In January 2020, news outlets and public watchdog organizations began picking up murmurs from disgruntled small businesses alleging that FleetCor’s suite of fuel cards—marketed as an affordable, “no fee” solution promising consistent per-gallon savings—were in fact charging hidden fees.

The Federal Trade Commission’s formal legal complaint laid out the specifics: tens of thousands of small businesses, many of which were in trucking, landscaping, delivery, and other vehicle-centric industries, found that FleetCor had begun tacking on unexplained fees to their monthly bills.

The FTC states that CEO Ronald Clarke, aware of how such fees would be perceived, opted to double down on them whenever revenue dipped. The internal policy was to “hang tough” until consumer complaints died down. In some cases, refunds were selectively issued to particularly vocal or large customers, but the underlying fee-charging practices continued. Over time, this approach resulted in what the complaint characterizes as “hundreds of millions of dollars” in unexpected fees.

For communities and workers on the ground, the impact goes far beyond the typical frustrations one might associate with hidden fees. Many small businesses rely on consistent overhead costs to balance budgets and make payroll. Sudden, unauthorized fees—some as high as hundreds or thousands of dollars per statement—can jeopardize not only a company’s ability to grow but also, in worst-case scenarios, its ability to stay afloat at all. When profit margins are thin, every dollar counts, and unpredictable cost spikes can trigger wage freezes, hiring pauses, or even layoffs. Thus, local economies may be affected as well; employees struggling to make ends meet might see decreased discretionary spending in their communities, while the businesses themselves may have less capital to reinvest locally.

Beyond the immediate financial blow, the FTC underscores FleetCor’s allegedly misleading claims around “fuel only” fraud controls. The company’s advertisements promised business owners they would be protected from unauthorized spending—only to have those same owners learn, after the fact, that they remained liable when the promised controls didn’t actually restrict non-fuel purchases. In effect, owners were saddled with substantial costs for items they never intended to buy. In an economy already rife with wealth disparity, this becomes another instance in which corporate accountability is crucial: small businesses, often with limited legal resources, find themselves fighting an uphill battle against a well-capitalized corporation.

Meanwhile, from the vantage point of neoliberal capitalism, the FleetCor allegations highlight the all-too-familiar dynamic of a large firm leveraging hidden fees to boost revenues, constrained only by the risk of regulatory action. Historically, many corporations have found themselves paying settlements or fighting lawsuits years after consumers or smaller entities have already suffered the brunt of the financial harm. The drawn-out nature of litigation, combined with the alleged ease of re-labeling or re-structuring fees, underscores how important structural reform may be if we are ever to close the gap between consumer protections on paper and real-world outcomes.

In the subsequent sections, we will dig deeper into the allegations themselves, referencing directly from the FTC complaint to outline the alleged marketing misrepresentations, the hidden fees, the active role of CEO Ronald Clarke, and the patterns of reimposing or swapping fees. We will also draw parallels to broader systemic patterns, showing how these alleged tactics fit neatly into a longstanding tradition of corporate corruption and corporate greed. Finally, we will examine the institutional and regulatory structures that might enable or fail to prevent such abuse, culminating in a discussion of how best to champion the public interest and preserve the well-being of both businesses and consumers in an era of profit-driven neoliberal capitalism.

---

2. Corporate Intent Exposed

The complaint against FleetCor—and by extension Ronald Clarke—lays bare some striking insights into what could be described as the company’s “corporate intent.” Rather than a handful of slip-ups or a rogue department acting without oversight, the allegations point to a deliberate, top-down strategy that prioritized revenue generation through hidden fees, misleading advertisements, and inadequate fraud controls. If these charges hold true, then the strategies revolve around a fundamental corporate ethic: profit maximization at any cost.

Misleading Fuel Savings Promises
One of the most immediate and damaging claims in the FTC complaint is that FleetCor repeatedly advertised per-gallon fuel savings that “in numerous instances” failed to materialize for small- and medium-sized businesses. The ads brazenly displayed slogans such as “Save 10¢ per gallon,” only to bury disclaimers in fine print or omit them altogether. Crucially, the complaint references internal FleetCor data revealing that many customers “saved less than one cent per gallon” in reality.

