infamous youtuber gets caught scamming

Sets up a 'secret' scammer nobody knows about — classic hook to grab attention. — Loaded Language (45/100)

At 0:00

Calling it a 'massive scammer running rampant without anyone's knowledge' is pure hype — builds intrigue before any facts.

Why this score: This is a classic 'emotional button' combined with 'missing context'. By claiming 'not a single YouTuber has talked about it' and 'AI doesn't even know', the speaker creates an illusion of exclusive, groundbreaking information. It's designed to make the viewer feel like they're about to uncover a huge secret, making them more invested. A neutral framing would simply state the topic: 'I'm discussing a YouTuber accused of scamming.'

Original quote: “Today I want to talk about a massive scammer that has been running rampant without anyone's knowledge. Okay, not a single YouTuber has talked about it. AI doesn't even know about this. Nobody realizes that this YouTuber who used to be a huge deal left the internet and”

Sources: Scam Hooks: How Even Smart People Take the Bait | CTM360 Report, How to Think Like a Real Hustler and Avoid Being Scammed, Audience Hook — How to grab attention. | fassforward

Describes a 'scam empire' for 'millions of dollars' — big claims without naming names yet. — Loaded Language (45/100)

At 0:11

The phrase 'scam empire for millions of dollars' is designed to inflate the scale of the alleged wrongdoing, creating a dramatic narrative.

Why this score: This is 'loaded language' and 'missing context'. The terms 'scam empire' and 'millions of dollars' are used to paint a picture of vast, organized crime, even before any specific evidence or the identity of the YouTuber is revealed. It primes the audience to expect a huge, impactful story. A more neutral framing would be: 'This YouTuber is accused of running a scam that generated significant funds.'

Original quote: “realizes that this YouTuber who used to be a huge deal left the internet and sort of silently has run this scam empire for millions of dollars. But like”

Compares the scammer to 'the Riddler' — personifies the alleged scammer as a cartoon villain. — Emotional Button (45/100)

At 0:20

Comparing the scammer to 'the Riddler' is a rhetorical flourish that turns the story into a dramatic, almost fictionalized hunt.

Why this score: This is an 'emotional button' and 'loaded language'. By likening the alleged scammer to 'the Riddler', the speaker frames the investigation as a thrilling detective story, making the audience more emotionally engaged and eager to see the 'villain' caught. It's a narrative device rather than a factual statement. A neutral framing would simply state: 'The YouTuber left clues on their old page.'

Original quote: “a good villain, he can't help but leave behind clues like he's the Riddler or something. on his old YouTube page. The last video that you see featured on his channel is, "This scam is robbing”

Sources: r/batman on Reddit: Which of these Riddlers do you consider the most dangerous and evil?, Who is the Riddler? | DC

Calls Soflo 'the guy you should be safe from' — emotional button framing — Emotional Button (20/100)

At 0:42

Paints him as the scam himself before any evidence — emotional button move

Why this score: The speaker uses loaded language to position Soflo as the primary threat to viewers. This framing choice steers emotional response before laying out specific evidence, making the audience primed to accept guilt. A neutral version would say 'He's facing lawsuits' without the dramatic 'you should be safe from' framing.

Original quote: “Meanwhile, this is the guy you should be safe from. He's now in multi-million dollar lawsuits.”

Claims 'no one has found it before now' — confidence mismatch with no evidence of discovery timeline — Confidence Mismatch (20/100)

At 1:11

Says discovery is 'craziest part' but provides zero evidence this is actually new information

Why this score: The speaker positions their exposé as groundbreaking without showing why previous coverage missed this or what makes their discovery uniquely significant. This confidence mismatch makes the claim feel bigger than the evidence supports. A fair framing would acknowledge whether this is genuinely new or just newly compiled information.

Original quote: “And I think the craziest part is that no one has found it before now. I'm talking of course of Soflow Antonio.”

