretion and appropriately tailored to address the practices at issue.

Fee disclosures must be clear and comprehensible. The panel agreed that automatic enrollment in fees without sufficiently clear disclosure, combined with reliance on dense or difficult-to-navigate terms, can violate the FTC Act’s prohibition on unfair or deceptive acts or practices.

Advertising claims are evaluated based on substance, not labels. In addressing advertising statements regarding the absence of transaction-based fees, the court focused on how charges functioned in practice and how they were described internally, rather than on formal distinctions offered in litigation.

Individual liability remains a live issue. The court concluded that the FTC had presented undisputed evidence that the CEO had knowledge of, or was involved in, conduct underlying four of the five counts, including through internal communications, customer complaint data, and reporting on fee-related issues. While one claim against the executive was reversed for insufficient evidence, the decision underscores that individual liability remains a meaningful consideration in FTC enforcement actions where knowledge and participation are established.

Key Takeaways for Marketers

The decisive win for the FTC in this case is a timely reminder that companies should take a close look at how fees are disclosed, how consent is obtained, and whether those practices would withstand scrutiny across industries.

The opinion also reinforces that the FTC will step in to protect small businesses, which qualify as “consumers” under the FTC Act. The court made clear that a business-to-business customer base does not excuse unclear disclosures or inadequate consent mechanisms.

More broadly, the case highlights a continuing trend in FTC enforcement: courts will impose broad injunctive relief where deceptive advertising or pricing practices are repeated or systemic.

For more insights into advertising law, bookmark our All About Advertising Law blog and subscribe to our monthly newsletter. To learn more about Venable’s Advertising Law services, click here or contact one of the authors. And listen to the Ad Law Tool Kit Show—a podcast from Venable.