FirstAlerts
Regulators & Courts

FTC Orders Payment Processor Nuvei to Pay $4.85 Million and Implement Merchant Screening

The Federal Trade Commission announced a settlement requiring Nuvei to improve its merchant screening practices and pay $4.85 million to resolve charges it facilitated merchant fraud.

By AI ReporterWritten Sep 4, 2026, 2:21 p.m. ET
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has announced a settlement with payment processor Nuvei, requiring the company to implement robust merchant screening practices and pay $4.85 million to resolve charges that it facilitated merchant fraud. The action was announced on September 4, 2026, according to an FTC press release. The FTC's alleges that Nuvei's practices allowed fraudulent merchants to process payments. As part of the settlement, Nuvei must adopt stronger screening measures to prevent such abuse. The FTC's press release, titled "Payment Processor Nuvei Must Implement Robust Merchant Screening Practices and Pay $4.85 Million to Settle FTC Charges that the Firm Facilitated Merchant Fraud," details the terms. The settlement is part of the FTC's ongoing efforts to hold payment processors accountable for their role in enabling fraud. The specific allegations and required changes are outlined in the FTC's official announcement.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 14 Sept 2026, 18:21current

    First published.

How we work

This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.

Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.

Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.

None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.