Frames past accusations as established fact — missing context on what was proven vs alleged — Missing Context (45/100)

At 1:23

Says he 'was caught stealing' like it's settled fact — but old accusations ≠ proven guilt without context

Why this score: The speaker treats past accusations as established behavior without clarifying what was actually proven versus alleged. This missing context makes the historical narrative seem more definitive than the evidence warrants. A cleaner approach would distinguish between accusations that led to consequences versus those that remained unproven.

Original quote: “The last time this guy was relevant was probably back in the H3 podcast days where he was being accused of stealing people's content. He was a big Facebook guy. He was one of these YouTube pranksters and essentially he was caught stealing people's content and re-uploading it as his own among a…”

Names $8M Meta lawsuit — Anonymous Authority, no source given — Anonymous Authority (45/100)

At 2:34

Cites 'somebody tipped me off' then leans on unnamed person as proof — classic unnamed source move.

Why this score: The speaker first admits they didn't believe the tip, then immediately treats it as fact once they 'looked it up.' The authority here is an anonymous tipster plus Google overview, neither of which is verifiable. A cleaner frame would name the actual court filing or docket number instead of 'somebody told me.'

Original quote: “Don't you realize that Antonio is being sued for $8 million of fraud by Meta, aka Facebook?”

Frames lawsuit as 'Meta got scammed' — Loaded Language that flips victim and perpetrator — Loaded Language (20/100)

At 3:04

Calls Meta the victim of fraud while the complaint is actually about unpaid ad credit — reverses who got harmed.

Why this score: The speaker repeatedly uses 'scammed' and 'tricked' to describe Meta as the injured party, even though the core allegation is that Antonio used misleading documents to obtain ad credit and then didn't repay it. The loaded framing makes Meta sound like an innocent mark rather than a platform that extended credit it now wants back. A neutral version would stick to 'breach of contract' and 'unpaid balance' without the scam narrative.

Original quote: “Here's the lawsuit complaint for breach of contract fraud. Meta Platforms versus Antonio Leviano... they mention his handle, Soflow Antonio. Soflow Antonio won. Essentially, Facebook is mad because Soflow Antonio was scamming people on their platform using their advertising to do so. But then…”

Admits bias against Meta then claims rare sympathy — Emotional Button to soften credibility attack — Emotional Button (45/100)

At 3:38

Flags personal dislike of Meta so the audience trusts the sudden sympathy as objective rather than partisan.

Why this score: By front-loading 'I'm no fan of Meta,' the speaker inoculates against accusations of bias, then pivots to 'this time I'm a little sympathetic.' The move makes the criticism of Antonio feel more credible because it appears to overcome the speaker's own prejudice. A cleaner frame would simply present the complaint's allegations without the personal disclaimer.

Original quote: “if you know me, I'm no fan of Meta, so I'm not exactly sympathetic to them getting scammed as their platform runs a bunch of scams. That's how they make a bunch of their money is scammy ads. They're one of the worst platforms for policing that stuff. But this time, I'm a little sympathetic.”

Same balance sheet reused as three different businesses — anonymous authority framing — Anonymous Authority (45/100)

At 4:30

Says 'they say are misleading' but never names who 'they' are — classic anonymous authority move

Why this score: The speaker cites 'financial statements they say are misleading' without identifying the source, creating the impression of an authoritative consensus while actually relying on unnamed parties. This technique lets the claim feel more established than it is, especially since the speaker immediately moves on to Meta without needing to prove the point.

Original quote: “the financial statements they say are misleading. Basically, Soflow gave him the same balance sheet three different times, trying to make it seem, I guess, like it's three different businesses that have this money”

Site taken down after journalist contact — missing context about timing — Missing Context (45/100)

At 4:59

Implies the site was removed because of this video, but doesn't clarify if it was already planned or coincidental

Why this score: The speaker presents the site's removal as a direct result of reaching out for comment, creating a cause-and-effect narrative. However, there's no evidence provided that the timing was connected to this specific outreach versus other factors like legal pressure or routine site management. A neutral framing would acknowledge the uncertainty about causation.

