https://consumer.ftc.gov/consumer-alerts/2023/06/be-proud-report-scams?utm_source=govdelivery
Consumer Alert
Be proud, report scams
By
Samuel Levine
Director, Bureau of Consumer Protection
June 5, 2023
Image
Pride is all about celebrating who you are —proudly, without shame. This Pride, use your voice to talk to your friends and family about spotting and avoiding scams. So, how can you show your Pride and get the conversation started?
Here are some ideas — for this month or any day of the year.
- Talk about scams that target the LGBTQ+ community. Scammers see everyone as potential targets. But they also know that, sometimes, we can be more trusting of those in our own communities — or who seem to be. For example, scammers have used LGBTQ+ dating apps for extortion scams.
- Know your rights. Under federal law, it’s illegal for banks, credit unions, mortgage companies, retailers, or any other companies that extend credit to discriminate against you. So, during the application process or when making a credit decision, a creditor must not consider — among other things — your race or sex, including sexual orientation and gender identity.
- Report scams and bad business practices. However you have these conversations — during a parade, over a camp fire, or in your living room — encourage your friends and family to report scams and bad business practices (like credit discrimination) to the FTC at ReportFraud.ftc.gov.
__________________________________________________________
For Release
At FTC’s Request, Florida District Court Permanently Bars Deceptive COVID-19 PPE Marketer from Selling Any Protective Goods or Services to Consumers
Agency charged Frank Romero, doing business as Trend Deploy, with violating the FTC Act by misrepresenting mask quality and the Mail Order Rule by failing to cancel and refund orders
June 5, 2023
Tags:
- Consumer Protection
- Bureau of Consumer Protection
- Coronavirus (COVID-19)
- Over-the-Counter Drugs and Devices
- Advertising and Marketing
- Health Claims
- Online Advertising and Marketing
The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Ocala Division, issued an order permanently banning defendant Frank Romero from offering for sale or selling any protective goods or services, after granting the FTC’s motion for summary judgment.
The order also includes two monetary judgments against Romero, who has done business under the names Trend Deploy and Uvenux. The first judgment is for $989,483.69, to be returned to consumers harmed by Romero’s violations of the FTC Act and the Commission’s Mail Order Rule. The court also entered a second civil penalty judgment of $2,562.21 for Romero’s violations of the FTC Act with regards to the COVID-19 Consumer Protection Act.
In a complaint filed in June 2021, the FTC alleged that Romero preyed upon consumers’ fear of COVID-19 by advertising the availability and quick delivery of PPE, including N95 facemasks, even though he had no basis to make those promises.
The complaint stated that Romero failed to deliver PPE on time (if at all), failed to notify consumers of delayed shipments, failed to offer the cancellations and refunds required by the Commission’s Mail Order Rule, and failed to honor refund requests. When Romero eventually did deliver the products, he often sent supplies that were inferior in quality to what consumers ordered. Based on this conduct, the complaint alleged that Romero’s deceptive and unfair conduct violated the Mail Order Rule, the FTC Act, and the FTC Act with regards to the COVID-19 Consumer Protection Act.
The court found Romero violated the Mail Order Rule, the FTC Act, and the FTC Act with regards to the COVID-19 Consumer Protection Act. In issuing the order for permanent injunction, the court wrote that Romero “ha[d] no reasonable basis to expect he would be able to ship ordered merchandise to the buyer within the times he … stated within his solicitations,” “fail[ed] to ship goods within the timeframe required by [the Mail Order Rule],” “fail[ed] to allow consumers to consent to a delay in shipping or to cancel their orders and receive a prompt refund,” and “fail[ed] to provide consumers with a prompt refund” upon their request.
The court also found Romero violated the FTC Act because he lacked a reasonable basis for his claims about: 1) when his facemasks would ship, 2) whether his facemasks were certified by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health or the Food and Drug Administration, and 3) the filtration efficiencies possessed by his facemasks. Notably, the court found Romero lacked a reasonable basis to claim the masks he sold were proper N95 facemasks.
The final judgment and order for permanent injunction was issued by the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Ocala Division, on May 15, 2023. The staff members on this case are Christopher Erickson and Michael Mora in the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection.
The Federal Trade Commission works to promote competition and protect and educate consumers. Learn more about consumer topics at consumer.ftc.gov, or report fraud, scams, and bad business practices at ReportFraud.ftc.gov. Follow the FTC on social media, read consumer alerts and the business blog, and sign up to get the latest FTC news and alerts.
