FTC Sues GovAssist, Entry and Zuckerman Over Passport Impersonation

The Federal Trade Commission filed suit against GovAssist LLC, Entry LLC and Scott Zuckerman on October 22, 2026, alleging a government impersonation scheme aimed at travelers seeking passport services. The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico. The FTC alleges the operation used paid search ads and fake reviews to draw consumers in. No court has ruled on the allegations.

At a glance

• The FTC announced the action on October 22, 2026, alleging violations of the FTC Act, the Impersonation Rule and the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act.
• The Commission vote authorizing staff to file the complaint was 2-0.
• The FTC alleges websites including GovAssist.com, Entry.com and IVS.us were held out as affiliated with the U.S. State Department.
• The FTC alleges the lowest actual price was $119 plus a $29 shipping fee, a $148 total, against advertised pricing that started at $89.
• The GovAssist case appears on the FTC’s Cases and Proceedings library as a federal action, FTC Matter/File Number 2523141, marked pending as of October 22, 2026.

What the FTC alleges about the ads and websites

The FTC alleges that since at least October 2023, GovAssist, Entry and Zuckerman hosted websites including GovAssist.com, Entry.com and IVS.us. According to the complaint summary, those sites offered passports and passport-related services, plus other travel services such as visa applications and visa renewals, while pretending to be affiliated with the U.S. State Department.

The FTC alleges the defendants bought Google search ads to place their pages where consumers would expect official government services. The release says searches for phrases such as “apply for a new passport,” “passport renewal” and “passport renewal online” routinely displayed the defendants’ IVS.us and Entry.com pages as top sponsored results. The FTC alleges consumers were led to believe they were dealing with the federal government or an authorized government-affiliated provider, which the FTC says the defendants were not.

Christopher Mufarrige, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, said in the release that using paid search ads and landing pages to impersonate the government and target American travelers is illegal.

Pricing and delivery promises the FTC challenges

The FTC alleges the defendants promised services they did not deliver, including that they could directly issue U.S. passports. In many instances, the FTC says, consumers received only a completed passport application they could have obtained for free from the State Department website.

On price, the FTC alleges the defendants said services start at $89, while the lowest price they offered was $119 plus a $29 shipping fee, for a total of $148. The FTC also alleges the defendants displayed their own prices prominently while omitting or downplaying the separate payment owed to the State Department, so some consumers did not understand they would pay again.

On timing, the FTC alleges the defendants claimed consumers could pay extra for expedited passports in as little as 6 to 10 business days, or 3 to 4 business days. The FTC says those promises were false because they were faster than the fastest expedited service offered by the State Department, which the release describes as the only source for passports.

The fake review allegations

The FTC alleges the defendants used fake positive reviews to make their passport services appear legitimate. The release says the websites prominently touted an “excellent rating” based on numerous reviews on Trustpilot, an online review platform where the public can post reviews, along with other review sites. The FTC alleges that rating was based on high numbers of fake positive reviews.

Zuckerman’s prior FTC order

The FTC identifies Scott Zuckerman as the owner and sole member of GovAssist and Entry. The release states that he ran the alleged scheme while under an FTC order in a prior, unrelated case, Support King LLC. That earlier matter involved stalkerware, according to the release, and resulted in a final administrative order addressing data privacy.

What is established vs. what is alleged

Established by the documents: the FTC filed a complaint on October 22, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico; the Commission vote authorizing the filing was 2-0; and the FTC’s case library lists the matter as pending with FTC Matter/File Number 2523141.

Alleged only: every substantive claim about the defendants’ conduct, including government impersonation, false pricing, false delivery timelines and fake reviews. The FTC files a complaint when it has “reason to believe” the named defendants are violating or are about to violate the law and that a proceeding is in the public interest. The case will be decided by the court. A complaint is not a finding of wrongdoing.

Where the claims stand procedurally

No federal consolidation exists for this matter. The FTC action against GovAssist LLC, Entry LLC and Scott Zuckerman is a single enforcement case brought by the agency, not a multidistrict proceeding. An MDL, or multidistrict litigation, is a procedure that groups related federal cases before one judge for pretrial coordination; the JPML, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, decides whether to create one. The documents show no MDL number, no bellwether trial (a test trial used to gauge how similar cases might resolve) and no scheduled trial date. The FTC case library entry was last updated October 22, 2026, and shows the case as pending.

The FTC credited the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Department of State for assistance. Other FTC consumer protection actions from the same period, such as the suits against Dollar General over advertised pricing and Toast Inc. over fees and cancellation terms, are separate matters with their own allegations and procedural postures. Readers interested in how federal agencies use data requests rather than complaints can review the FTC’s personalized pricing inquiry, and those tracking marketing-related warnings can review the FTC staff letters to healthcare plan marketers.

Key dates

• Since at least October 2023: the period during which the FTC alleges the defendants hosted the websites at issue.
• October 22, 2026: the FTC announces the action and the 2-0 Commission vote authorizing the complaint filing.
• October 22, 2026: the FTC’s case library records the GovAssist matter as pending, FTC Matter/File Number 2523141.
• October 29, 2026: the FTC publishes a separate release summarizing its imposter scam enforcement efforts, including removal of 19 FTC-imposter websites and more than $80 million in consumer redress since the Impersonation Rule took effect in 2024.
• November 3, 2026: the latest date reflected in the source documents reviewed for this article.

What this does not establish

The documents do not show a court ruling, injunction, settlement or verdict in the GovAssist matter. They do not state whether the defendants have responded to the complaint. They do not identify any consumer who received a refund or other relief. They do not estimate the number of affected consumers or any dollar loss to consumers. They do not describe any private class action, MDL or trial schedule connected to these allegations. They do not address whether the prior Support King LLC order has any bearing on the current case beyond the fact that the FTC says the alleged conduct occurred while that order was in place.

Frequently asked questions

What does the FTC allege against GovAssist LLC and Entry LLC?

The FTC alleges that GovAssist LLC and Entry LLC, with Scott Zuckerman, ran a government impersonation scheme targeting travelers seeking passport services. The FTC says the defendants used paid Google search ads and landing pages to appear affiliated with the U.S. State Department. The complaint was filed October 22, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico, and the allegations have not been decided by a court.

Does this FTC action mean a class action settlement exists for passport applicants?

No. The documents describe only an FTC enforcement complaint filed on October 22, 2026, and list the matter as pending in the FTC’s case library. No settlement, class action or court-approved relief appears in the record. No federal consolidation of related cases is shown.

What prices does the FTC say consumers were charged?

The FTC alleges the defendants advertised services starting at $89, while the lowest price they actually offered was $119 plus a $29 shipping fee, for a total of $148. The FTC also alleges the sites omitted or downplayed the separate payment owed to the State Department. Those figures are allegations in the complaint, not court findings.

What is the Impersonation Rule mentioned in the case?

The FTC release cites the Impersonation Rule among the laws the defendants allegedly violated. A separate FTC release dated October 29, 2026, states that the Impersonation Rule went into effect in 2024 and that enforcement since then has included removal of 19 FTC-imposter websites and more than $80 million in consumer redress. The GovAssist complaint’s specific claims under the rule have not been adjudicated.

Sources

1. Federal Trade Commission: “FTC Sues Perpetrators of Government Impersonation Scheme Over Deceptive Ads, Misleading Promises and Fake Reviews” (link, accessed 2025-11-14)
2. Federal Trade Commission: “Press Release Feed” (link, accessed 2025-11-14)