Original quote: “They then mention one of the websites, shop at Mars. Now, before you try to go to this page, Soflow Antonio actually took it down after I reached out for comment”

$49/month hidden subscription — loaded language without clarifying the mechanism — Loaded Language (45/100)

At 5:56

Says 'hid the fact' without showing exactly where or how the disclosure failed — assumes intent over poor UX

Why this score: The speaker frames the subscription as deliberately hidden rather than potentially disclosed through unclear terms, small print, or confusing checkout flow. While the outcome (unexpected charges) is the same, the loaded language steers the audience toward assuming malicious concealment rather than considering whether this could be a dark pattern versus outright fraud. A neutral version would describe what was disclosed versus what wasn't.

Original quote: “The problem with these things though is that they hid the fact that they were signing you up for a $49 a month subscription service”

Personal scam story + anonymous company — anecdote framing — No Frame (75/100)

At 6:30

Personal testimony, not presented as general fact — clean framing

Why this score: Speaker shares their own experience with specific dollar amount. This is personal anecdote, not a claim about how widespread the issue is. No exaggeration or generalization beyond their situation.

Original quote: “I was scammed. I received a small back from the bank, but they still owe me about $600.”

Calls company 'total fraud' based on customer quotes — loaded language — Loaded Language (45/100)

At 6:39

'Total fraud' is absolute language for what sounds like a subscription trap

Why this score: The quotes describe a classic hidden subscription model where free shipping membership converts to paid without clear consent. Calling the entire company 'total fraud' escalates specific shady practice to blanket condemnation. Missing context: whether this is one bad actor or systemic.

Original quote: “This company is a total fraud. Quote, 'Yet to receive my $9.99 toothbrush... they tried to scam $49 out of me. That was never agreed to.'”

Cites Meta's five-step scheme with specific ad counts — anonymous authority — Anonymous Authority (45/100)

At 7:12

'According to Facebook, who would know' — source is named but evidence isn't shown

Why this score: Speaker attributes detailed knowledge of a 'five-step scheme' and exact ad counts to Facebook/Meta without linking to any public report, court filing, or data source. The numbers sound specific but function as 'trust me, the platform said so' rather than verifiable evidence. Real authority would name the document or case.

Original quote: “Meta goes a step further. They call it a five-step scheme... According to Facebook, who would know, they had 9,000 ads, more than a 100 Facebook pages, and 40 business manager accounts.”

Links religious site to 'Soflo Antonio' via unnamed insider — anonymous authority + confidence mismatch — Anonymous Authority (20/100)

At 7:55

'Insider' + 'found a connection' with zero receipts — classic anonymous sourcing

Why this score: The speaker builds from Meta's alleged data about a large operation, then pivots to naming a specific person (Soflo Antonio) based on an unnamed insider and an unspecified 'connection.' No evidence is presented linking the religious merchandise site to the previous scam operation. The confidence level ('I really believed... indeed') doesn't match the evidence shown.

Original quote: “They had like the hydra of scam empires. Imagine 40 different business manager accounts... I heard from an insider about this site called Dawn or Dusk... it wasn't until I found a connection that I really believed that this was actually indeed Soflo Antonio”

Names 'Soflo Antonio' as the scammer — anonymous authority play — Anonymous Authority (45/100)

At 8:30

Drops the name like it's established fact — zero evidence shown yet.

Why this score: The speaker treats the YouTuber's identity as settled when the actual proof of connection hasn't been presented. This is classic anonymous authority — the name carries weight so the evidence doesn't have to.

Original quote: “this was actually indeed Soflo Antonio as well.”

Shows hidden subscription in fine print — classic dark pattern callout — No Frame (75/100)

At 8:58

Walks through the exact checkout flow — this is straightforward pattern recognition, not hype.

