In early 2021, a tidal wave of small businesses clung to one hope as COVID-19 raged on: the federal government’s Paycheck Protection Program (PPP), a lifeline intended to help struggling entrepreneurs pay salaries, rent, and other critical expenses. According to the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) legal complaint, a company called Oto Analytics, Inc. (doing business as Womply), under the direction of CEO Toby Scammell, enticed over 3.25 million small business owners with promises of near-instant PPP loan application processing and assured these applicants that if they were eligible, they would receive desperately needed forgivable loans—sometimes touted as “free money” or “up to $41,666 in as little as five minutes.” Yet more than 1.99 million of these applicants—roughly 61%—never saw a penny of those promised loan funds.

Womply’s marketing efforts were staggering. Its advertisements targeted gig workers, independent contractors, and sole proprietors—arguably some of the most vulnerable entrepreneurs. The FTC claims Womply not only overstated its ability to secure loans but also promised customer service that, in thousands of cases, was effectively nonexistent. At the height of the program, Womply allegedly ignored mounting evidence that its system was plagued with delays, that its phone lines were overwhelmed, and that help tickets went unanswered. Womply even disconnected its phone support in late March 2021 when call volumes exceeded 4,800 in a single month.

Consumers were left in a desperate limbo. On the one hand, Womply insisted it was “faster than a bank,” particularly through its newly launched “PPP Fast Lane.” On the other hand, as time passed without updates, thousands of small business owners found themselves locked out of critical PPP funds. Many would discover too late that their applications had been quietly canceled or stuck for so long that the federal funds ran out. For entrepreneurs who might have qualified at other lenders, this alleged deception meant missing the narrow window for these forgivable loans. Some were forced to shutter their businesses.

But the significance of Womply’s misconduct goes beyond a single company’s questionable practices. The bigger story reflects how deregulation, profit-driven motives, and corporate greed—hallmarks of neoliberal capitalism—can converge in times of crisis, especially during a public-health emergency. These issues illuminate the vast economic fallout for small businesses and the ways in which corporate corruption, if left unchecked, increases wealth disparity and undermines corporate social responsibility on a massive scale.

Against this backdrop, what follows is a long-form investigative piece—an attempt to lay out the facts taken from the FTC’s complaint and place them into the broader context of how corporate accountability often fails under crisis conditions. We will explore how this alleged misconduct took shape, how it reflects typical patterns in a lax regulatory environment, and how illusions of “fast-lane” solutions and “personalized service” can collapse into broken promises that deepen the gulf between everyday workers and large-scale corporate players. Far from an aberration, Womply’s story stands as an example of a broader phenomenon: that when large corporations are incentivized by maximizing profits at all costs, even in emergencies, the people they purport to serve—and the public interest—often pay the highest price.

Womply has since paid a $26M penalty for engaging in this chicanery.

---

2. Corporate Intent Exposed

From its inception in 2011, Womply positioned itself as a tech-savvy financial services platform for small businesses. Historically, it had provided tools for businesses to manage their reputations and interactions with customers online. But during the pandemic, Womply pivoted aggressively into facilitating PPP loans, promoting itself as a quick, digital-first alternative to banks. The PPP, created under the CARES Act in March 2020, was a government benefit specifically designed to give up to 100% forgivable loans if recipients used the funds for approved purposes like payroll, rent, and utilities. With billions of dollars allocated, the PPP was an epicenter for small business hope—but also for opportunistic players ready to capture a slice of the federal funding in the form of fees.

The FTC alleges that Womply saw a once-in-a-lifetime chance to funnel enormous volumes of PPP applicants through its system—and collect substantial referral fees from partner lenders. In typical neoliberal capitalism fashion, generating large volumes of applications meant large prospective profits. The FTC complaint is packed with details on how Womply allegedly dangled the guarantee of “getting a PPP loan” if an applicant was eligible. Moreover, the complaint outlines a pattern in which Womply assured new applicants that the “PPP Fast Lane” was a reliable, near-instant approval method. Its marketing specifically sought out gig workers and independent contractors, telling them they could secure a lump sum—for instance, “up to $20,000, $41,666, or even $49,999”—within days or sometimes “24 hours or less.”

