FTC Takes a Stand: Lawsuit Targets Deceptive Treatment Listings and Call-Center Fraud

What’s the FTC Doing? 🏛️

On June 24, 2025, the Federal Trade Commission filed a federal lawsuit against Mercury Marketing, LLC, Malibu Detox, Aliya Health Group, JLux Consulting, Behavioral Healthcare Group of America, and individual operators including Jennifer Russ and Christopher LiVolsi. The complaint alleges these defendants ran deceptive Google ads and operated call centers designed to impersonate legitimate substance use disorder (SUD) treatment providers, misleading vulnerable consumers seeking help Federal Trade Commission+11Federal Trade Commission+11CCH Business+11.

This enforcement action invokes violations of:

• Section 5 of the FTC Act, which bans unfair or deceptive practices;

• The Opioid Addiction Recovery Fraud Prevention Act of 2018;

• The FTC’s Impersonation Rule banning false claims of affiliation with other clinics or entities Advertising Law Blog+1Becker’s Behavioral Health+1Maryland Daily Record+6CCH Business+6Advertising Law Blog+6.

  
  

2. How Did It Work? Manipulating Search and Calls

• Fake ads: When individuals searched for top rehab centers (e.g. “Cumberland Heights Nashville TN” or “Valley of Hope Chandler AZ”), ads surfaced that appeared legit but routed calls to defendants’ own hotlines instead of the clinics they sought Maryland Daily Record.

• Call centers: Operators purported they were staff from the genuine clinic or a third-party referral service. Instead, they pushed callers toward defendant-run clinics like Malibu Detox or those affiliated with Aliya Health Group—even claiming clinical professionals recommended them based on assessments that never occurred Simpson Thacher & Bartlett+8Maryland Daily Record+8Lexology+8.

• Analytics oversight: JLux Consulting allegedly monitored call agent performance and coached scripts to optimize sales, sometimes even instructing staff to feign HIPAA compliance or claim bed shortages to manipulate the caller further CCH Business+3Maryland Daily Record+3Lexology+3.

3. Why It’s Significant

• Exploiting vulnerable seekers: People reaching out for addiction support—a highly sensitive moment—were misled into trusting false numbers and bogus affiliations.

• Millions in scope: The FTC suggests this scheme involved nearly 29,000 calls, over $18M in ad spending, and substantial revenue for lead-generating clinics Lexology+1Advertising Law Blog+1.

• Persistent misconduct: Mercury and its partners allegedly continued misleading campaigns even after being aware of FTC scrutiny and after the Impersonation Rule took effect in early 2024 JD Supra+5Lexology+5Federal Trade Commission+5.

  
  

4. Broader Strategy and Prior Precedent

This enforcement follows closely on the heels of a June 2025 FTC settlement with Evoke Wellness, where similar deceptive search ads and telemarketing practices were at issue. Evoke agreed to pay $1.9 million in penalties and was barred from similar misconduct JD Supra+3Becker’s Behavioral Health+3Federal Trade Commission+3.

The Mercury case is a clear signal: the FTC is intensifying enforcement around digital marketing and lead generation strategies targeting individuals seeking healthcare services.

5. Inside the Legal Framework

Law / Rule	Description
FTC Act, Section 5(a)	Prohibits unfair or deceptive acts in commerce
OARFPA (2018 law)	Targets deceptive marketing in opioid and SUD treatment
Impersonation Rule	Bans misrepresentations implying affiliation with another entity, including private companies

The FTC is seeking permanent injunctions, civil penalties, and restitution or relief for misled consumers, aiming to halt such deception in the future JD SupraJD Supra+2Lexology+2Advertising Law Blog+2JD Supra+3Advertising Law Blog+3Lexology+3JD Supra+3CCH Business+3Maryland Daily Record+3.

6. What Operators & Lead Generators Must Know

• Paid search ads should clearly identify the actual advertiser and not mimic unrelated clinics.

• Call centers and scripts must disclose affiliations and avoid any language that could imply false endorsements.

• Opaque referral pathways or hidden commissions heighten legal risk, especially in healthcare marketing.

• Providers remain liable for third-party actions: hiring marketing firms or lead generators doesn’t absolve companies from responsibility.

• 
  

7. Why Trust Matters—Lessons from This Case

For individuals and families struggling with addiction, every call counts. The FTC's action underscores:

• The need for transparency in marketing and admissions processes.

• The importance of confirmed provider affiliations, not just search-friendly branding.

• The requirement for ethical care pathways, rather than funneling consumers to undisclosed facilities.

✅ Takeaway

The FTC’s lawsuit against Mercury Marketing and others reflects a stronger regulatory resolve to protect vulnerable healthcare consumers from deceptive practices—particularly in addiction treatment marketing. As enforcement ramps up, companies must ensure genuine disclosures, truthful affiliations, and genuine consumer-centered advertising in all digital and telemarketing channels.