Why this score: The speaker demonstrates the actual UI flow: shipping shown as zero, subscription buried below the fold. This is clean framing because they're showing the mechanism rather than just asserting it exists.

Original quote: “they're saying shipping zero total $9.99 pay now... when you utilize your voucher, you're signing up for the Dawn or Dusk Club priced at $49 every 28 days”

Attributes intent to the company — confidence mismatch on motives — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)

At 9:58

Reads the company's mind — 'relying on you not knowing' is assumed, not proven.

Why this score: The speaker infers deliberate deception from the UI design alone. While the pattern is real, jumping from 'hard to find' to 'counting on people missing it' requires evidence of internal decisions we don't have.

Original quote: “What they're actually relying on you doing is just not knowing about the charges so they can claim plausible deniability.”

Cites Trustpilot score — cherry-picked without full picture — Cherry-Picked (45/100)

At 10:22

Mentions 'every review is one star' then admits the 2.3 average — the math doesn't match.

Why this score: The speaker wants to show universal negativity but undercuts their own point by acknowledging the 2.3 average. If all reviews were truly one star, the math wouldn't work. This is selective emphasis that falls apart on closer inspection.

Original quote: “every single review on this website is one star. Although the weird way Trust Pilot works, I guess it gives you an average of 2.3 even”

Trustpilot shows 2.3 despite 100% one-stars — Missing Context — Missing Context (45/100)

At 10:30

Presents the 2.3 rating as suspicious without explaining how Trustpilot actually averages reviews.

Why this score: By calling it 'weird' and 'doesn't make sense,' the speaker frames a standard averaging system as potentially deceptive. A neutral framing would note that Trustpilot includes all reviews equally and that a 2.3 from 100% one-star reviews is mathematically consistent. Missing context: the platform's methodology isn't hidden or unusual.

Original quote: “the weird way Trust Pilot works, I guess it gives you an average of 2.3 even though you've had 100% one stars.”

Perfio LLC ad proves it's Soflo Antonio — Anonymous Authority — Anonymous Authority (20/100)

At 11:06

Links Perfio LLC to Soflo via 'typical MO' without showing ownership records or direct connection.

Why this score: The speaker asserts that Perfio LLC running faith-based ads is evidence of Soflo's involvement, relying on an implied pattern rather than concrete proof. No business filings, domain records, or direct admissions are presented. 'Typical MO' functions as anonymous authority — the pattern exists in the speaker's mind but isn't documented here.

Original quote: “Now, back to how we know this is Soflow Antonio. Besides the fact it's the typical MO, you can actually go to his main company, Perfio LLC, they have an ad page and you can see one of the ads they've been running is for Dawn or Dusk, Deepen Your Faith.”

1.3M-view ad on Shop at Mars proves Soflo — Cherry-Picked — Cherry-Picked (20/100)

At 11:24

Treats ad views and channel name as conclusive proof while skipping any verification of ownership.

Why this score: The speaker presents the 1.3 million views and 'Shop at Mars' name as smoking-gun evidence. A neutral approach would verify who owns the channel, whether Soflo has any documented connection, and whether other parties could be running similar ads. View count alone doesn't establish identity.

Original quote: “Apparently, they've been running YouTube ads as well. Here's one of the ads they're running. By the way, you can see it has 1.3 million views. You'll notice the YouTube page is Shop at Mars. more evidence that it's Soflo Antonio again.”

Faith-based ad = Soflo supercar scam — Emotional Button + Straw Man — Emotional Button (20/100)

At 11:49

Equates religious marketing with a direct scam for supercars without showing where the money goes.

Why this score: The speaker frames any faith-based ad as inherently manipulative and funnels it straight to 'Soflo's supercars.' A fair framing would separate the ethics of marketing to faith audiences from evidence that funds specifically purchase luxury cars. The 'web' metaphor and 'supercars' line are emotional buttons, not documented outcomes.

