$18 an Hour That Was Really $12: The Arise Virtual Solutions Refunds

The Federal Trade Commission announced on August 26, 2025, that it had sent more than $6.7 million in refunds to 98,254 consumers harmed by gig work company Arise Virtual Solutions' deceptive earnings claims, completing the redress phase of a case that had been working through settlement since a July 2024 order.DOCUMENTED

The underlying case marked the first time the FTC charged a company in the gig economy with violating the agency's Business Opportunity Rule, which requires anyone offering a business opportunity for sale to provide prospective buyers with specific, substantiated disclosures about potential earnings.DOCUMENTED

The gap between the ad and the paycheck

According to the FTC's complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Arise Virtual Solutions marketed its gig platform to people seeking flexible work-from-home opportunities, including stay-at-home parents and veterans, with advertisements prominently citing an "$18/hour" figure for remote customer-service work available through the platform.DOCUMENTED

The FTC's complaint alleges that when Arise began citing this figure in 2020, its own internal documents already showed the average pay for jobs on the platform was just $12 an hour. Looking at the broader period from 2019 to 2022, the complaint alleges 99.9% of consumers who joined the platform earned less than the advertised $18-an-hour rate in hourly base pay — meaning the headline number used to recruit new participants reflected an outcome that was, for practical purposes, almost never actually achieved.DOCUMENTED

A warning that went unheeded

The complaint states that Arise's own market testing found the specific $18-an-hour claim drew a stronger consumer response than more generic advertising simply promising "extra income," which the FTC's complaint cites as evidence the company understood the figure's marketing power even as its own data showed how rarely it was achieved.DOCUMENTED

Notably, the FTC had already sent Arise a formal Notice of Penalty Offenses in 2022, specifically warning the company about false and unsubstantiated earnings claims in money-making opportunities. According to the complaint, Arise continued running advertisements touting the $18-an-hour figure even after receiving that notice, a detail that then-FTC Chair Lina Khan cited directly in announcing the case: "Arise lured in workers with false promises about what they could earn while requiring them to pay out-of-pocket for essential equipment, training, and other expenses."DOCUMENTED

Costs on top of a lower-than-advertised wage

Beyond the earnings figures, the FTC's complaint noted that Arise required workers to pay out-of-pocket for equipment, training, and other expenses needed to work on the platform — costs that, combined with pay well below the advertised rate, compounded the financial gap between what workers were promised and what many actually took home.DOCUMENTED

The settlement and its enforcement mechanism

Under the July 2024 order settling the case, Arise agreed to pay $7 million for consumer redress and is permanently prohibited from making any earnings claims to consumers without being able to substantiate that the claim reflects a typical result for similarly situated participants. The order also requires Arise to comply going forward with the Business Opportunity Rule's disclosure requirements, including maintaining enhanced records to support any future earnings claims.DOCUMENTED

"Operating in the 'gig' economy is no license for evading the law, and the FTC will continue using all its tools to protect Americans from unlawful business practice," Khan said at the time the case was announced.DOCUMENTED

Getting the money to workers

More than a year after the settlement order was entered, the FTC completed distribution of the $6.7 million in refunds to 98,254 affected consumers in August 2025. Recipients were instructed to cash their checks within 90 days of receipt, and the agency reiterated its standard warning that it never requires payment or account information as a condition of receiving a legitimate refund.DOCUMENTED

Why the Business Opportunity Rule mattered here

Legal commentary on the case has emphasized its significance as the first application of the Business Opportunity Rule to a gig-economy platform specifically. The rule, designed decades earlier around more traditional franchise-style business opportunities, requires sellers to provide specific disclosure documents and substantiate earnings claims before a consumer commits money or effort to the opportunity. Applying it to a modern gig platform signaled that the FTC views app-based work opportunities as functionally similar to the traditional business-opportunity schemes the rule was originally written to address, regardless of how the underlying technology or app interface is structured.REVIEWED

The roughly $68 average refund per affected consumer, calculated by dividing the $6.7 million distribution across 98,254 recipients, illustrates a common feature of large-scale FTC consumer-redress cases: even a settlement that generates a substantial headline dollar figure can translate into a comparatively modest individual payment once divided among a large pool of harmed consumers. For workers who spent months or years working under the platform's advertised, but rarely achieved, pay expectations, the refund represents only partial compensation relative to the gap between promised and actual earnings documented in the FTC's complaint.REVIEWED

The case also illustrates how a company's own market-testing data, gathered to optimize which advertising language converts best, can become central evidence in a subsequent enforcement action once regulators obtain it through discovery. Arise's internal finding that the specific $18-an-hour claim outperformed more modest advertising language, cited directly in the FTC's complaint, shows how a company's own marketing analytics, kept for entirely different commercial purposes, ended up documenting the very deception regulators later alleged.REVIEWED

Have documents relevant to this story? Reach us through our tips channel.