[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-278708-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-1-en-105":81,"doc-detail-278708-en":126},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":74,"head_meta":76,"extra_data":78,"updated_unix":80},105,"en","donotpay-complaint-united-states-federal-trade-commission","DoNotPay - Complaint - United States Federal Trade Commission","","Complaint before the Federal Trade Commission alleges that DoNotPay, Inc. violated the Federal Trade Commission Act. It states DoNotPay is a Delaware corporation operating through donotpay.com and its mobile app, and that its practices were in or affecting U.S. commerce. The case summary describes an AI-driven “robot lawyer” subscription service marketed for drafting legal documents and advising consumers, while alleging the service was not designed to operate as represented. It also outlines subscription plans, advertised features, and the distribution of promotional claims through app stores and social media.",{"@graph":14,"@context":73},[15,34,56],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/","Template",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/letters/","Letters",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/donotpay-complaint-united-states-federal-trade-commission/278708/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/donotpay-complaint-united-states-federal-trade-commission/278708.png","ImageObject",442,249,{"name":42,"@type":43},"Aditya","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-18","2026-09-15",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":55},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",11,{"@type":57,"mainEntity":58},"FAQPage",[59,65,69],{"name":60,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":62},"Who is the respondent in this FTC complaint, and what service does it provide?","Question",{"text":63,"@type":64},"The respondent is DoNotPay, Inc. It provides the DoNotPay Service through a website and mobile application to help U.S. consumers with commercial and legal issues.","Answer",{"name":66,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":67},"How did DoNotPay market its service according to the complaint?",{"text":68,"@type":64},"The complaint alleges DoNotPay advertised the service as the “world’s first robot lawyer,” claiming it could perform legal services through AI chat and generate legal documents and advice.",{"name":70,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":71},"What subscription offerings and consumer/legal features does the complaint describe?",{"text":72,"@type":64},"It describes a General Membership subscription and a Small Business Protection Plan, along with features for consumer tasks (such as rebates and discounts) and legal-oriented assistance (such as demand letters and filings for small claims and traffic tickets).","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":75,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":77,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":79,"site_id":7},278708,1790023686,{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":83},"success",[84,88,93,98,103,108,113,117,122],{"id":55,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":85,"show_sort_weight":86,"slug":87},"Presentations",90,"presentations",{"id":89,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":90,"show_sort_weight":91,"slug":92},12,"Resumes",80,"resumes",{"id":94,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":95,"show_sort_weight":96,"slug":97},14,"Invoices",70,"invoices",{"id":99,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":100,"show_sort_weight":101,"slug":102},15,"Posters",60,"posters",{"id":104,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":105,"show_sort_weight":106,"slug":107},16,"Social Media",50,"social-media",{"id":109,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":110,"show_sort_weight":111,"slug":112},17,"Forms",40,"forms",{"id":114,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":115,"slug":116},18,30,"letters",{"id":118,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":119,"show_sort_weight":120,"slug":121},21,"Paper Templates",5,"papers-templates",{"id":123,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":124,"show_sort_weight":4,"slug":125},158,"General","general-158",{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":127},{"doc_id":79,"user_id":128,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":129,"doc_module":22,"category_id":114,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":130,"file_id":131,"file_url":132,"file_type":133,"file_size":134,"view_count":55,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":135,"language":136,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":137,"faqs":138,"seo_title":139,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":140,"read_time":99},962085564549,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_085a072bc5b1113ac321206ff7593b45","# UNITED STATES OF AMERICABEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION\n\nCOMMISSIONERS:  \nLina M.Khan,ChairRebecca Kelly SlaughterAlvaro M.BedoyaMelissa HolyoakAndrew Ferguson  \n\n| In the Matter of  \u003Cbr>DONOTPAY,INC.,a corporation.   |\n| --- |\n\nDOCKET NO.  \n# COMPLAINT\n\nThe Federal Trade Commission,having reason to believe that DoNotPay,Inc.,acorporation(“Respondent\"or \"DoNotPay”),has violated the provisions of the Federal TradeCommission Act,and it appearing to the Commission that this proceeding is in the publicinterest,alleges:  \n1.   Respondent DoNotPay,Inc.(“DoNotPay”)is a Delaware corporation with its principaloffice or place of business at 167-169 Great Portland Street,5th Floor,London,W1W 5PF,United Kingdom.  \n2.   Respondent transacts or has transacted business in San Francisco,California andthroughout the United States.Respondent has advertised,offered for sale,sold,and distributed toU.S.consumers the DoNotPay Service (hereafter “the DoNotPay Service”or “the Service”)viathe donotpay.com website and the DoNotPay mobile application.  \n3.    The acts and practices of DoNotPay alleged in this complaint have been in or affectingcommerce.as “commerce”is defined in Section 4 of the Federal Trade Commission Act.15U.S.C.§44.  \n# Summary of the Case\n\n4.    The DoNotPay Service is an online subscription service targeted to U.S.consumersseeking assistance with a range of commercial issues and legal issues involving American civillaw.Respondent used the emergence of new technology like artificial intelligence(AI)as amarketing tool,positioning the DoNotPay Service as a cutting-edge solution for producing legaldocuments.Respondent described the Service as “the world's first robot lawyer”and an“AI  \nlawyer”capable of performing legal services such as drafting “ironclad”demand letters,contracts,complaints for small claims court,challenging speeding tickets,and appealing parkingtickets.Through a chatbot,subscribers would submit prompts or queries to an AI“robot lawyer”that purportedly operated like a human lawyer,including by applying the relevant laws tosubscribers'particular legal and factual situations;relying on legal expertise and knowledge toavoid potential complications,such as statutes of limitations,compensation limits,andjurisdiction,when generating legal demand letters or initiating cases in small claims court;anddetecting legal violations on subscribers'business websites and providing advice about how tofix them.In fact,the DoNotPay Service was not designed to operate like a human lawyer in theserespects.  \n## The DoNotPay Service\n\n5.    Respondent has offered a General Membership subscription for the DoNotPay Servicesince 2019.Although the cost of a General Membership has fluctuated since at least 2020,attimes relevant to this Complaint,Respondent charged subscribers $36 every two months.  \n6.    Respondent has offered a Small Business Protection Plan since 2021.Although the costof the Small Business Protection Plan has fluctuated,at times relevant to this Complaint,Respondent charged subscribers $49.99 per month  \n7.    The DoNotPay Service has offered features designed to assist subscribers with consumerissues,including obtaining college fee waivers,creating passport photos,changing mailingaddresses,claiming rebates,deleting accounts,donating plasma for cash,and finding discounts.At times relevant to this Complaint,the Service also offered features designed to assistsubscribers with legal issues,including but not necessarily limited to,breach of contract demandletters,defamation cease-and-desist letters,divorce settlement agreements,restraining orders,insurance claims,releases of liability,revocable living trusts,lawsuits in small claims court,challenging speeding tickets,and appealing parking tickets.  \n## DoNotPay Advertising\n\n8.    Through the Apple App Store,the Google Play Store,the website donotpay.com,andsocial media accounts such as on X.com and TikTok,Respondent has disseminated or caused tobe disseminated advertisements","cbCaipPYHHXpNfYw","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaipPYHHXpNfYw","pdf",7312135,43,"English","# The Commission and the Allegations\n## Parties and Docket Information\n## Summary of the Case\n# The DoNotPay Service\n## Subscription Plans and Pricing\n## Consumer and Legal Features\n# DoNotPay Advertising and Public Claims\n## Distribution Channels and Exhibits\n## Press Materials","[{\"question\":\"Who is the respondent in this FTC complaint, and what service does it provide?\",\"answer\":\"The respondent is DoNotPay, Inc. It provides the DoNotPay Service through a website and mobile application to help U.S. consumers with commercial and legal issues.\"},{\"question\":\"How did DoNotPay market its service according to the complaint?\",\"answer\":\"The complaint alleges DoNotPay advertised the service as the “world’s first robot lawyer,” claiming it could perform legal services through AI chat and generate legal documents and advice.\"},{\"question\":\"What subscription offerings and consumer/legal features does the complaint describe?\",\"answer\":\"It describes a General Membership subscription and a Small Business Protection Plan, along with features for consumer tasks (such as rebates and discounts) and legal-oriented assistance (such as demand letters and filings for small claims and traffic tickets).\"}]","DoNotPay - Complaint - United States Federal Trade Commission | PDF",1789511872]