Yet the underlying allegations reflect a calculated, profit-driven approach that neglected the actual complexity of PPP applications. While a portion of well-documented, eligible borrowers saw their loans funded through Womply, an even larger portion (1.99 million out of 3.25 million) never received a cent. Thousands were left languishing, with repeated pleas for help. Some insisted they had done everything Womply asked, yet they could not find out whether their application was approved, disapproved, or canceled. Alarmingly, the FTC contends that Womply was aware that a wide swath of these PPP applications never progressed beyond Womply’s own system. The complaint highlights that Toby Scammell personally received thousands of emails detailing these unresolved or abandoned applications. Yet Womply continued to expand its promotional efforts, raising new marketing budgets, fueling referral programs, and taking on more applicants.

Indicators of Corporate Intent
Several themes emerge from the complaint regarding Womply’s alleged intent:

1. Misleading Speed Promises: Womply consistently claimed it processed applications in 24 hours, even as internal data (and consumer complaints) indicated that many applications sat for days, weeks, or longer. The FTC frames these promises as patently false or lacking any legitimate basis.
2. Volume Over Verification: Allegedly, Womply’s operational approach hinged on driving as many borrowers into the pipeline as possible—thanks to the fee structure with partner lenders. This incentive might have led Womply to minimize real-time support and ignore system glitches that left thousands of applications stuck, because it was more profitable to bring in more applicants than to slow the pipeline for thorough verification or better customer service.
3. Ignoring Complaints: The FTC cites a range of consumer pleas that were never answered. Worse, in many instances, the company’s entire phone support line was shut off in March 2021—while the PPP was still distributing funds—making it even harder for anxious applicants to correct or finalize their paperwork.
4. Rhetoric vs. Reality on Customer Care: Womply’s promotions spoke of “real human support,” but the complaint says that in thousands of instances, the actual experience was an automated chat system that delivered boilerplate messages or never responded at all.

These actions cross the threshold from simple negligence to deliberate deception. The suit suggests that Womply’s leadership knew their system was not delivering on the promises made and that they stood to gain financially regardless of whether or not small businesses successfully received PPP loans.

In the swirl of pandemic hardships, small businesses—especially minority-owned, woman-owned, and sole proprietorships—were in dire need of corporate ethics and corporate social responsibility. Instead, the complaint argues that Womply’s alleged misrepresentations exacerbated the economic fallout of COVID-19 by tying up applicants’ hopes and time until PPP funds finally ran dry. The heartbreak of losing that once-in-a-generation lifeline—and doing so under illusions of guaranteed success—cannot be overstated. This alleged misconduct reveals a pattern reminiscent of corporate greed: capturing the opportunity to generate profits while disregarding the real human cost.

---

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

One of the most revealing elements in the FTC’s complaint is how Womply’s alleged scheme fits into a common template seen in large-scale corporate corruption cases. While each company or industry might have its own twist—be it Big Tobacco’s denial tactics or Big Pharma’s manipulation of data—the underlying strategies are vaguely similar. Below, we break down Womply’s alleged approach into five key elements of the corporate playbook.

3.1 Mass Marketing to a Captive, Desperate Audience

The pandemic created unprecedented upheaval for small businesses. Many were locked out of typical financing channels or found their usual bank was slow to process PPP loans. Womply capitalized on this desperation by launching an aggressive marketing campaign that played to the sense of urgency and personal anxiety:

• The “Faster Than a Bank” Pitch
  Applicants saw statements like, “We’ll help you secure your PPP loan in as little as 24 hours,” or “All you need is five minutes and a bank account.” These promotions implied Womply had direct lines to immediate PPP approvals.
• Highlighting Maximum Dollar Figures
  “Get up to $41,666—FREE,” read certain ads. This approach resonates with other industries’ questionable marketing, where large potential payouts are emphasized to entice signups, overshadowing potential risks or complexities.
• Referral Partners and Affiliates
  Womply tapped into social media influencers, CPAs, and referral partners with the promise of “aggressive rewards.” This allowed Womply to outsource the trust factor—people are more likely to trust a recommendation from someone they follow or a professional they know. The FTC complaint notes that the volume soared once these networks started pushing signups, further fueling Womply’s pipeline of applicants.

3.2 Overpromising Speed and Simplicity

Speed sells. In finance, especially during a crisis, the first to process is often the first to fund. Womply allegedly leaned into that dynamic:

• The 24-Hour Guarantee
  Even when Womply had no reasonable basis for claiming 24-hour turnarounds, they apparently assured applicants that their loans would be quickly processed, while ignoring mounting evidence to the contrary. The complaint is replete with consumer stories describing application limbo, sometimes for weeks or months.
• Fast Lane Marketing
  Branding matters. By calling it “PPP Fast Lane,” Womply underscored the claim that their route was not only faster but also more reliable. Many small business owners jumped at the chance, believing speed was critical given limited federal funds.