This alleged gap between marketing and outcome is not just a trivial discrepancy: small trucking companies who factored in the promised savings as part of their operational budgets might have found themselves effectively paying more than retail for their fuel once unexpected or unexplained fees kicked in. Some companies noticed their statements were far higher than anticipated; upon further scrutiny, they discovered line items like “Program Fees,” “High Credit Risk Account Fees,” and “Convenience Network Surcharges.” Rather than help customers achieve a lower fuel cost, FleetCor’s approach allegedly created a perfect storm of inflated charges that canceled out any posted savings.

“Fuel Only” Cards That Weren’t
Another particularly striking alleged deception was the claim that FleetCor cards could be locked down to “fuel only,” thus eliminating any risk of unauthorized or extraneous purchases. This promise was especially attractive for small businesses trying to control employee spending at gas stations. Yet the complaint details how, in numerous instances, such restrictions either did not function at all or were so poorly implemented that drivers could buy anything from snacks to beer with the “fuel only” cards. Worse, if businesses later complained about fraudulent or unauthorized transactions, the complaint indicates FleetCor often refused to cover the charges, insisting the liability fell on the customer.

Internally, FleetCor managers apparently recognized this shortfall. Emails cited in the complaint mention that the company’s entire approach to “fuel only” restrictions was effectively a “misnomer.” Instead of updating the marketing or disclaimers to reflect real-world functionality, the complaint alleges FleetCor persisted in telling new and existing customers they were safe from non-fuel purchases.

Patterns of Fee Increases and Fee Swaps
One of the most alarming insights from the complaint is that the fees were systematically introduced and re-introduced based on internal strategies to meet revenue targets. There’s a chilling email from a FleetCor senior executive (paraphrased in the complaint) referencing a need for “recovery ideas” to make up for any revenue shortfalls, with the subtext being that new or higher fees could be introduced to make up the difference. These fees went by many names:

• Account Administration Fees
• Program Fees
• Late Fees (allegedly applied even when payments were on time)
• High Credit Risk Account Fees
• Convenience Network Surcharge
• Out of Network Fee
• Minimum Program Administration Fee

What stands out is that some fees were triggered by questionable definitions of “high risk” (for example, belonging to the trucking industry, which ironically was FleetCor’s main target market). Others were triggered by alleged late payments—even though, invoices were sometimes posted late or misleadingly. When customers complained and had a particular fee removed, FleetCor allegedly replaced it with another that served the same revenue-boosting function. In effect, there was no real relief: the fees would come from one angle or another, always ensuring the company hit its revenue goals.

CEO Involvement
The FTC repeatedly points to the involvement of Ronald Clarke, FleetCor’s CEO, in these alleged activities. Clarke is described as personally commissioning analyses of average savings, then instructing employees to proceed with marketing that claimed “10¢ per gallon” or other high savings, despite internal data showing less than a penny per gallon in real savings. When fees triggered a surge in complaints or negative press, the complaint alleges that Clarke’s response was to instruct subordinates to “fix the BBB rating ASAP” or “hang tough,” rather than reevaluate the underlying fee structure.

This level of executive involvement casts the alleged wrongdoing in a harsher light, suggesting deliberate strategy rather than any accidental oversight. It also points to deeper structural issues about how corporate boards and CEOs might set the tone for an organization’s approach to consumers and compliance. In a climate of neoliberal capitalism where shareholder returns are paramount, a CEO’s guidance—and their tolerance for or encouragement of gray-area practices—can shape the entire culture of a firm.

Reflections on Broader Corporate Ethics
When we talk about corporate intent and corporate accountability, these allegations illustrate just how easily a single-minded focus on profits can degrade corporate ethics. Consumers, in this instance mostly small businesses, lack the time and resources to scrutinize every line item on complicated statements; they rely on trusting the brand’s marketing. For these smaller players—like a local plumbing company with a handful of vans—fees of $200, $300, or more each month can be devastating. The complaint underscores how the harm extends to tens of thousands of clients, collectively amounting to staggering sums in unauthorized or unexpected charges.

As we delve deeper into the specifics of how FleetCor allegedly perpetrated these practices, we will see that the strategies effectively amount to a “corporate playbook”—common steps taken by large corporations in industries where margins are tight and consumers are reliant on certain services. By mapping out these steps, we can see that the problems with corporate corruption are rarely random accidents but methodical approaches fueled by an economic model that rewards every extra cent extracted from the customer.

---

3. The Corporate Playbook / How They Got Away with It

The allegations against FleetCor highlight a “playbook” that many critics argue is all too familiar in a deregulated or under-regulated market environment. With a large share of the commercial fuel card market, FleetCor allegedly leveraged its market power and brand recognition to impose fees that customers often discovered too late. This was not, if the complaint is accurate, a disorganized approach; it was a systematic strategy that reveals much about the ways big corporations can act when the incentives and oversight are in their favor.

