Skip to content
Action required FTC Jul 25, 2026

Celsius Network Founders Ordered to Pay $16.5 Million

On July 20, 2026, the FTC announced that the founders of Celsius Network were ordered to pay $16. 5 million to resolve FTC charges.

On July 20, 2026, the FTC announced that the founders of Celsius Network were ordered to pay $16.5 million to resolve FTC charges. The case focused on allegedly false statements about deposit safety, liquidity, insurance, and lending practices.

What changed

The FTC secured a monetary resolution against finance-sector executives tied to deceptive claims about customer assets and lending-related practices.

Compliance perspective

Consumer finance and digital asset firms should review public claims about safety, access to funds, insurance, and yield or lending features. Marketing review should cover website copy, customer FAQs, and executive statements.

Key date

Effective date: July 20, 2026.

Need help staying compliant?

Tell us where you operate and what licenses you hold; we'll handle the filings and renewals so changes like this do not catch you off guard.

Keep reading

More regulatory updates

Other recent rule changes our team is tracking.

  • Action FTC Jul 25, 2026

    Celsius Network Founders Ordered to Pay $16.5 Million

    On July 20, 2026, the FTC announced that the founders of Celsius Network were ordered to pay $16. 5 million to resolve FTC charges.

  • Action Montana Commissioner of Securities and Insurance MT Jul 7, 2026

    Montana securities enforcement settlements added funds to restitution assistance program

    On June 24, 2026, Montana announced enforcement settlements with entities that failed to properly file required notices of business activity. The nine settlements added $59,900 to the state's Securities Fraud Restitution Assistance Fund.

  • Info Michigan Department of Insurance and Financial Services MI Jul 2, 2026

    Michigan DIFS consent order involving Rylan Reyes

    Michigan DIFS published a June 2026 consent order involving Rylan Reyes. The order states DIFS alleged the respondent obtained a license through misrepresentation or fraud and used fraudulent or dishonest practices, and that sanctions were warranted.