3.3 Limited or Nonexistent Customer Support

A key failing was Womply’s follow-through:

• Disconnecting the Phone Lines
  As calls for help surged, Womply allegedly disconnected its phone support altogether. Thousands had no path to a live person, fueling confusion and fear among already distressed entrepreneurs.
• Ineffective Chat Support
  Automated chat responses often left users with no resolution. The complaint details how some messages never received a human reply, directly contradicting marketing that boasted “helpful, friendly support agents.” This lack of real assistance directly undercuts claims that Womply was acting in the public interest or demonstrating corporate accountability.

3.4 Maintaining the Illusion While Doubling Down

Even though top executives allegedly saw direct complaints from lenders, referral partners, and frustrated clients, Womply continued marketing. The complaint suggests that CEO Toby Scammell and other executives had real-time awareness of the problematic backlog but chose to ramp up advertising rather than slow the process to handle issues:

• Profit Incentives
  Each new application, if eventually approved, potentially meant more fees for Womply from lender partners. This structure of quick signups—and the promise of a payday if the borrower was eventually funded—magnifies a moral hazard: the entity pushing signups doesn’t bear the cost of failures, except potential regulatory blowback if it all goes south.
• Ignoring Systemic Problems
  Womply’s leadership was informed of numerous technical glitches, application stalling, and user confusion. The FTC complaint specifically states that Toby Scammell would receive thousands of complaints in his inbox. Yet evidence shows they rarely fixed the root causes, choosing instead to keep the pipeline flowing.

3.5 Banking on the Clock Running Out

The PPP had finite funding. Once the money was gone or the program ended, the window closed for applicants. This final aspect of the alleged “playbook” reveals an unpleasant truth: Even if small business owners realized they had been misled, they often discovered it too late. By the time they tried to seek alternative lenders, the PPP might have been oversubscribed. The complaint describes heartbreaking stories of business owners who found out only after weeks or months of waiting that no loan would come.

Under neoliberal capitalism, large corporations often have strong incentives to externalize the costs of their actions onto others while reaping the profits themselves. If a PPP application fails, the small business is left in the lurch—yet the aggregator or facilitator might still benefit if even a fraction of those applications were successful. This is the heart of the “corporate playbook,” shaped by corporate greed and buttressed by a regulatory framework that, too often, is slow to respond to new forms of predatory behavior.

---

4. The Corporate Profit Equation

If the corporate playbook explains the how, the corporate profit equation explains the why: Womply saw a chance to monetize the crisis at scale.

4.1 Payment Structure for PPP Facilitation

Womply’s fee arrangement with participating lenders—though not exhaustively detailed in the FTC complaint—follows a typical structure for PPP facilitators. When a small business borrower’s application is processed and approved, the SBA pays fees to the lender, and if a third-party service helped broker the deal, that service might share in those fees. In other words, the aggregator does not usually get paid if the borrower is denied, but tries to maximize the total number of approved loans.

This model can become problematic if the aggregator prioritizes speed and volume over service. Even if only a modest percentage of applications go through successfully, as long as the volume is massive enough, the aggregator can still reap large gains.

4.2 Minimal Investment in Customer Support

According to the FTC complaint, Womply did not maintain a robust customer support infrastructure. Indeed, the complaint asserts that Womply turned off phone support and left consumers with an underpowered chat system. This approach drastically cuts operational costs: no wages for a large call center, no robust compliance staff, no technical support teams.

Thus, from a corporate greed standpoint, it is cheaper to funnel large volumes of applicants into an automated pipeline and let them fend for themselves. The complaint recounts how employees were instructed (or effectively guided) to ignore certain consumer pleas. Allegedly, Toby Scammell even responded to concerns about consumer attempts to reach support through unconventional methods (like LinkedIn messages to employees) by telling staff they should simply “ignore them.”

4.3 Mismatch Between Advertising and Reality

The disparity between what Womply told applicants and what they received is crucial:

• Claimed “Individualized Service” vs. Actual Automated System
  By promising personal guidance and “real human support,” Womply appealed to entrepreneurs who felt intimidated by the PPP process. Yet the actual system, the complaint states, was more akin to a black box—where you submitted your documents and might or might not hear back.
• Claimed “24-Hour Processing” vs. Known Delays
  The complaint cites internal admissions that it took much longer than 24 hours, particularly once thousands upon thousands of new signups were rolling in daily.