Step 1: Enticing Marketing Claims
At the start, FleetCor’s marketing was a classic example of “front-door friendliness.” By advertising “No fees for set-up, transactions, or annual membership,” the company lowered the perceived barrier to entry for small businesses. Meanwhile, it highlighted the convenience of fueling “at any gas station nationwide,” reinforcing the appeal. Then, as soon as customers signed on, the disclaimers and contradictory fine print—often in multi-page Terms & Conditions that few read in full—allowed FleetCor to impose fees that contradicted the marketing claims.

Step 2: Burying Disclosures
The complaint details how relevant disclaimers—such as the existence of a “Convenience Network Surcharge” or “High Risk” fees—were often hidden in obscure sections of Terms & Conditions. Even there, the language was allegedly so vague that customers could not reasonably predict how the fees would be applied or how much they would cost. Moreover, the complaint suggests that these fees were sometimes introduced months after the account’s inception, complicating any attempts by customers to track or plan for their expenses.

Step 3: Obfuscating Monthly Bills
One reason the complaint calls FleetCor’s billing practices “unfair” is that customers often found it extremely difficult to decipher their statements. The monthly invoice (the actual bill that listed the total amount owed) would lump fees into a single total with no clear line itemization. If a customer wanted to see individual fees, they often had to check a separate report known as the Fleet Management Report (FMR). Even then, the FMRs were sometimes incomplete, mislabeled, or inconsistent. This created an environment where “late fees,” “account administration fees,” or “fraud protection fees” might appear without a direct mention on the main invoice. For a busy small-business owner, such confusing statements can go unchallenged for months.

Step 4: Making Complaints Difficult to Resolve
The FTCfurther reveals that even after customers noticed unauthorized or unexplained fees, resolving them was like playing a high-stakes game of whack-a-mole. If a customer complained successfully about one fee, another fee might appear in the next billing cycle under a different name. Indeed, internal communications referenced in the complaint show that the company specifically tested re-enrolling certain groups of customers in fees after they had complained. This approach leveraged consumer exhaustion and effectively normalized the presence of such fees.

Step 5: Leveraging Complexity and Scale
From a structural standpoint, FleetCor’s size and influence gave it the ability to weather consumer complaints. The complaint alleges that each time dissatisfaction flared publicly, top executives would instruct employees to manage negative PR—sometimes by selectively waiving fees for the loudest complainers—and then continue with business as usual. A smaller operation might have faced immediate backlash or legal challenges that could have shut them down. However, the broader systemic environment of neoliberal capitalism, with its emphasis on letting “markets self-police,” arguably gave FleetCor the space to accumulate huge profits before regulators could step in.

Why It Worked (Until the FTC Filed Suit)
FleetCor’s main customer base consisted of small to mid-sized businesses who often do not have specialized legal teams or the time to engage in protracted disputes over fees. Even if a business suspects wrongdoing, the cost of legal action can outweigh the fees in question—at least in the short term. Thus, the cost-benefit analysis for many business owners tips toward simply paying the fees and hoping to avoid them next time, or switching cards entirely. But switching also has friction: reissuing cards to drivers, updating payments, and losing any prior “rewards” that might have accrued.

This scenario reflects a systemic weakness in corporate accountability. In a world with minimal immediate sanctions, the alleged wrongdoing can last for years. By the time a complaint is filed and moves through the regulatory or judicial system, the harm is largely done. More cynically, some might argue that from the corporate perspective, even if a large fine is eventually imposed, the net gain from years of collecting fees could still be substantial. That is part of why critics say such a “playbook” has emerged in various industries—because it works financially, at least until a major lawsuit or outcry arises.

Parallels in Other Industries
Historically, parallel methods of hidden fees or misleading pricing have surfaced in industries such as telecommunications, banking, and cable service providers. Terms like “regulatory recovery fees” or “administrative fees” are often used to pad bills. Regulators typically chase after the fact. The FleetCor case is thus reminiscent of broader patterns where, under the impetus of profit maximization, a corporation tailors its marketing to attract customers and then recovers additional revenue through arcane surcharges that are never clearly explained until after the fact (if at all). Meanwhile, it invests heavily in marketing and lobbying that project an image of corporate social responsibility.

