20% of the stores earned nothing, and 95% were shut down
The FTC halted Click Profit in March 2025, alleging it sold managed Amazon storefronts as guaranteed passive income while claiming AI technology and partnerships with Nike and Disney. Its own numbers are the case: over 20% of the stores earned zero revenue, and roughly 95% were blocked, suspended or terminated by Amazon. A permanent ban followed in August.
- Year
- 2025
- Where
- United States
- Outcome
- Settled
- Reported loss
- $14.0 million
- Victims
- Not stated in the sources
- Schemes
- E-commerce automation and business opportunity schemes, Job and task scams
- Last reviewed
- 2026-09-07
The facts, as recorded
- The FTC announced the action on 18 March 2025; a federal court had issued a temporary restraining order on 5 March 2025.
- Defendants were Click Profit, LLC — also trading as FBALaunch, Automation Industries and PortfolioLaunch — co-founders Craig Emslie and Patrick McGeoghean, and partners Jason Masri and William Holton.
- The scheme cost consumers at least $14 million.
- It was marketed as "safe, secure, and proven to generate wealth", promising six- to eight-figure income potential and guaranteed passive income through proprietary AI technology.
- It falsely claimed affiliation with Nike and Disney, and suggested venture capital buyout opportunities at a "3-6x multiple".
- Over 20% of the Amazon stores earned zero revenue; another third earned less than $2,500 in lifetime gross sales.
- Approximately 95% of Click Profit stores on Amazon were blocked, suspended or terminated.
- The company threatened customers who filed complaints with lawsuits, citing an unlawful non-disparagement clause.
- Charges cited the FTC Act, the Business Opportunity Rule, the Consumer Review Fairness Act and the Rule on Impersonation of Government and Businesses.
- On 25 August 2025 the FTC announced permanent bans and judgments of $13.6 million and $7.3 million, partially suspended for inability to pay.
Why this case matters
Most fraud cases on this site are proved by what the operators said. This one is proved by what happened afterwards, and the FTC put the numbers in the complaint:
- Over 20% of the Amazon stores earned zero revenue.
- Another third earned less than $2,500 in lifetime gross sales.
- Approximately 95% were blocked, suspended or terminated by Amazon.
Set that against what was sold: six- to eight-figure income potential, guaranteed passive income, and a venture capital buyout at a “3-6x multiple”.
What was actually being sold
A managed storefront. You pay tens of thousands of dollars; a company builds and runs an Amazon shop on your behalf; the profits arrive without you doing anything.
Everything in that sentence is a real thing that exists. Amazon sellers are real, third-party management is a real service, and passive income from e-commerce is not an absurd idea. That is what separates this from an invented product — it is a plausible business, sold with figures that were not.
The two claims that were simply false
AI technology. Proprietary artificial intelligence, driving the store selection and the pricing. The FTC’s charge cites the Business Opportunity Rule and the FTC Act on the earnings claims, and the 2024 crackdown that preceded it found the same pattern across the sector: the letters “AI” attached to an ordinary managed service.
Nike and Disney. A claimed affiliation with well-known suppliers, which the FTC says did not exist. That is why the Rule on Impersonation of Government and Businesses appears in the charges — the same rule discussed on our fake endorsement page. Borrowed credibility is the constant.
The non-disparagement clause
The detail worth remembering is what happened to customers who complained: they were threatened with lawsuits, citing a non-disparagement clause in their contract.
That clause is unlawful. The Consumer Review Fairness Act exists precisely to void contract terms that stop customers describing their experience, and the FTC charged it here.
It also explains why these schemes are so hard to research before buying. A prospective customer searching for reviews finds few — not because the experience was good, but because the people who had it were told they would be sued for saying so.
The recovery, as usual
$14 million taken. Judgments of $13.6 million and $7.3 million, partially suspended for inability to pay, settled with cash, real estate and personal property.
The permanent ban is the part that operates.
Sources
- FTC Acts to Stop 'Click Profit' Online Business Opportunity that Has Cost Consumers At Least $14 Million. US Federal Trade Commission. Accessed 2026-09-07. Supports: The 18 March 2025 announcement and 5 March restraining order, all defendants and trading names, the $14m, the marketing claims, the Nike and Disney claims, the store performance figures, the non-disparagement threats and the four statutes cited.
- FTC Case Against E-Commerce Business Opportunity Scheme and its Operators Results in Permanent Ban from Industry. US Federal Trade Commission. Accessed 2026-09-07. Supports: The 25 August 2025 settlement, the eight named entities, the permanent bans, and the $13.6m and $7.3m judgments partially suspended for inability to pay.