From a profit perspective, the reason to maintain these illusions is straightforward: it keeps the pipeline robust, ensuring that any fraction of successful applicants yields maximum fees before the PPP’s funds run out.

4.4 Externalizing the Harm

A hallmark of neoliberal capitalism is the pursuit of profit while letting the negative externalities fall elsewhere. In this case, the externality is the applicant’s lost time, lost PPP eligibility, and potential closure of their businesses. The aggregator’s revenue model is not necessarily pinned on ensuring each applicant is funded, so long as the aggregator can generate enough successful loans among the deluge of total submissions.

When these externalities converge—job losses, shuttered storefronts, unfulfilled payroll—the result is an acceleration of wealth disparity and community-wide economic fallout. The complaint’s details strongly suggest that Womply capitalized on the mismatch between small business owners’ urgent need for funding and the aggregator’s capacity to handle that demand ethically.

4.5 The Larger Socioeconomic Consequences

Beyond immediate monetary loss, the alleged misconduct underscores how corporate structures can intensify social and economic inequalities. When corporations chase fees or investor returns without robust oversight, entire communities suffer. The PPP was designed to keep local communities functioning—barbershops, salons, restaurants, gig workers, and other small ventures formed the backbone of local economies. By encouraging them to put all their eggs in one basket, only to fail to deliver, Womply’s approach (if the allegations hold true) effectively severed the lifeline that might have saved many of these livelihoods.

This dynamic intensifies questions about corporate accountability. If the cost of lying or misleading the public is smaller than the revenue from continuing those lies—especially in times of crisis—corporations often take that risk. The seeds of corporate corruption grow in these fertile fields of weak oversight, high reward, and minimal penalty.

---

5. System Failure / Why Regulators Did Nothing

One of the central ironies exposed by the complaint is that even though PPP was a federally backed program, apparently no one meaningfully stepped in to protect the small business owners from middlemen like Womply until after most of the damage was done. This systemic failure arises from several familiar factors:

5.1 Rapid Rollout and Limited Scrutiny

When Congress rushed to pass the CARES Act in March 2020, speed was the priority. Regulations and guidelines often lagged behind the program’s expansions. Furthermore, the federal agencies administering the PPP—mainly the Small Business Administration (SBA)—were overwhelmed by the volume of applications and the complexity of verifying eligibility. The environment was ripe for exploitation.

5.2 Regulatory Capture and Deregulation

Under neoliberal capitalism, there has been a long-standing trend of deregulating financial activities. Some might argue that PPP introduced more oversight than usual. Still, the reality is that the PPP allowed private lenders to administer much of the process, and third parties like Womply operated with minimal direct supervision. There was no official, immediate mechanism to police the marketing claims of every aggregator or fintech platform that sprang up. The impetus for “spotting and stopping” misleading promises was largely reactive: a complaint-based approach that relies on after-the-fact enforcement by agencies like the FTC.

5.3 Complexity and Fragmentation in Enforcement

The complaint describes how Womply’s misrepresentations flew under the radar for months. In a fragmented system, the SBA focuses on verifying borrower data, while the FTC focuses on deceptive advertising and marketing. The typical small business owner, confused about who to complain to (the SBA, a local bank, the aggregator, or the FTC?), might give up or never file a formal complaint. By the time patterns of deception emerge for regulators, it can be too late for thousands of victims.

5.4 Limited Resources to Investigate

Regulatory agencies also face resource constraints. During a pandemic that touched nearly every sector of the economy, there were countless potential frauds and scams. The complaint suggests that Womply’s marketing ramped up precisely when the PPP was at its height, making it harder for regulators to spot and respond to each questionable claim in real-time.

5.5 Industry Lobbying and Political Climate

Another dimension of why regulators did nothing is the overall political climate that favored getting money out the door fast. Congress and the administration at the time wanted the PPP funds distributed quickly, fearing economic collapse if small businesses could not secure relief. In that setting, agencies might have deprioritized thorough investigations of facilitators to prevent bottlenecks. If Womply claimed it could help more businesses quickly, then from a purely short-term perspective, that seemed beneficial—until it wasn’t.

