According to the FTC, the defendants allegedly used websites and sponsored search results to attract travelers, collect personal and financial information, and mislead consumers about the services they would receive. The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico.

How the Government Impersonation Scheme Allegedly Worked?

The FTC alleges that, since at least October 2023, GovAssist, Entry and Zuckerman operated websites including GovAssist.com, Entry.com and IVS.us, offering passport applications, passport-related services, visa applications and visa renewals.

The complaint states that the websites presented themselves as affiliated with the U.S. State Department, although the defendants were neither the federal government nor authorized government-affiliated providers of passport-related services.

The alleged operation relied on paid search ads to reach people looking for official passport information. Searches such as “apply for a new passport,” “passport renewal,” and “passport renewal online” routinely returned IVS.us and Entry.com pages among Google’s top sponsored results, according to the FTC.

This approach allegedly placed commercial services in locations where users might expect to find official government resources. The distinction matters because consumers searching for essential documents may not recognize that a sponsored result belongs to a private company rather than a government agency.

Misleading Passport Service Claims and Hidden Costs

The FTC alleges that the defendants made false promises about what their services could deliver, including claims that they could directly issue U.S. passports. In many cases, consumers allegedly received only a completed passport application that was available for free through the State Department’s website.

The complaint also challenges the companies’ pricing disclosures. Although their advertisements or websites reportedly stated that services started at $89, the FTC alleges that the lowest available price was $119, plus a $29 shipping fee, bringing the total to $148.

Consumers also needed to pay the State Department when submitting their passport applications. According to the complaint, the defendants prominently displayed their own prices while omitting or downplaying the additional government fee, potentially leaving customers unaware that they would have to pay again.

Delivery claims are another part of the case. The FTC alleges that the defendants advertised expedited passport services promising delivery in as little as six to 10 business days or three to four business days. The agency contends these promises were false because the timelines were faster than the quickest expedited service available through the State Department, the only source of U.S. passports.

Fake Reviews and Consumer Trust

The complaint further alleges that the defendants used fake positive reviews to make their services appear legitimate. Their websites reportedly highlighted excellent ratings based on consumer feedback published on Trustpilot and other review platforms.

According to the FTC, those ratings relied on high numbers of fake positive reviews. If established, the allegations would show how misleading reviews can reinforce the credibility created by sponsored search placements, making it harder for consumers to distinguish legitimate services from deceptive offerings.

The alleged combination of deceptive ads and fake reviews is central to the case because consumers may rely on both search rankings and customer feedback when deciding which service to trust.

FTC Alleges Violations of Three Federal Laws

The FTC alleges that the defendants violated the FTC Act, the Impersonation Rule and the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. The complaint targets the alleged impersonation of government services, misleading representations about passport processing and pricing, and the use of false consumer reviews.

Zuckerman, identified as the owner and sole member of GovAssist and Entry, allegedly operated the scheme while subject to an FTC order in an earlier, unrelated case involving Support King LLC. That case concerned stalkerware and resulted in a final administrative order addressing data privacy.

The FTC said its staff received assistance from 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. The Commission authorized the complaint in a 2-0 vote.

What the Case Reveals About Online Consumer Fraud

The allegations illustrate how consumer fraud can exploit the gap between what users expect from an online search and what a website actually provides. A sponsored result may appear prominently, but its placement does not establish that the service is government-operated or officially authorized.

The case also highlights the role of pricing transparency and review authenticity in online trust. Claims about faster processing, low starting prices, and positive customer experiences can influence purchasing decisions, particularly when consumers need time-sensitive travel documents.

The FTC has emphasized that filing a complaint does not establish that the defendants violated the law. The case will be decided by the court.

For consumers, the allegations underscore the importance of distinguishing official government services from third-party providers and checking fees, processing claims, and reviewing credibility before sharing personal or financial information. The FTC also states that it will never demand money, threaten consumers, instruct them to transfer money, or promise them a prize.