The Impact on Local Communities and Workers
From the vantage point of local communities, the smaller operators who rely on predictable fuel costs may face cuts in worker benefits or wages once these fees accumulate. Over time, that can erode local purchasing power and increase wealth disparity. If these allegations are proven, the money siphoned off to FleetCor’s bottom line might have otherwise been spent on pay raises, better equipment, or even local charitable involvement. Essentially, every dollar lost to undisclosed corporate charges is a dollar not circulated in the local economy. This underscores the real social cost of such corporate corruption.

Hence, the “corporate playbook” alleged here is no mere blueprint for marketing success; it’s an indictment of a system that arguably allows big corporations to systematically exploit information asymmetries and limited regulatory oversight. So long as these conditions persist, the same pattern is likely to surface again and again.

---

4. The Corporate Profit Equation

To fully understand the allegations, we must delve into how these hidden fees and false claims allegedly became so integral to FleetCor’s profit model. According to the FTC, the company raked in “at least hundreds of millions of dollars” in unexpected fees over multiple years. This raises a key question: Why were these charges so profitable, and how did the profit equation shape corporate behavior?

A “Small Cut” from Many
The brilliance—and moral peril—of hidden fees is that they often appear modest in isolation, thus failing to spark immediate or widespread consumer rebellion. For instance, a “Convenience Network Fee” might be only $2 per transaction. An “Account Administration Fee” might be $10 per billing cycle. A “Minimum Program Administration Fee” might be 5¢ per gallon. Yet for a fleet-based business that purchases thousands of gallons per month, or runs many transactions, these charges quickly skyrocket. Spread across tens of thousands of customers, each paying an extra $50, $100, or $300 per month, FleetCor could conceivably add millions of dollars to its bottom line without drawing enough acute pain at any single point to provoke an immediate mass exodus.

Recurring Charges and Automatic Enrollment
The complaint highlights how FleetCor allegedly charged customers for programs they never requested—like “FleetDash,” “FleetAdvance,” or “Clean Advantage”—on a monthly or per-gallon basis. Such auto-enrollments often rely on user inertia: if the consumer does nothing, the charges continue. From a profit perspective, these friction-based strategies can be extremely lucrative. Some fraction of users might notice and opt out, but a significant portion either may not realize it or may be too busy to navigate the cumbersome cancellation process.

Predictable Revenue vs. One-Time Gains
FleetCor’s alleged “fee swap” approach (where the company removes one fee under pressure but soon replaces it with another) suggests a desire for predictable, recurring streams of incremental revenue. One-time large fines can draw regulatory attention, whereas recurring monthly fees can be rationalized as “operational” or “administrative.” Thus, for a company aiming to impress shareholders with steady quarterly growth, small, repeated charges distributed across a large user base can deliver stable gains.

Executive Incentives
The complaint names CEO Ronald Clarke as a central figure in deciding fee rollouts and re-rollouts. In many corporations, including the one described, executive compensation is often tied to key financial metrics like revenue and earnings per share (EPS). By layering new fees, Clarke and other executives might have artificially boosted the company’s short-term performance metrics. Stock markets, under neoliberal capitalism, typically reward positive quarterly earnings with higher share prices—potentially boosting executives’ personal wealth, especially if they hold significant stock options.

Limited Short-Term Consequences
If the worst-case scenario for a corporation employing these tactics is a potential regulatory fine some years down the road, then the short-term risk may be comparatively minor. Many companies weigh the risk of legal or regulatory pushback against the immense gains that can be had in the interim. This phenomenon is sometimes colloquially referred to as a cost-benefit analysis of wrongdoing: if the odds of a large penalty or reputational damage are seen as small, or if the potential penalty is dwarfed by the income generated from the questionable activities, the corporation may choose to proceed anyway. The complaint strongly implies that FleetCor, having tested these waters, continued to push the boundaries for years.

Consequences for Workers and the Public
From a broader perspective, inflating corporate profits in this manner can have downstream consequences for workers and communities. When small businesses pay more than they can afford for fuel, they cut costs elsewhere—perhaps reducing employee benefits, deferring pay raises, or delaying equipment upgrades that might enhance safety or productivity. This not only increases wealth disparity but may also degrade workplace conditions and, in extreme cases, lead to layoffs. In communities already struggling with economic stagnation, such additional burdens hamper growth and can push vulnerable families closer to financial precariousness.