Press Release Reference
FTC Sues PPE Marketer for Falsely Promising Quick Delivery of N95 Facemasks
Contact Information
Media Contact
Office of Public Affairs
_________________________________________________________________
Business Blog
$20 million FTC settlement addresses Microsoft Xbox illegal collection of kids’ data: A game changer for COPPA compliance
By
Lesley Fair
June 5, 2023
Care About COPPA Compliance may not be the coolest Xbox gamertag, but an FTC action against Microsoft for alleged violations of the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act Rule suggests it might be a good choice nonetheless. Filed by the Department of Justice on the FTC’s behalf, the $20 million proposed settlement will require Microsoft to bolster privacy protections for kids who use its Xbox gaming system. The order also makes it clear that COPPA covers information like avatars generated from a child’s image, biometric data, and health data collected with other personal information – and reminds businesses that the Rule imposes strict limitations on the retention of data from kids.
Used by millions of gamers – many of whom are under 13 – Microsoft’s Xbox Live is an online gaming network that allows people to play through their Xbox Consoles. The FTC’s action focuses on three ways in which Microsoft allegedly violated COPPA: 1) by collecting personal information from kids under 13 before notifying their parents and getting parental consent; 2) by failing to tell parents about the information the company collects from kids, why it’s collecting that information, and the fact that it discloses some of the data to third parties; and 3) by retaining kids’ personal information for longer than is reasonably necessary.
Where does the FTC say Microsoft went wrong? You’ll want to read the complaint for details, but it started with the initial sign-up procedure. To play, users needed a Microsoft account. At the outset, Microsoft required them to provide their email address, their first and last name, and their date of birth. Until late 2021, Microsoft also asked for their phone number. What’s more, Microsoft required them to consent to the company’s service agreement, which until 2019 included a pre-checked box allowing Microsoft to send them promotional messages and to share user data with advertisers. The sequence of events is important here because Microsoft asked for all that information even from users who had just told the company they were under 13. Only after gathering that raft of personal data from children did Microsoft get parents involved in the process. And that’s at the crux of the FTC’s allegation that the company violated COPPA.
To ensure that parents – not companies – are in control of information collected from kids online, COPPA requires two distinct forms of notice. The complaint alleges that Microsoft failed to comply with both mandatory provisions. Under Section 312.4(b) of the COPPA Rule – often called the direct notice requirement – a company must provide parents with direct notice of its information practices before it collects, uses, or discloses personal information from kids. The FTC says Microsoft violated that provision by collecting kids’ names, email addresses, and phone numbers up front and only after that did the company notify parents and ask for their consent.
In addition, the FTC alleges Microsoft’s direct notice was incomplete. Specifically, the notice didn’t tell parents it would collect personal information beyond what the child had already provided – for example, kids’ photos, their Xbox User ID, and other data the company combined with that ID. Another alleged deficiency: Microsoft simply told parents it collected, shared, and used information from kids, but then sent them to the Microsoft Privacy Statement to try to figure out the specifics for themselves. The FTC says what Microsoft should have done was describe its practices right then and there, rather than sending parents off on what amounted to a DIY errand.
Section 312.4(d) of the COPPA Rule – often called the online notice provision – requires (among other things) that companies post a prominent and clearly labeled link to an online privacy notice explaining their information practices “at each area of the Web site or online service where personal information is collected from children.” The FTC says Microsoft fell short in complying with that provision, too. Until at least 2019, the required Privacy Statement discussed the company’s practices in general, but didn’t include what COPPA requires: the specifics about what personal information it collects from kids and its disclosure practices for that information. What’s more, it didn’t include a mandatory explanation for how parents can ask Microsoft to delete their child’s personal information and to stop collecting it in the future.
The FTC alleges that by collecting personal information from kids under 13 before getting their parents involved, Microsoft violated Section 312.5 of COPPA. As that parental consent provision states, “An operator is required to obtain verifiable parental consent before any collection, use, or disclosure of personal information from children.” Furthermore, the deficiencies in Microsoft’s notices compounded that violation. Put another way, how could parents’ consent be effective if Microsoft didn’t give them the information COPPA says is necessary for them to have before deciding whether to consent?
