FTC Tells ‘Woke’ Christian School To Rethink Speech-Freezing Code Of Conduct
Parents who spoke to The Federalist allege the policy is meant to silence critics of the private school and its theological direction.Parents who spoke to The Federalist allege the policy is meant to silence critics of the private school and its theological direction.FTC slams CarShield: $10M scam exposed
Most drivers don’t expect to hear from the federal government — unless something has gone very wrong.
But this month, more than 168,000 Americans opened their mailboxes to find checks from the Federal Trade Commission, tied to a case that exposed widespread deception in the vehicle service contract industry.
The FTC’s action may be a turning point, signaling that regulators are paying close attention to misleading automotive advertising.
The fallout is significant: More than $9.6 million is being returned to consumers who were misled and often left paying for repairs they believed were covered by CarShield and American Auto Shield.
It’s one of the largest automotive-related refunds of the year — and it raises serious questions about how these companies operate, what consumers should watch for, and whether the settlement goes far enough.
Scam watch
After years investigating automotive scams and pushing for transparency, I can say this case highlights a deeper problem: service contract companies relying on aggressive marketing, inflated promises, and fine print that favors the seller.
In July 2024, CarShield and American Auto Shield — two of the most recognizable names in the extended warranty business — agreed to pay nearly $10 million to settle an FTC complaint. The allegations included misleading advertising, deceptive telemarketing, and coverage claims that didn’t match reality.
Many drivers believed they were buying protection for major repairs, sometimes paying up to $120 a month. When problems arose, they discovered that coverage often disappeared behind exclusions, denials, and carefully crafted contract language.
Cover story
According to the FTC, the companies advertised that virtually all repairs — or all repairs to “covered” systems — would be paid. Drivers were told they could use any repair shop and receive free rental cars during breakdowns. Instead, many were stuck with bills they thought they had avoided.
The FTC argued these claims persuaded consumers to buy service contracts that failed to deliver. Under the settlement, both companies must stop deceptive marketing practices and ensure that endorsements and testimonials reflect real, verifiable customer experiences — an important change given how central celebrity endorsements were to their advertising.
Checks and balances
Refunds are already under way. Checks have been mailed to 168,179 affected drivers and must be cashed within 90 days. No banking information or payment is required. Consumers with questions are directed to the refund administrator or the FTC’s website.
This action is part of a broader FTC push to hold companies accountable in industries where consumers are easily confused or misled. In 2024 alone, FTC enforcement returned more than $339 million to consumers nationwide. Automotive issues remain a major focus because unexpected repair costs can quickly become a financial burden.
Vehicle service contracts — often sold as “extended warranties” — can be useful when offered clearly and honestly. Too often, however, consumers are sold peace of mind that turns into high monthly payments and denied claims, with exclusions overwhelming any real benefit.
RELATED: Ford just lost $20 billion on its EV investment
New scrutiny
The FTC’s move may signal a shift toward tougher oversight of automotive advertising. Whether it leads to broader industry reform remains to be seen, but companies using vague language and unrealistic promises are clearly facing more scrutiny.
Drivers deserve clear information and coverage that matches what is advertised. This case is a reminder to stay skeptical: If a deal sounds too good to be true, it probably is.
Bottom line: Big print gives, small print takes away. Read the contract carefully — because most of these deals simply aren’t worth it.
SCOTUS Appears Poised To Recognize That Presidents Run The Executive Branch
The arguments from Slaughter's attorney didn't appear convincing to the court's conservative justices.Justice Jackson Downplays Unelected ‘Experts’ Running The Executive Without Presidential Oversight
Jackson also fearmongered about 'having a president come in and fire all the scientists, and the doctors, and the economists, and the Ph.D.s, and replacing them with loyalists and people who don’t know anything.'Can presidents fire all federal bureaucrats at will? Supreme Court to hear case with major implications.
President Donald Trump's work to dismantle the administrative state has reached a tipping point that could have major implications for the future. The Supreme Court is set to hear arguments that will determine President Trump's firing power at federal agencies, specifically at the Federal Trade Commission.
On Monday, the court will hear arguments that will challenge a 90-year-old precedent from Humphrey's Executor v. United States.
A Supreme Court decision in President Trump's favor could rewrite the bounds of presidential power over the administrative state.