Moreover, while the complaint does not detail explicit “public health” concerns, the stress on small business owners, forced to handle unpredictable overheads, can have mental health repercussions. Owners juggling financial instability may forgo health insurance coverage or skip paying themselves entirely to cover their staff. Over time, this can produce intangible but real strains on public health and local economies. Though subtle, it is part of the broader tapestry of negative outcomes that emerge when corporations fail to practice genuine corporate social responsibility.

Shareholder Value vs. Accountability
Neoliberal capitalism often lauds the pursuit of shareholder value. In that context, the executive suite at FleetCor might have seen these fees not as exploitative but as savvy ways to optimize revenue. However, from the vantage point of corporate ethics, such tactics test the very meaning of corporate social responsibility. The complaint’s allegations clearly demonstrate that short-term stock gains can be achieved at the expense of thousands of small businesses, and by extension, the communities and consumers those businesses serve.

Thus, “The Corporate Profit Equation” is more than just a ledger of pluses and minuses; it reveals how certain structural incentives in the current economic system can foster exploitative behavior. Without robust, well-enforced regulations and meaningful deterrents, the unrelenting quest to maximize margins can easily slide into corporate corruption—putting the broader public at risk and eroding trust in the marketplace.

---

5. System Failure / Why Regulators Did Nothing

One of the most alarming aspects highlighted by the complaint is just how long these alleged practices continued before a formal FTC action. For critics, this timeline exemplifies a fundamental failure in the regulatory apparatus—one shaped by both resource constraints and the broader environment of deregulation championed by neoliberal capitalism. How did we reach a point where tens of millions in undisclosed charges were levied against thousands of small businesses, yet public agencies only responded years later?

Slow-Moving Oversight
Regulatory bodies like the FTC handle countless consumer complaints and investigations. With limited staff and budget, the commission must triage which cases to pursue. Even when numerous small businesses raised alarms about unexpected fees, each complaint might initially be treated as an isolated billing dispute. Meanwhile, in large organizations with global footprints, the questionable practices can be repeated across multiple markets and product lines, compounding the harm.

Complexity and Ambiguity in Contract Terms
FleetCor’s alleged reliance on small-print Terms & Conditions reflects a common legal tactic: burying disclaimers in enough complexity and disclaimers to create plausible deniability. Regulators require a certain evidentiary threshold to demonstrate that a practice is materially misleading and not sufficiently disclosed. If a company can cite some obscure passage in a multi-page document that “warns” customers about potential fees—even if that warning is contradictory or incomplete—this can delay or complicate enforcement. In addition, a significant portion of small businesses might blame themselves for failing to “read the fine print,” further reducing the impetus for immediate collective action.

Regulatory Capture and Legislative Constraints
Under neoliberal capitalism, there is often an assumption that “the market will correct itself.” Over the past decades, some regulations have been eased, and budgets for enforcement agencies have not always kept pace with the complexity and number of corporate actors in the marketplace. Beyond that, high-powered companies routinely lobby legislators to weaken regulatory authority. While the FTC can and does bring actions against major firms, it can take substantial time to build a rock-solid case, especially when the alleged wrongdoing spans multiple product lines, fee structures, and internal corporate justifications.

Public Complaints vs. Private Remedies
Additionally, some small businesses might attempt to resolve disputes directly with FleetCor or through private arbitration clauses that are frequently embedded in corporate contracts. Arbitration can limit transparency: if hundreds of businesses settle disputes behind closed doors, patterns of corporate corruption remain hidden from public view. Only when a threshold of complaints and evidence emerges—coupled with investigative efforts—do regulators typically step in.

Industry Norms
In certain industries, a level of hidden fees and confusing billing is almost normalized, whether we look at phone companies adding “regulatory fees” or airlines with “baggage” or “seat selection” surcharges. Customers often shrug and accept these as the price of doing business. Against that backdrop, FleetCor’s alleged practices might not have raised red flags until they reached an extreme scale—particularly if each small business accounted for only a fraction of the total complaint record.

Fighting on Multiple Fronts
When the FTC did act, it was presumably in response to a critical mass of consumer complaints, combined with an investigation that uncovered systematic patterns of deception. Still, for each regulatory challenge, corporations of FleetCor’s size can deploy legal teams to contest allegations, demand extensive discovery, and prolong the case. This dynamic can lead to drawn-out legal battles, during which the complained-of practices may continue in some form or be quietly rebranded. By the time a final verdict or settlement arrives, much of the damage is already done—small businesses may have gone under or simply resigned themselves to the losses.