Resulting Lack of Oversight
By the time the FTC filed its complaint, PPP had already ended, and the damage to many businesses was done. For those who never received funding, or discovered they were in an endless queue, it was already too late to look elsewhere. The complaint’s allegations highlight a regulatory system that often only catches up with corporate misconduct on the back end. This fosters a dynamic where unscrupulous actors might take the risk because they know the real money is made before the watchdogs start barking.

---

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

While Womply’s alleged actions may seem especially egregious, they fit a larger historical and structural pattern:

6.1 Crisis as Opportunity

From Hurricane Katrina to the 2008 financial collapse, moments of crisis often become engines for opportunistic profiteering. In the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, personal protective equipment (PPE) price-gouging was rampant. Later, unscrupulous schemes emerged around COVID-19 testing, vaccine distribution, and eventually PPP loans. Under neoliberal capitalism, where profit-maximization reigns supreme, crises can be golden opportunities for those able to exploit a desperate marketplace.

6.2 Minimal Risk, High Reward

Many of these schemes rely on the notion that if they’re caught, the financial penalty might be a fraction of the total profit garnered. For Womply, according to the allegations, each successfully funded loan was a small success fee, multiplied thousands of times. The risk that the FTC or another agency would step in after the program ended might have seemed minimal compared to the massive potential profit from funneling as many applications as possible. Moreover, until the PPP ended, Womply could keep collecting from any fraction of loans that did go through.

6.3 The Perpetual Gap in Corporate Accountability

Corporate accountability often flounders because oversight depends on comprehensive, real-time data. The complaint suggests that Womply neither tracked nor preserved meaningful data about how quickly it actually processed applications. Even if regulators demanded those metrics, by the time the data was compiled, countless small businesses were already left behind. This is reminiscent of the broader gap in accountability: corporations can craft marketing narratives free from rigorous, immediate fact-checking, especially if government agencies lack the tools and staff to enforce truth-in-advertising laws swiftly.

6.4 Feeding Inequality

By siphoning potential PPP loans away from truly needy businesses—some of which never received alternative funding—this pattern of predation directly contributed to the decline of local economic ecosystems. Residents lose their nearby shops and services, employees lose jobs, and local communities see a decline in their tax base. The complaint indicates that sole proprietors and gig workers were especially targeted—precisely the groups with minimal safety nets. This dynamic exacerbates wealth disparity: Those with the resources and savviness to avoid or detect scams might pivot to a more reputable lender, while those with fewer options get stuck in a broken pipeline.

6.5 Why It’s Systemic

Far from being a one-off, the underlying dynamics—limited oversight, high-speed marketing, hollow promises, and minimal after-the-fact enforcement—are deeply baked into an economic framework that prizes short-term gains. Whether it’s corporate pollution hidden under murky environmental reporting or corporate corruption in global supply chains, the notion that a company can do harm to the public while profiting reveals a systemic flaw: the structure itself incentivizes such predatory behavior.

---

7. The PR Playbook of Damage Control

Another recurring pattern in corporate crises is how companies respond—publicly. While the FTC complaint does not provide extensive details on Womply’s public relations (PR) strategies, we can glean from broader practices in similar controversies what the typical “damage control” might look like.

7.1 Emphasizing “Good Intentions”

In many corporate scandals, the entity claims it was merely trying to help. Womply might emphasize that it participated in the PPP because it believed in corporate social responsibility—to connect more small businesses with critical funding. Indeed, in its marketing, Womply highlighted how “we want to help the little guys.” The contradiction, however, is the complaint’s evidence that Toby Scammell and team were aware of systemic failures but carried on.

7.2 Downplaying the Scope

If pressed, a typical PR approach is to label complaints as outliers or a tiny fraction of overall customers. Yet the FTC complaint cites that 1.99 million of 3.25 million applications were never funded. That’s far from an outlier scenario. Staggering as that number is, it underscores the scale of alleged harm and the significance of each personal story behind the statistic—business owners losing their livelihood.

7.3 Blaming External Factors

In PPP controversies, some brokers or fintech companies tried to shift blame: “The SBA’s system was overwhelmed,” “The banks were slow,” or “Regulatory changes caused delays.” While some of these points might be partially valid in explaining why PPP distribution wasn’t always smooth, the FTC complaint specifically accuses Womply of false and misleading promises about speed and certainty. Even if external variables did cause delays, the root allegations focus on Womply’s unsubstantiated guarantees and its failure to assist or inform applicants in a timely manner.

