The FTC's "Grant$ For You Now": $1.99 for a government grant list that never was
The FTC sued In Deep Services, Inc. and its principals Ryan Champion and Joseph C. Fleming IV, who did business as "Grant$ For You Now," alleging their websites deceived consumers with promises of free government grant money, charged a token $1.99 sign-up fee, then billed undisclosed recurring monthly charges of $72 to $95. Settlements announced in November 2010 permanently banned the defendants from selling grant-related products and imposed a $9,042,070 judgment, suspended based on the defendants' ability to pay.
- Year
- 2010
- Where
- United States
- Outcome
- Settled
- Reported loss
- $9.0 million
- Victims
- Not stated in the sources
- Schemes
- Government grant scams
- Last reviewed
- 2026-09-15
The facts, as recorded
- The case was filed as part of the FTC's 'Operation Short Change,' a July 2009 crackdown on scams targeting financially strapped consumers; a temporary restraining order against the defendants issued June 23, 2009.
- Defendants: In Deep Services, Inc. (a California corporation) doing business as Grant$ For You Now, and its principals Ryan Champion and Joseph C. Fleming IV.
- The FTC alleged the websites promised free government grant money for personal expenses or paying off debt — a use no legitimate federal grant program funds.
- Consumers were charged a $1.99 fee to access a 'members only' area, which the FTC said contained inaccurate and outdated grant information, and were not adequately told they would then be billed $72 to $95 per month plus a one-time $19.12 charge.
- The FTC's Commission voted 5-0 to file the settlements in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
- Settlement orders imposed a $9,042,070 judgment, suspended upon surrender of assets and proof of inability to pay, and permanently banned the defendants from marketing any grant-related product or service, or any negative-option billing program.
- FTC statement: "The federal government does not provide grants to consumers for personal expenses or paying off debts."
This is an FTC civil law-enforcement settlement, not a criminal conviction. The defendants settled without admitting the FTC’s allegations, as is standard in FTC consent settlements.
Why this case matters
This is the online, individual-consumer version of the pitch, distinct from the phone-based business-targeting cases on this page. It shows the negative-option mechanics that make small-dollar online grant scams profitable: a $1.99 charge is trivial enough that almost nobody checks the total cost before handing over card details, and that same card number is then billed $72 to $95 every month until the consumer notices and cancels.
The dollar hook, decades before it became a familiar pattern
The $1.99 sign-up fee followed by large, recurring, poorly disclosed charges is the same negative-option structure the FTC has continued to pursue in other categories since — a documented, decades-long online sales tactic, not a one-off scheme design.
What it tells you about the scheme
Government grant scams run on two separate tracks that this page treats as one category: a phone-based advance-fee version aimed mostly at small-business owners (see the Villegas and Riddiough cases on this page), and this online, individual-consumer, subscription-trap version. Both exploit the same underlying fact — that no legitimate federal grant program funds personal expenses or business start-up costs on demand — but the billing mechanics differ.
The caveat
The defendants settled the FTC’s civil complaint without admitting the allegations, which is the normal form of an FTC consent settlement and not equivalent to a criminal finding of guilt. The $9,042,070 judgment was suspended based on the defendants’ financial condition, meaning the figure represents the FTC’s calculation of consumer harm and the size of judgment it could impose, not money actually collected from the defendants or returned to consumers.
Sources
- FTC Settlements Permanently Shut Down "Free Government Grants" Scam. US Federal Trade Commission. Accessed 2026-09-15. Supports: The defendant names, the Operation Short Change context, the fee structure ($1.99 sign-up, $72-95/month, $19.12 one-time charge), the settlement terms, the $9,042,070 judgment, the bans imposed, and the FTC quote.