Implications for Consumer Advocacy and Public Health
A slow or ineffective regulatory response doesn’t just mean lost dollars for small businesses; it can translate into real stress and anxiety for business owners, employees, and their families. Financial pressure can divert funds from healthcare, education, and other social goods. The invisible toll of these hidden fees is thus not limited to a line on an income statement; it can ripple through communities. As we reflect on the alleged actions in the FleetCor case, we see how an overburdened or underfunded regulatory system could allow these events to fester unchecked for years.

This context clarifies the environment in which large corporations can flourish—particularly when their strategies rely on leveraging fine print and questionable practices in pursuit of profit. Far from a one-off scandal, it underscores a structural problem: if the rules do not provide strong deterrents and the agencies cannot quickly or consistently enforce them, unscrupulous behaviors may well pay off—at least in the short term.

---

6. This Pattern of Predation Is a Feature, Not a Bug

When confronted with corporate scandals of this magnitude, observers often wonder, “How could something like this happen again?” In the grand scheme of neoliberal capitalism, many experts argue that these sorts of predatory practices are not unfortunate lapses but inherent features of a system designed around maximizing returns for shareholders.

Neoliberal Capitalism and the Incentive to Exploit
Neoliberal capitalism, in brief, prioritizes free-market mechanisms, minimal regulation, and the pursuit of profits. While free markets can foster innovation, they can also encourage short-term opportunism, especially when paired with insufficient oversight. If companies find that hidden fees and misleading marketing can significantly boost earnings—without prompt or severe punitive measures—then these tactics become logically consistent with the overarching incentive structure. Each quarter’s earnings call becomes a moment to show growth, and in markets with limited competition or high switching costs, corporations face minimal blowback in the near term.

Information Asymmetry
For decades, economists have recognized that markets fail when one party—typically the seller—holds far more information than the buyer. In FleetCor’s case, small businesses entered the contract trusting the promotional material about savings, only to later discover the labyrinthine fee structure. The complaint asserts that even customers who tried to do due diligence faced shifting or hidden fees. This asymmetry fosters repeated opportunities to slip in additional costs or rebrand them under new, more innocuous names.

Regulatory Capture
Regulatory bodies can also fall prey to subtle forms of corporate influence. Without implying direct corruption in this specific case, we can note that the broader environment can include lobbying, “revolving door” hiring between corporate and government posts, and political pressures that reduce the zeal or capacity for rigorous enforcement. A corporation that invests in lobbying for fewer consumer-protection mandates or weaker enforcement may find itself more free to pursue questionable practices.

Short-Term Shareholder Value
Within this framework, corporate accountability can be overshadowed by the demand for immediate gains. Executives often have pay packages heavily weighted toward stocks and options, leading them to focus on share price movements, sometimes at the expense of long-term stability or brand reputation. If shifting fee structures can deliver a near-term bump in quarterly revenue, executives might find it worthwhile—even if it poses reputational risks down the road.

Normalizing the Abnormal
One of the more insidious aspects of predatory fee practices is how quickly they can become normalized. When numerous players in an industry charge “administrative fees” or “convenience fees,” it can become standard for consumers to assume that a range of hidden surcharges is the norm. The difference is in the details of how many fees exist, how large they are, and how well they are disclosed. FleetCor is hardly alone in pushing those boundaries; it just happens to be facing an FTC complaint that lays out specific, serious allegations.

The Real Harm
From a purely profit-driven perspective, hidden fees are “clever pricing strategies.” Yet from the vantage point of local communities and social justice, the alleged harm is severe. Additional costs piled on a small business can lead to heightened stress, potential layoffs, or cutbacks on benefits. This, in turn, exacerbates wealth disparity as smaller firms remain under constant pressure, while large corporations can accumulate more capital to reinvest or distribute to shareholders. Over time, the repeated extraction of wealth from smaller economic players may erode the entrepreneurial ecosystem, hindering the formation and survival of new or small-scale businesses.

Parallels in Banking and Beyond
We have seen repeated controversies with bank overdraft fees, credit card late fees, and telecommunication “junk fees.” The pattern is consistent: large firms put forth attractive introductory offers, embed disclaimers in fine print, and then rely on complicated billing processes to ensure that some portion of users pay more than they expect. The FleetCor complaint is thus another chapter in a broader story of how corporations can shape consumer behavior and profit from it, especially when the playing field remains uneven.

