The Federal Trade Commission announced a proposed federal-court settlement requiring global payment processor Nuvei and several affiliated companies to pay $4.85 million after the agency accused them of facilitating deceptive merchants, including overseas tech-support schemes that charged U.S. consumers.
The money is designated for consumer redress, according to the FTC and the filed stipulated order. However, the agency has not announced a public refund claim form, eligibility standard, payment amount, or distribution date. The matter is a government enforcement action, not a class action, and the federal court must act on the proposed order.
Key facts
- Case: Federal Trade Commission v. Nuvei Corporation, et al., No. 2:26-cv-06306-KML
- Court: U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona
- Filed: September 3, 2026
- Proposed monetary judgment: $4.85 million
- Purpose stated by the FTC: Consumer redress
- Current consumer action: No public refund application has been announced
- Status: The FTC lists the case as pending; the court will decide whether to enter the stipulated order
No refund form is open The order sets aside money for consumer redress, but the FTC has not yet published eligibility rules or an application. Consumers should not pay anyone who claims they can secure a Nuvei refund.
What is Nuvei, and why does a payment processor matter?
Nuvei Corporation is a Canada-based payment technology company. Its affiliated companies named in the complaint include Nuvei International Group Limited, Nuvei Limited, SafeCharge Digital Limited, and U.S.-based Nuvei Technologies Inc.
A payment processor helps a merchant accept credit- and debit-card payments. In a typical card transaction, several companies may stand between the consumer and the seller. A processor or related acquiring institution can provide the merchant account and technical connections that route a charge through card networks and banks.
That role matters because a deceptive seller may not be able to collect card payments at scale without access to the payment system. Card networks and banks use underwriting, complaint data, fraud monitoring, and chargebacks—transactions reversed after a cardholder disputes a charge—to identify risky merchants. The FTC alleges Nuvei opened or maintained processing relationships despite warning signs and, in some instances, helped merchants avoid fraud controls.
The complaint contains allegations, not findings after a trial. The Nuvei defendants stipulated to the proposed order to resolve the case, while the order states that they neither admit nor deny the complaint’s allegations except as specifically provided for jurisdiction and related matters.
What the FTC alleges happened
The FTC’s complaint alleges that Nuvei companies provided payment-processing access to merchants engaged in deceptive conduct. The agency focuses in part on Reimage, an overseas tech-support operation that sold software and services to consumers.
According to the complaint and FTC announcement, Nuvei processed more than $30 million in consumer payments for Reimage from 2017 through 2023. The FTC characterizes Reimage as a tech-support scam and says Nuvei continued processing despite complaints, internal concerns, and other risk indicators.
The agency previously sued Reimage-related companies in a separate 2024 enforcement action. In the new Nuvei case, the FTC alleges the processor’s services enabled Reimage and other overseas tech-support sellers to accept card payments from consumers in the United States and elsewhere.
The complaint also identifies other merchant categories. The FTC says a Nuvei U.S. subsidiary opened or maintained accounts for sellers of business opportunities accused of making false or unsupported earnings claims, merchants accused of impersonating government tax authorities, and merchants that other processors or acquiring banks had terminated for excessive chargebacks or suspected fraud.
The allegations reach beyond one merchant Reimage is a central example, but the FTC complaint also describes business-opportunity, tax-impersonation, and other high-risk merchant accounts. The proposed order applies broader screening and monitoring duties to Nuvei’s payment-processing operations.
What laws does the complaint invoke?
The FTC alleges violations of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Telemarketing Sales Rule.
Section 5 prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in commerce. In this case, the FTC alleges unfair payment-processing practices connected to merchants that harmed consumers.
The Telemarketing Sales Rule, often shortened to TSR, is a federal rule governing telemarketing conduct. Among other provisions, it can prohibit a company from substantially assisting a telemarketer when the company knows—or consciously avoids knowing—that the telemarketer is violating the rule. The complaint accuses the Nuvei defendants of assisting deceptive telemarketing operations.
A stipulated resolution does not establish that every allegation would have been proven at trial. The court’s role includes deciding whether to enter the proposed order.