7.4 Feigning Transparency

Sometimes a corporation will release carefully curated “transparency reports” or behind-the-scenes glimpses intended to reassure stakeholders. But from the complaint’s vantage point, Womply never maintained the data or systems to justify its bold claims in real-time. The line between real transparency and PR spin can be razor-thin, particularly if the public sees only selective metrics designed to obscure core failings.

7.5 Casting Itself as the Victim

In some corporate crises, executives claim they too were victims of an overly complex or rapidly changing environment. They might note the chaotic shift in guidelines or the unprecedented scale of PPP. But the FTC’s allegations center on deliberate misrepresentations and knowingly ignoring consumer complaints, which is much harder to cast as an inadvertent victim scenario.

Lessons on Corporate PR
Whether or not Womply used each of these tactics in the aftermath, the bigger lesson is that damage control typically follows a predictable pattern. From oil spills to data breaches, corporations often:

1. Acknowledge only part of the issue.
2. Shift blame or cite external complexities.
3. Proclaim an internal investigation or an improvement plan.
4. Avoid direct admission of wrongdoing unless forced by court or settlement.

---

8. Corporate Power vs. Public Interest

Finally, we arrive at a fundamental tension: how do we balance corporate power—which can accumulate rapidly in a crisis—against the public interest, particularly for communities and workers who lack the resources to navigate labyrinthine processes or evaluate marketing claims?

8.1 The Human Toll

Consider the small business owner who closed her doors after being told by Womply emails that her loan was “funded” but never saw the money. She emailed repeatedly and received no meaningful response. By the time she realized the error or tried to reapply elsewhere, the PPP was out of funds. The complaint recounts that some entrepreneurs literally lost their businesses. Others took out risky high-interest loans to survive because they believed they had a PPP loan in the pipeline.

When corporations exploit a public health crisis, it can exacerbate mental health issues, family stress, and community decline—a subtle but profound danger to public health and social well-being.

8.2 The Skeptic’s View on Corporate Change

One might hope that large settlements, enforcement actions, or negative publicity would deter future misdeeds. Yet the cyclical nature of corporate misconduct begs the question: do monetary fines or injunctions truly change behavior? Or do they become just another cost of doing business—especially for a company that can pivot to another line of financial services after PPP ends?

Neoliberal capitalism fosters this skepticism. If a corporation remains beholden to shareholder returns, the impetus to push boundaries may remain strong—unless the legal repercussions are so severe that they outweigh profit potential. The crisis environment allowed Womply to scale quickly and make big promises. The next crisis could allow a similar entity to do the same if systemic regulations aren’t improved.

8.3 Toward More Robust Protections

So what can be done to protect the public interest?

1. Immediate Oversight for Crisis Programs
   Regulatory bodies could implement near-real-time monitoring of marketing claims whenever the government rolls out large-scale emergency relief. If a program is urgent, so is the need to safeguard the participants from fraud or deception.
2. Stronger Penalties for Deceptive Advertising
   If the law imposes stiffer repercussions—enough to threaten the ongoing viability of a company or impose personal liability on executives—corporate decision-makers might think twice before making unsubstantiated claims.
3. Mandatory Customer Support Standards
   For programs like PPP, government agencies could require participating facilitators to maintain minimum support services—active phone lines, guaranteed email response times, or transparent application tracking.
4. Better Data-Sharing
   If each aggregator and lender were required to submit daily or weekly metrics on application volumes, approvals, rejections, and average processing times, anomalies would be easier to spot and address.

8.4 Hope in Accountability

While it may be cold comfort to those who lost their businesses, the FTC’s complaint does reflect that, albeit late, the regulatory apparatus can step in and seek justice. The agency’s goal—to secure a permanent injunction, monetary relief, and other forms of reparation—speaks to a broader imperative: We must hold corporations to consistent standards of corporate accountability.

The Womply case is an example of a bigger phenomenon. In an era when wealth disparity continues to rise and large corporations repeatedly demonstrate how corporate greed can overshadow corporate ethics, the public interest often falls by the wayside. It takes robust legal frameworks, vigilant watchdogs, and ongoing public pressure to keep these powers in check.

---

for your reading pleasure:

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/03/ftc-actions-against-companies-making-deceptive-pandemic-loan-promises-lead-record-59-million-damages

https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2024/03/breakdown-fast-lane-ftc-challenges-womplys-promise-get-small-businesses-ppp-loans-fast