According to the complaint, Microsoft also violated COPPA’s data retention and deletion requirements. According to Section 312.10, companies “shall retain personal information collected online from a child for only as long as is reasonably necessary to fulfill the purpose for which the information was collected.” After that, the company must securely delete the data. Here, though, Microsoft collected certain personal information from children during the account registration process, but even if the company ultimately didn’t get parental consent, the FTC says that from 2015 until 2020, Microsoft held on to that data – often for years after the account creation process wasn’t completed.
In addition to the $20 million civil penalty and injunctive provisions that have become standard in FTC COPPA cases, the proposed order will require Microsoft to implement new business practices to increase privacy protections for Xbox users under 13. Among other things, if parents haven’t created a separate account for their kids, Microsoft must let them know that a separate account will provide additional privacy protections for their child by default. The company also must maintain a system to delete, within two weeks from the collection date, all personal information collected from kids for the purpose of getting parental consent unless the parent grants consent within that time. In addition, Microsoft must honor COPPA’s date deletion requirements by getting rid of all other personal data collected from children after it’s no longer needed. And if Microsoft discloses personal information about children to video game publishers, Microsoft must tell them the user is a child – a key provision that will put those publishers on notice that they, too, must apply COPPA protections to that child.
Here are some additional points that companies can take from the proposed settlement.
COPPA coverage is expansive. COPPA doesn’t just cover websites and apps. It also applies to online services like Xbox. If you’re part of the gaming ecosystem, are you current on what COPPA requires of your company? The FTC has resources to help your stay within the law.
COPPA’s definition of “personal information” is broad. The proposed settlement with Microsoft sends a strong reminder to companies that the phrase “personal information” under COPPA covers much more than just a name or address. It also includes other information concerning the child or the parents of the child collected online from the child – for example, things like avatars, biometrics, vital signs, and health data, when collected and combined with other categories of personal information set forth in the Rule. With that compliance pointer in mind, take a closer look at the information you collect. (Also consider that as one more reason why you need to know about the FTC’s recent Policy Statement on Biometric Information.)
Pay attention to what others are telling you about the sources of information. It’s COPPA 101 that the law covers both websites and online services that are “directed to children” and those with “actual knowledge” they’re dealing with data collected from kids under 13. So whether your company collected the information or you received the data knowing that someone else collected it from a kid under 13, the COPPA buck stops with you. Under the proposed order, that includes the video game publishers who must now be told by Microsoft when a user is under 13.
“Default,” dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves. A key takeaway is the importance of designing default settings with COPPA compliance in mind. Walk through your processes from the perspective of parents and kids.
_______________________________________________________
Consumer Alert
The Microsoft Xbox Live settlement: What it means for your child’s privacy
By
Alvaro Puig
Consumer Education Specialist
June 5, 2023
Websites and online services that are directed to, or know they’re collecting information from, children under 13 are required by law to notify the parents directly and get their permission before they collect that child’s information. The FTC says Microsoft’s Xbox Live failed to do so.
As part of a settlement, Microsoft agreed to comply with the law to protect children’s privacy on Xbox Live and to get parental consent for the personal information it collected from children’s accounts created before May 2021. The company also will tell adult Xbox Live users about its privacy settings to protect children.
If you have a child that plays on your Xbox Live account, you may create a child account, which gives your child some privacy protections they don’t get on an adult account. For example, a child account limits how Microsoft shares your child’s information. And your child may only communicate with friends that you approve. To review and adjust your child’s privacy settings, go to your Microsoft Privacy Dashboard.
Before a website or online service collects personal information from your child, it has to notify you and get your permission. The notice must
- tell you what information the site will collect about your child,
- tell you how it will use the information,
- tell you how to give — or withhold — your consent, and
- include a link to the privacy policy with more details.
If you give consent, that’s not the end of the story. You have the right to review the information that the website or service collects about your child, and delete it if you choose. You also have the right to revoke your consent at any time.
To learn more, check out the FTC’s advice about protecting your child’s information online.
Search Terms
________________________________________________________
For Release
Commission Seeks Public Comment on Collaboration with State Attorneys General
Agency urges the public to provide input on issues related to advancing collaborative law enforcement and consumer protection efforts between the FTC and state attorneys general
June 7, 2023
Tags:
The Federal Trade Commission is seeking public comments and suggestions on ways it can work more effectively with state attorneys general nationwide to help educate consumers about, and protect them from, potential fraud. The request for public information (RFI) announced today comes at the direction of the FTC Collaboration Act of 2021, which President Biden signed into law last October.