The case before the court came after President Trump fired Federal Trade Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter over email in March. Trump did not cite any legal reasoning for Slaughter's firing, even though Humphrey's Executor states that an FTC commissioner may be fired only for "inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office."
Trump has also fired employees at the National Labor Relations Board, the Merit Systems Protection Board, and the Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Trump has been challenged on other high-profile firings in recent months, including those of Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook and a copyright official at the Library of Congress, Shira Perlmutter. They have both successfully avoided losing their positions thus far.
Though the FTC is likely to be treated differently because of the precedent, a Supreme Court decision in President Trump's favor could rewrite the bounds of presidential power over the administrative state.
The court currently has a 6-3 conservative majority. Three of the justices were appointed during Trump's first term.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Vital SCOTUS Case Tests The President’s Absolute Authority To Remove Executive Branch Officials
The Constitution is clear that the all executive authority resides in the president.Amazon wants Warner Bros. so it can rule your screen
Last month, Warner Brothers Discovery put itself up for sale, triggering what could become a bidding war for one of America’s most iconic studios. Days later, reports emerged that Amazon plans to make a run at the company, immediately raising the stakes.
Consumers and regulators should treat every Big Tech bidder with skepticism, but Amazon’s interest demands special scrutiny. The world’s largest online retailer has a long record of distorting markets, crushing rivals, and cozying up to foreign adversaries — most notably China. Letting Amazon absorb yet another major media asset would tighten its grip on an entertainment industry already buckling under corporate consolidation.
Why would antitrust officials hand Amazon even more power in a sector already suffocating under concentration?
Amazon may be a household name, but it is not an America-first company. It bullies smaller retailers, copies their ideas, and funnels profits and supply-chain leverage through China. That behavior undermines the ingenuity and fair competition that built the U.S. economy.
Amazon already wields enormous influence over media. Last year, Prime Video topped U.S. streaming charts for the third straight year. Amazon controls a sprawling production studio, reinforced by its 2022 purchase of MGM. It holds high-dollar sports rights, including "Thursday Night Football" and an 11-year deal with the NBA.
Amazon doesn’t need Warner Brothers Discovery to survive. It wants the company to force more Americans into its digital universe, dominate an even larger share of the market, and use that dominance to trap users and raise prices. Buying competitors beats out-competing them — a classic monopolist playbook that burdens consumers and smothers innovation.
A Warner Brothers takeover would give Amazon exactly what it wants: a massive content library, the third-largest streaming platform, and a lineup of lucrative cable properties. With the deal sealed, Amazon would control more than a third of the streaming video on demand market — roughly 50% more than its nearest rival.
Why would antitrust officials hand Amazon even more power in a sector already suffocating under concentration? They likely won’t.
FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson and the Justice Department’s antitrust chief, Gail Slater, have made clear that they intend to protect small businesses and consumers from predatory corporate behavior.
The Trump administration has backed those promises with action. Within nine months of taking office, the FTC forced Amazon to pay $2.5 million for trapping customers in Prime subscriptions. Ferguson’s vow to ensure that “Amazon never does this again” shows that this White House will not give repeat offenders a free pass.
RELATED: Stop feeding Big Tech and start feeding Americans again
The regulatory terrain also looks dramatically different from 2022, when Amazon bought MGM — an acquisition the Biden administration should have challenged and likely would challenge today. After that merger, the FTC rewrote its merger and acquisition guidelines to strengthen oversight. President Trump kept those rules and appears ready to use them.
Some critics claim Amazon earned goodwill with the administration by contributing to White House renovation projects. That accusation doesn’t survive contact with the facts. Candidate Trump warned about Amazon’s “huge antitrust problem” as early as 2016. The company has grown eightfold since then. Trump hasn’t softened.
And Amazon hardly functioned as a friend of the right. The company backed Joe Biden heavily in 2020, donating nearly $2.3 million to his campaign. Biden’s FTC did not treat Amazon kindly either, suing the company for “anticompetitive and unfair strategies to illegally maintain its monopoly power.” That case remains unresolved.
The sale of Warner Brothers Discovery will shape the future of American media — either by giving the company a fighting chance to innovate and compete, or by cementing Big Tech control over what Americans watch, read, and hear. If Amazon tries to tighten that grip, I expect the Trump administration to step in.
Let’s hope the sale doesn’t force the administration's hand.
Today's top stories
www.theblaze.com
thefederalist.com
How To Make Legislatures Stop Working For Special Interests And Start Working For The People