Thus, it is not surprising that critics see these allegations as an inevitable byproduct of a profit-driven system that lacks robust accountability measures. In this worldview, corporate greed is no aberration but the predictable outcome of a structure that champions profitability and leaves consumers to navigate layers of obfuscation. Indeed, the complaint’s listing of so many categories of fees—from “Minimum Program Administration” to “High Credit Risk Account Fee” to random “Program Fees”—suggests a well-honed capacity to repackage charges and keep the revenue engine humming.

---

7. The PR Playbook of Damage Control

When allegations of wrongdoing surface, large corporations often resort to a familiar set of public relations maneuvers. The complaint hints at how FleetCor managed negative press and consumer outcry, providing a window into the broader PR strategies that have been perfected by many companies facing legal or ethical scrutiny.

Step 1: Deny or Downplay
The complaint cites internal emails indicating that when negative stories arose, CEO Ronald Clarke would instruct employees to “fix the BBB rating ASAP” or to “hang tough.” This suggests an approach of denial or dismissal rather than addressing the core issues. The aim is to reduce the perceived significance of consumer complaints and to reassure shareholders that the problem is under control. By quickly removing fees for the loudest or biggest customers, the company can tamp down the immediate “noise” without changing its overarching fee strategy.

Step 2: Attribute Complaints to User Error
Often, a corporation in crisis will imply that the complainants misunderstood the terms or “failed to read the fine print.” The complaint notes that FleetCor, in some instances, blamed late fees on businesses’ own “late” payments—yet the company itself had posted inaccurate invoices or delayed statements. Shifting blame to consumer incompetence or negligence is a classic PR tactic that can be used to cast doubt on the validity of the allegations.

Step 3: Rebrand or Rename
When certain fees gained notoriety, the complaint indicates that FleetCor considered changing them or reclassifying them under new labels, so as to avoid immediate recognition. For instance, the “High Credit Risk Account Fee” might be reintroduced under a different moniker, or simply folded into a broader “Program Fee.” In press statements, the company could then declare they had “removed” the original fee, even if the net effect for consumers was the same. This pivot is especially effective if the general public is not tracking the intricacies of each line item on a monthly bill.

Step 4: Point to Compliance with Some Regulations
When confronted, companies frequently stress that they are “in compliance” with relevant regulations, or that they maintain high standards of corporate social responsibility. As long as a portion of the disclaimers or terms are arguably visible, a corporation can claim to be following the letter of the law. The complaint underscores how FleetCor had disclaimers buried in Terms & Conditions, even though the average business owner might not interpret or even notice them. This fallback position is a hallmark of a PR strategy that highlights formal compliance while ignoring the potential gap between that compliance and genuine transparency.

Step 5: Emphasize Isolated Incidents
Finally, a typical damage-control strategy is to paint the wrongdoing as a series of isolated “mistakes” or “one-off occurrences.” The complaint, however, asserts a systematic pattern that was integral to FleetCor’s revenue model. A robust PR playbook tries to obscure the scale of the problem by pointing to the occasional refunds or fee reversals the company offered. While this may temporarily satisfy some critics, it fails to address the underlying pattern that can continue outside the public eye.

The Broader Context of PR Spin
In an era of 24/7 media cycles, corporate communications revolve around carefully crafted press releases that seldom acknowledge systemic wrongdoing. Instead, the script focuses on “enhancing the customer experience,” “resolving misunderstandings,” or “listening to feedback.” FleetCor’s internal communications, as depicted in the complaint, strongly suggest that the real priority was maintaining the revenue flow. Once again, we see how the profit motive under neoliberal capitalism can overshadow genuine accountability: admitting fault might open the door to class-action lawsuits or more aggressive regulatory intervention. Therefore, the short-term rational decision is often to adopt damage control measures that keep the underlying practices in place for as long as possible.

Impact on Consumer Advocacy
A byproduct of these PR tactics is that many small businesses may be dissuaded from pursuing official complaints, believing they are either at fault or unlikely to succeed against a seemingly polished corporate entity. This underscores the need for robust, proactive consumer advocacy groups that can call out these strategies for what they are. By shining a light on the well-worn damage-control playbook, consumer advocacy can counter the narrative that each complaint is an isolated misunderstanding, pushing regulators to see the patterns for what they truly are.

---

8. Corporate Power vs. Public Interest

This is a classic example of corporate powers being at odds with the public interest, especially under a broader economic system that prioritizes profit-making above all else. While the official charges here revolve around deceptive marketing and unfair billing, the underlying narrative speaks to systemic flaws that go far beyond one company.

