FTC Takes Action Against ‘Click Profit’ for Deceptive Business Practices

FTC Takes Action Against ‘Click Profit’ for Deceptive Business Practices

On March 18, 2025, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) announced that a federal court had temporarily halted the operation of Click Profit, a business opportunity scheme that had swindled consumers out of millions of dollars. Click Profit, also doing business under the names FBALaunch, Automation Industries, and PortfolioLaunch, falsely promised consumers substantial profits through online sales powered by a proprietary artificial intelligence (“AI”) system. The company claimed its system would help consumers sell products through major platforms like Amazon, Walmart, and TikTok, all while generating large amounts of “passive income.”

According to the FTC’s complaint, Click Profit’s deceptive marketing tactics included false claims of affiliation with high-profile companies like Nike and Disney, which it used to convince consumers to invest tens of thousands of dollars. The company presented itself as a safe, secure, and proven business opportunity, even going so far as to suggest that consumers could expect higher returns than traditional investments.

Consumers who bought into this opportunity were charged a “management fee” of at least $45,000, along with additional fees for inventory purchases. However, the FTC alleges that the majority of these consumers saw no return on their investments and instead lost their entire payment. Many were left with unsold products and, in some cases, overwhelming credit card debt. The company’s advertisements, which featured extravagant testimonials and promises of six- to eight-figure incomes, gave consumers unrealistic expectations of their potential earnings.

The complaint also highlighted the lack of actual success in Click Profit’s business model. A significant portion of the stores created through the service earned little to no money. In fact, over one-fifth of Click Profit’s stores on Amazon failed to generate any revenue, while another third made less than $2,500 in gross lifetime sales. The company’s steep fees and profit-sharing arrangements meant that most consumers could never recoup their initial investments, let alone make the promised profits.

Additionally, Click Profit’s operations were fraught with delays, often taking months to set up stores, and in many cases, failing to open stores at all. Even when stores were launched, they were frequently blocked or suspended by the platforms, particularly Amazon, which blocked or terminated around 95% of Click Profit’s stores. When some stores did start generating revenue, Click Profit allegedly pressured consumers into reinvesting that money into additional inventory, further compounding their financial losses.

The FTC’s complaint also pointed to Click Profit’s unresponsiveness to consumer complaints. Many consumers were forced to turn to external organizations like the Better Business Bureau (“BBB”) or law enforcement to get refunds. In some instances, the company even threatened legal action against customers who complained, citing a non-disparagement clause in its contracts.

The FTC has charged Click Profit, its co-founders Craig Emslie and Patrick McGeoghean, as well as their business partners and affiliated companies, with violating several laws, including the FTC Act, the Business Opportunity Rule, the Consumer Review Fairness Act, and regulations against impersonating government entities or businesses. The case is still ongoing, but the FTC’s immediate action has temporarily stopped the operation of the deceptive scheme, and the commission is working to hold the defendants accountable and secure refunds for the affected consumers.

This case is a reminder of the importance of vigilance when it comes to online business opportunities, especially those promising high returns with little effort. The FTC said this action aims to protect consumers from these types of fraudulent schemes and hold businesses accountable for misleading practices.

If you would like to read more about this case and others, visit our Case Studies Library.

(Image Credit: iStock Photo)

This article is for information purposes only. It is not intended to be and should not be relied on as legal advice for any particular matter.