The Collaboration Act directs the FTC to “conduct a study on facilitating and refining existing efforts with State Attorneys General to prevent, publicize, and penalize frauds and scams being perpetrated on individuals in the United States.” It further requires the Commission to consult directly with interested stakeholders, as well as provide the opportunity for public comment and advice relevant to the production of the study.
“State attorneys general have long been valued partners of the FTC as we carry out our shared mission to protect consumers and ensure fairness in the marketplace,” said Samuel Levine, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “The FTC welcomes this opportunity to deepen our relationship with attorneys general, and I am grateful to our Western Region Los Angeles team for taking the lead on this important initiative.”
As part of the RFI, the FTC is asking for comment on three specific topics that the study will address: 1) the roles and responsibilities of the Commission and state attorneys general that best advance collaboration and consumer protection, 2) how resources should be dedicated to best advance such collaboration and consumer protection, and 3) the accountability mechanisms that should be implemented to promote collaboration and consumer protection between the FTC at state attorneys general.
Specifically, the FTC is asking consumers and other interested stakeholders to weigh in on a wide array of issues affecting federal and state consumer protection collaboration, including:
- consumers’ views of the respective roles and responsibilities of the Commission and state attorneys general as they relate to consumer protection and preventing, publicizing, and penalizing frauds and scams;
- how, in practice, do the FTC and state attorneys general effectively collaborate and support each other’s consumer protection missions in several contexts;
- how the work of state and local consumer protection law enforcement agencies outside of state attorneys general facilitate and refine efforts between the Commission and state attorneys general;
- the extent to which federal law preempting state jurisdiction has affected the ability of state attorneys general to protect consumers from unlawful business practices;
- how the FTC can maximize use of, and contributions to, the Consumer Sentinel Network, through which law enforcers nationwide submit and receive consumer complaints;
- how resources should be dedicated to best advance collaboration and consumer protection missions between the FTC and state attorneys general in a variety of contexts;
- the effectiveness of the current exchange of technical or subject matter expertise between the FTC and state attorneys general when collaborating on consumer protection matters;
- resources or new authorities and information-sharing practices that may be needed or improved to enhance law enforcement collaboration; and
- additional performance indicators or metrics that the Commission should consider reporting, or other mechanism that should be implemented to measure the effectiveness of the FTC’s consumer protection collaboration with state attorneys general.
The Commission vote approving the RFI and publication of the related notice in the Federal Register was 3-0, with Chair Lina Khan issuing a separate statement,in which she was joined by Commissioners Rebecca Kelly Slaughter and Alvaro M. Bedoya. The public will have 60 days to submit comments at Regulations.gov. Once submitted, comments will be posted to Regulations.gov.
The lead staff attorneys on this matter are Robert Quigley and Miles Freeman in the FTC’s Western Region Los Angeles.
The Federal Trade Commission works to promote competition and protect and educate consumers. Learn more about consumer topics at consumer.ftc.gov, or report fraud, scams, and bad business practices at ReportFraud.ftc.gov. Follow the FTC on social media, read consumer alerts and the business blog, and sign up to get the latest FTC news and alerts.
Contact Information
Media Contact
Office of Public Affairs
____________________________________________________________
For Release
New FTC Data Analysis Shows Bank Impersonation is Most-Reported Text Message Scam
FTC data spotlight highlights text scams, which accounted for $330 million in reported consumer losses in 2022
June 8, 2023
Tags:
- Consumer Protection
- Bureau of Consumer Protection
- Jobs
- Phishing
- Consumer Sentinel Network
- Telecommunications
- Advertising and Marketing
- Privacy and Security
A new analysis from the Federal Trade Commission shows that bogus bank fraud warnings were the most common form of text message scam reported to the agency, and that many of the most common text scams impersonate well-known businesses.
In a newly issued data spotlight, the FTC ranks the top five types of text message scam reported in 2022, with examples of each showing the ways that scammers craft messages designed to deceive consumers. Consumers reported losing $330 million to text message scams in 2022, more than doubling what was reported in 2021.
The analysis looked at a random sample of 1,000 text messages reported to the FTC, finding that fake bank security messages, often supposedly from large banks like Bank of America and Wells Fargo, were the most common type. These texts are designed to create a sense of urgency, often by asking people to verify a large transaction they did not make. Those who respond are connected to a fake bank representative. Reports of texts impersonating banks have increased nearly twentyfold since 2019.
