Federal Trade Commission v. DOXO - Stipulated Order for Permanent Injunction, Monetary Judgment, and Other Relief

Sep 4, 2026

Upload by Stanley

Stipulated Order for Permanent Injunction, Monetary Judgment, and Other Relief resolves the Federal Trade Commission’s claims against DOXO, Inc. and named individual officers. The Order addresses allegations that defendants engaged in deceptive and unfair practices in advertising, marketing, promoting, or providing bill payment services. It also concerns alleged false statements to obtain customer information, failure to disclose material transaction terms, and charging consumers without express informed consent, while setting jurisdictional findings and related legal conclusions.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages166

Reading Time6 h 58 min

AccessFree to download

Findings

Definitions

Billing Information

Charge

Clearly and Conspicuously

Defendants

Express Informed Consent

Material

Case 2:24-cv-00569-TSZ Document 199 Filed 08/17/26 Page 1 of 166 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON | FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
v.
DOXO, INC., a corporation,
STEVE SHIVERS, individually and as an officer of DOXO, INC., and
ROGER PARKS, individually and as an officer of DOXO, INC.,
Defendants. | Case No.
STIPULATED ORDER FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION, MONETARY JUDGMENT, AND OTHER RELIEF | | --- | --- | Plaintiff, the Federal Trade Commission (“Commission”), filed its Complaint for Permanent Injunction, Monetary Judgment, and Other Relief (“Complaint”), for a permanent injunction, monetary relief and other relief in this matter, pursuant to Sections 5(a), 13(b), and 19 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (“FTC Act”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 45(a), 53(b), 57b; Sections 521 and 522(a) of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (“GLB Act”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 6821, 6822(a); and the Restore Online Shoppers’Confidence Act (“ROSCA”), 15 U.S.C. § 8404. The Commission and Defendants stipulate to the entry of this Stipulated Order for Permanent Injunction, Monetary Judgment, and Other Relief (“Order”) to resolve all matters in dispute in this action between them. THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows: FINDINGS 1. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter. Case 2:24-cv-00569-TSZ Document 199 Filed 08/17/26 Page 2 of 166 2. The Complaint charges that Defendants participated in deceptive and unfair acts or practices in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45, in the advertising, marketing, promotion, or provision of bill payment services to consumers throughout the United States. The Complaint further charges that Defendants made false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements or representations to customers of financial institutions to obtain or attempt to obtain information from those customers, in violation of Section 521 of the GLB Act, 15 U. S.C. § 6821. The Complaint also charges that Defendants violated ROSCA, 15 U.S.C. § 8403, by failing to disclose material transaction terms before obtaining consumers’ billing information and charging consumers without their express informed consent. 3. Defendants neither admit nor deny any of the allegations in the Complaint, except as specifically stated in this Order. Only for purposes of this action, Defendants admit the facts necessary to establish jurisdiction. 4. Defendants waive any claim that they may have under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412, concerning the prosecution of this action through the date of this Order, and agree to bear their own costs and attorney fees. 5. Defendants and the Commission waive all rights to appeal or otherwise challenge or contest the validity of this Order. DEFINITIONS For the purpose of this Order, the following definitions apply: A. “Billing Information”means payment information, such as a credit card, checking, savings, share or similar account, utility bill, mortgage loan account, or debit card. B. “Charge,”“Charged,” or “Charging”means any attempt to collect money or other consideration from a consumer, including but not limited to causing Billing Information to Case 2:24-cv-00569-TSZ Document 199 Filed 08/17/26 Page 3 of 166 be submitted for payment, including against the consumer’s credit card, debit card, bank account, telephone bill, or other account. C. “Clearly and Conspicuously”means that a required disclosure is easily noticeable (i.e., difficult to miss) and easily understandable by reasonable consumers, including in all of the following ways: 1. In any communication that is solely visual or solely audible, the disclosure must be made through the same means through which the communication is presented. In any communication made through both visual and audible means, such as a television advertisement, the disclosure must be presented simultaneously in both the visual and audible portions ofthe communication even if the representation requiri

FAQs

How does the Order define key terms such as “Clearly and Conspicuously” and “Express Informed Consent”?

“Clearly and Conspicuously” requires disclosures to be easily noticeable and understandable, with specific requirements across visual, audible, and electronic mediums. “Express Informed Consent” requires an affirmative act communicating unambiguous assent to be charged after receiving a clear and conspicuous disclosure of all material terms, in writing and orally for in-person transactions.

Sep 4, 2026

Upload by Stanley