What the proposed $4.85 million order requires
The filed stipulated order would enter a $4,850,000 monetary judgment against the Nuvei defendants, jointly and severally. “Jointly and severally” means the obligation applies collectively, and the FTC may seek the full covered amount as permitted by the order rather than dividing liability into fixed shares for each company.
The order says Nuvei’s counsel held the payment in escrow and requires transfer to the FTC within seven days after entry of the order. It authorizes the Commission to use the money for equitable relief, including consumer redress and related administration.
The order also recognizes a possibility common in FTC cases: if direct redress is wholly or partly impracticable, unused money may be sent to the U.S. Treasury. That clause does not mean consumers will receive nothing. It means the final distribution depends on the FTC’s ability to identify eligible recipients and administer relief under the order.
The FTC announcement does not state whether consumers will need to file claims or whether the agency could identify and pay eligible people using records. It also does not announce which transactions, merchants, or purchase dates would control eligibility.
$4.85 million is not a per-person payout promise The judgment is the total monetary relief in the proposed order. Individual eligibility, payment amounts, administration costs, and any distribution method remain unannounced.
What business-practice restrictions would apply?
The proposed order includes injunctive relief—court-enforceable requirements and prohibitions intended to change future conduct.
According to the FTC, the order would ban Nuvei from providing payment services to sellers of tech-support products or services marketed through telemarketing or device pop-up messages about security or performance problems.
It would also prohibit false or misleading statements used to obtain merchant accounts or payment services. The order addresses tactics intended to evade bank or card-network monitoring, including load balancing, which can mean spreading transactions among multiple merchant accounts to keep risk signals or chargeback rates from concentrating in one account.
Nuvei would have to screen and monitor existing and prospective clients. The order calls for enhanced review of specified high-risk categories and merchants whose chargeback rates cross stated thresholds. These provisions matter because payment processors can see account applications, transaction patterns, consumer disputes, and warnings from banks or card networks that an individual buyer may never see.
Who might eventually receive consumer redress?
The FTC’s public materials do not yet provide a definitive answer.
The complaint discusses consumers charged by Reimage and other merchants whose transactions the Nuvei defendants allegedly processed. But the complaint is not a refund notice, and being a customer of a merchant named or described in it does not establish eligibility for a future payment.
If the court enters the order and the FTC creates a distribution program, the agency may publish additional information on its Nuvei case page or its refunds section. Some FTC refund programs use company records and mail payments automatically. Others require a claim process. No method has been announced here.
Consumers who believe they paid a deceptive tech-support or other merchant should preserve records such as receipts, card statements, merchant emails, dispute correspondence, and chargeback outcomes. Keeping records does not guarantee a refund, but it may help if the FTC later requests documentation or if the consumer contacts their card issuer.
Anyone dealing with a recent suspicious charge can ask the card issuer about dispute options. Deadlines and rights vary by payment method and circumstance. That is separate from the proposed Nuvei order and should not be delayed while waiting for a possible FTC distribution.
Watch official sources, not unsolicited messages The FTC says it never demands money or sensitive financial information to issue a refund. Any future Nuvei redress instructions should be verified on FTC.gov before a consumer responds.
What happens next?
The complaint and stipulated order were filed in the District of Arizona. The FTC lists the case as pending and says it will be decided by the court.
If the judge enters the order, its monetary and conduct provisions become enforceable. The FTC could then provide more information about consumer redress after reviewing available transaction records and determining whether a distribution is practicable.
There is currently no announced claim deadline. There is also no announced estimate for an individual payment or a guarantee that every consumer who dealt with a merchant discussed in the complaint will qualify.
The case is not a class action and does not create a private class claim form. The FTC is the plaintiff, acting in its consumer-protection enforcement role. Consumers should use the agency’s official case page and refund information for updates rather than relying on third parties that promise access to settlement money.
The Nuvei defendants have not been found liable after a trial. The complaint states the FTC’s allegations, and the stipulated order is the proposed resolution presented to the court. This article is general information, not legal advice or a determination that any reader qualifies for relief.