After bank impersonation, the most frequently reported text scams were: messages claiming to offer a free gift, often from a cell phone carrier or retailer; fake claims of package delivery issues from the USPS, UPS, or FedEx; phony job offers for things like mystery shopping and car wrapping; and bogus Amazon security alerts.
The spotlight includes tips for consumers on how to spot text message scams and how to report the bogus text messages to their cell phone companies, device makers, and to the FTC.
The Federal Trade Commission works to promote competition and protect and educate consumers. Learn more about consumer topics at consumer.ftc.gov, or report fraud, scams, and bad business practices at ReportFraud.ftc.gov. Follow the FTC on social media, read consumer alerts and the business blog, and sign up to get the latest FTC news and alerts.
Contact Information
Contact for Consumers
FTC Consumer Response Center
Media Contact
Office of Public Affairs
_______________________________________________________
Business Blog
Can your staff spot the five most common text message scams?
By
Lesley Fair
June 8, 2023
Image
According to reports in the FTC’s Consumer Sentinel database, text message scams took consumers for $330 million in 2022. The latest Consumer Protection Data Spotlight focuses on this form of fraud. With reported losses more than doubling in 2021 and nearly five times what people reported in 2019, would you be able to spot the five most common text message scams? What about your employees?
First, some background about what may be behind the proliferation of this form of fraud. It’s estimated that text message open rates are as high as 98%, compared to email open rates of 20% – and they cost next to nothing to send. So people may have grown accustomed to responding to that ping with an automatic click. The growth of text scams should be of particular concern to businesses. Aside from the fact that your family and friends may be among the consumers who have reported median personal losses of $1,000, a lot of the messages take on a distinctly “office-y” tone that may target your staff – fake deliveries, bogus job offers, and the like. It should also concern businesses that scammers often do their dirty work by stealing the names of well-known companies, with 51% of reports of text fraud categorized in Consumer Sentinel as business imposters.
The Data Spotlight focuses on these five common text message scams.
1. Copycat bank fraud prevention alerts. According to the Data Spotlight, reports about texts impersonating banks are up nearly twentyfold since 2019 with median reported individual losses of $3,000 last year. People get a text supposedly from a bank asking them to call a number ASAP about suspicious activity or to reply YES or NO to verify whether a transaction was authorized. If they reply, they’ll get a call from a phony “fraud department” claiming they want to “help get your money back.” What they really want to do is make unauthorized transfers. What’s more, they may ask for personal information like Social Security numbers, setting people up for possible identity theft.
2. Bogus “gifts” that can cost you. What about those texts claiming to be from a well-known company offering a free gift or reward? If people click the link and use their credit card to cover the small “shipping fee,” they’ve just handed over their account information to a scammer. Reports to Consumer Sentinel tell us that fraudulent charges are likely to follow.
3. Fake package delivery problems. On any given day, what home or business isn’t expecting a delivery? Scammers understand how our shopping habits have changed and have updated their sleazy tactics accordingly. People may get a text pretending to be from the U.S. Postal Service, FedEx, or UPS claiming there’s a problem with a delivery. The text links to a convincing-looking – but utterly bogus – website that asks for a credit card number to cover a small “redelivery fee.”
4. Phony job offers. With workplaces in transition, some scammers are using texts to perpetrate old-school forms of fraud – for example, fake “mystery shopper” jobs or bogus money-making offers for driving around with cars wrapped in ads. Other texts target people who post their resumes on employment websites. They claim to offer jobs and even send job seekers checks, usually with instructions to send some of the money to a different address for materials, training, or the like. By the time the check bounces, the person’s money – and the phony “employer” – are long gone.
5) Not-really-from-Amazon security alerts. People may get what looks like a message from “Amazon,” asking to verify a big-ticket order they didn’t place. Concerned about the security of their account, people call the number in the text and are connected to a phony Amazon rep who offers to “fix” their account. But oopsie! Several zeroes are mistakenly added to the “refund” and the “operator” needs the caller to return the overpayment, often in the form of gift card PIN numbers.
Image
According to the Data Spotlight, reporting can help stop scam text messages. Forward the text to 7726 (SPAM). This helps your wireless provider block similar messages. Report it on either the Apple iMessages app or Google’s Messages app for Android users. And report it to the FTC at ReportFraud.ftc.gov.