A. The Real-World Consequences

Small Business Vulnerability
Local entrepreneurs and fleet-dependent businesses, from trucking to delivery services, rely on cost predictability to manage tight margins. Hidden fees or unpredictable charges can quickly erode cash flow, force owners to cut back on employee benefits, or even risk shutting down. In communities already facing economic challenges, the ripple effects can worsen wealth disparity.

Stress and Mental Health
Though not strictly enumerated in the complaint, the burdens placed on small-business owners can contribute to increased stress, which in turn can exacerbate health issues. If owners are forced to skip paychecks or close their doors, employees also face economic insecurity, with potential repercussions for their physical and mental well-being. Corporate pollution or direct health hazards may not be at play in this particular scenario, but the broader “pollution” of financial markets with exploitative practices can be viewed as an indirect threat to public welfare.

Erosion of Trust
Repeated episodes of corporate misconduct corrode public trust in both the free market and the regulatory institutions meant to protect consumers. When “customer-first” branding gives way to systematic fee exploitation, everyday people lose faith in the promise that competition and free enterprise can deliver fair outcomes.

B. Calls for Reform

Stronger Regulations and Enforcement
The allegations demonstrate that a more proactive regulatory stance might be necessary to curb hidden fees. Measures such as mandatory, standardized billing statements, caps on certain types of convenience or administrative fees, or stricter enforcement of “clear and conspicuous” disclosure rules could help protect small businesses. Funding agencies like the FTC to pursue complex cases more swiftly could also be critical in preventing long-running exploitative cycles.

Corporate Governance Overhaul
At the level of corporate accountability, some advocates argue for tying executive compensation more closely to long-term outcomes rather than quarterly profits. If internal decision-makers faced personal financial penalties for consumer harm, they might think twice before introducing questionable fees. In the complaint, Clarke’s alleged role exemplifies how executive-level directives can push an entire organization toward unethical or legally dubious practices if the incentives are aligned that way.

Collective Action and Advocacy
Local chambers of commerce, trade associations, and grassroots organizations could build coalitions to gather evidence, share experiences, and press for investigations more quickly. In an age of digital communication, small businesses could collectively amplify their voices, making it harder for large corporations to dismiss or quiet them individually. Such unified efforts could also demand greater transparency from industry players.

C. Will Corporations Ever Change?

As long as the incentives remain in place—where hidden fees are immensely profitable and enforcement is slow—corporations will continue to push the boundaries of the law. Under the principles of neoliberal capitalism, it is rational, from a purely profit-oriented stance, to keep charging these fees until forced to stop. The challenge is to alter the incentive structure itself, so that genuine corporate ethics and broader social well-being do not come last on the priority list.

After all, if a company can earn hundreds of millions of dollars through questionable billing practices and only later face a fine that is a fraction of that gain, even a large penalty can be seen as a cost of doing business. The complaint portrays exactly this dynamic: repeated re-enrollment of customers into new fees after the old ones generated outcry, a practice that continued for years. Only a systemic fix—be it in the form of stringent regulation or robust consumer activism—can address the root cause.

D. Looking Forward

The FleetCor case has yet to be conclusively adjudicated, but if the FTC’s allegations are borne out, it will join a litany of cautionary tales wherein corporations used misleading promises and hidden charges to siphon wealth from unsuspecting customers. In a future shaped by ongoing debates around corporate social responsibility, climate justice, and the role of private enterprise, this story might serve as an important reminder of how profit motives can overshadow moral and legal obligations when left unchecked.

For local communities, the lesson is sobering: unless protections are strengthened and accountability is enforced, unscrupulous companies will exploit every angle to maximize returns. The economic fallout can be brutal for small businesses, leading to layoffs, reduced investment, and lost opportunities. More broadly, each instance of corporate corruption undercuts faith in the market’s ability to drive positive outcomes.

Yet, awareness and collective action can also drive change. News of lawsuits and regulatory complaints can shine a spotlight on wrongdoing, prompting some companies to alter their practices—at least temporarily. Consumer advocacy groups, small-business associations, and progressive policymakers can leverage such high-profile cases to push for reforms that ensure the “features” of exploitation are no longer baked into the system.

---

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2021/08/ftc-sues-fleetcor-its-ceo-fleecing-small-businesses-mystery-fuel-card-fees

https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/cases-proceedings/182-3000-fleetcor-technologies-matter