Federal Trade Commission v. Oto Analytics, Inc. d/b/a Womply — N.D. Cal., No. 3:24-cv-01661

Case summary

The Federal Trade Commission filed this action on March 18, 2024 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, No. 3:24-cv-01661. The complaint is brought for violations of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a), and the COVID-19 Consumer Protection Act, Public Law 116-260, Section 1401, in connection with the advertising, marketing and provision of Paycheck Protection Program financing services to small business consumers, and it pleads four counts. On April 3, 2024 the court entered a stipulated order for permanent injunction and monetary judgment. The order enters judgment of $26,000,000 in favor of the Commission against the defendants, jointly and severally, and records that the defendants neither admit nor deny any of the allegations in the complaint except as specifically stated in the order.

Case at a glance

What does the complaint allege?

That the defendants told small business consumers seeking emergency financial assistance that their PPP loan applications would be processed fast, such as within 24 hours of submission, and that loan funds would ultimately be secured for them, but that in millions of cases the defendants failed to obtain PPP loans and in numerous cases failed to process applications in the promised time frame. It alleges that referral-partner materials said consumers would "[g]et maximum PPP stimulus" of up to $41,000 and could apply for a loan of up to $41,666 in five minutes.

What did the stipulated order require?

Judgment of $26,000,000 against the defendants jointly and severally as monetary relief, to be paid to the Commission, and a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their officers, agents and employees from misrepresenting, or assisting others in misrepresenting, matters set out in the order in connection with any financial product or service, unless a representation is non-misleading and substantiated at the time by competent and reliable evidence.

Did the defendants admit the allegations?

No. The order states that the defendants neither admit nor deny any of the allegations in the complaint except as specifically stated in the order, and that only for purposes of the action they admit the facts necessary to establish jurisdiction. It also provides that the facts alleged in the complaint will be taken as true, without further proof, in any subsequent civil litigation by or on behalf of the Commission.

Summary written from the documents on this page; every sentence is sourced.