Here is additional advice for your employees:
- Don’t click on links or respond to unexpected texts. If you aren’t sure if a text legit, contact the company directly using a phone number or website you know is real – for example, the 24-hour toll-free number on the back of your credit or bank card. Don’t use the information in the text message.
- Filter unwanted texts before they reach you. The FTC has advice on blocking unwanted texts.
________________________________________________________
Business Blog
INFORM Consumers Act takes effect on June 27th. Is your business ready?
By
Lesley Fair
June 8, 2023
Certain businesses in the e-commerce space should mark June 27, 2023, on their calendars. That’s the date a new law – the INFORM Consumers Act – takes effect. The FTC and the states share law enforcement authority and violations could result in steep civil penalties and – in cases brought by the states – “damages, restitution, or other compensation.” Are you covered by the statute? And if you are, are you taking the necessary compliance steps? FTC staff just issued a to-the-point publication that merits your attention: Informing Businesses about the INFORM Consumers Act.
Congress passed the Integrity, Notification, and Fairness in Online Retail Marketplaces for Consumers Act – or the INFORM Consumers Act – to add more transparency to online transactions and to deter criminals from acquiring stolen, counterfeit, or unsafe items and selling them through online marketplaces. Don’t let another day pass without considering what the new law means for your business or your clients’ companies.
The INFORM Consumers Act puts new requirements in place for “online marketplaces” – defined as a person or business that operates a consumer-directed platform that allows third party sellers to engage in the “sale, purchase, payment, storage, shipping, or delivery of a consumer product in the United States.” Online marketplaces covered by the law must collect and verify certain financial and identifying information from “high-volume third party sellers” – defined as a person or business that meets specific sales thresholds on that platform. What’s more, online marketplaces generally must disclose on those sellers’ product listing pages (or in order confirmation messages and account transaction histories) the seller’s name, address, and contact information. In addition, online marketplaces must suspend high-volume third party sellers that don’t provide the required information and must offer a clear way for consumers to report suspicious conduct.
You’ll want to read the new business guide and the text of the law for details, but it boils down to this. Under the INFORM Consumers Act, online marketplaces must have more information about who’s selling on their platform. Covered sellers must promptly comply with those requests for information or risk suspension. And consumers who buy from those sellers will have a place to report questionable activity.
Informing Businesses about the INFORM Consumers Act includes more about the law, with a particular focus on the responsibilities of online marketplaces. With the June 27th effective date approaching, it’s time for online marketplaces to rev up their compliance efforts. The FTC will be watching and expects online marketplaces to have INFORM Consumers Act measures in place by the effective date.
_______________________________________________________
Consumer Alert
Medicare fraud prevention: What’s on your statement?
By
Bridget Small
Consumer Education Specialist, FTC
June 8, 2023
Image
Some people with Medicare are getting unordered COVID tests in the mail — lots of tests — and Medicare is getting the bill. Others don’t get tests but find charges for tests on their Medicare statements. People report that they don’t remember agreeing to orders or recognize the names of the companies that charge them. Frauds like this, along with mistakes and abuse, cost Medicare an estimated $60 billion each year and steal people’s time and energy. During Medicare Fraud Prevention Week, we’re joining the Senior Medicare Patrol Program in looking for ways to help prevent fraud, errors, and abuse. If you have Medicare, here are some things to consider.
- Don’t give anyone your Medicare number over the phone. Protect it just like you protect your credit card number. Callers who offer “free supplies,” “no-cost” lab tests, or say you need a replacement Medicare card are scammers trying to get your Medicare number. Don’t give them any information. Remember: the real Medicare will never ask for your number. They already have it!
- Read your Medicare Summary Notices (MSN) and Explanations of Benefits (EOB), either on paper or at Medicare.gov. When you read each statement, look for services, products, or equipment Medicare paid for, but you didn’t get. Do the statements show any double charges, or things you or your doctor didn’t ask for?
- If you suspect Medicare fraud, call your health care provider or plan and ask for an explanation. If you aren’t satisfied with their response, call your local Senior Medicare Patrol to find out where to make a complaint. Or call Medicare at 1-800-MEDICARE. If you got COVID tests you didn’t order, tell the Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General online or at 1-800-HHS-TIPS (1-800-447-8477).
If you spot other scams, fraud, or bad business practices, please tell the FTC at ReportFraud.ftc.gov.
________________________________________________________