Original quote: “Oops. Did you realize they were using your faith for a scam? They're trying to get you to pay Soflo Antonio for his supercars. Again, here's just yet another one of these ads. It just seems like they're using emotional appeals to people's faith in order to try to trick them into Soflo Antonio's web.”

Cross necklace + Christian identity = moral condemnation — Emotional Button (20/100)

At 12:30

Uses speaker's own Christianity as moral authority — makes personal disgust sound like religious consensus

Why this score: The speaker frames wearing the necklace as a religious betrayal rather than a marketing tactic. By invoking their own faith, they convert a business critique into a moral indictment without evidence that the necklace was used to solicit donations or imply divine approval.

Original quote: “apparently this guy used to wear cross necklaces. I I I don't know if he's a a Christian or something, but speaking as one myself, I would say this is bad. This is You shouldn't do this. This is really disgusting and grotesque.”

Bible study upsell = predatory targeting of vulnerable people — Loaded Language (30/100)

At 12:37

Calls the $50/month Bible study a direct appeal to 'lowest moments' — loaded framing without evidence of targeting

Why this score: The speaker equates any religious product sold to struggling people with deliberate exploitation. A neutral framing would note that the product exists and costs money, then let viewers decide whether the marketing crosses an ethical line.

Original quote: “Literally trying to appeal to people at their lowest moments. Oh, send this to somebody who needs to hear this. You need to get this.”

$50/month Bible study = 'scammed one last time' — Emotional Button (25/100)

At 12:47

Turns a paid subscription into 'one last scam' — emotionally loaded phrasing that skips any value assessment

Why this score: The framing assumes the product has zero value, so any payment equals exploitation. A cleaner approach would compare the actual content to the price and let viewers judge whether it's worth it.

Original quote: “Little Bible study thing that's going to charge you $50 a month. To somebody who's down on their luck, you need to be scammed one last time.”

Quran study guide = proof of 'equal opportunity' scamming — False Equivalence (35/100)

At 12:54

Equates selling two different religious products with equal moral failure — skips whether either product delivers value

Why this score: The speaker treats the existence of a Quran product as automatic evidence of parallel fraud. Without showing deceptive claims or refund issues for the Quran version, the 'equal opportunity' label rests on the assumption that any paid religious content is inherently scammy.

Original quote: “The only thing you really could say about this guy is that he's an equal opportunity scammer. He's happy to scam Muslims as well with you on a holy Quran journey study guide.”

1,600 Facebook ads removed = confirmation of scam operation — Missing Context (45/100)

At 13:06

Presents ad removal as proof of fraud — omits what specific policy was violated

Why this score: Policy violations can range from using personal images without disclosure to outright false claims. The speaker treats any removal as validation of the 'scam' label, but without the actual violation notice, this is an inference rather than evidence.

Original quote: “we've already talked about Google's ad library, but Donner Dusk also tried to advertise on Facebook where they ran about 1,600 ads, it looks like, and they have now, of course, been uh removed for not following their advertising standards.”

$291k in 90 days = '$1M/year Bible scam' revenue — Cherry-Picked (40/100)

At 13:19

Annualizes one 90-day period as recurring yearly income — no evidence this was consistent

Why this score: A single quarter's revenue doesn't prove an ongoing million-dollar annual business. The framing converts a snapshot into a permanent income stream, making the operation look both larger and more stable than the data supports.

Original quote: “If you're wondering how much money they were making a month, here's a screenshot of one of their sales pages, $291,000 over what looks like a 90day period. So annualized, that's about a million, but that's every year just on the Bible part of this scam.”

LinkedIn claim of $826k in one day = evidence of massive scam profits — Confidence Mismatch (30/100)

At 13:38

Treats a LinkedIn boast as verified fact — no independent confirmation of the $826k day

Why this score: LinkedIn is a marketing platform where people routinely inflate numbers. The speaker presents the figure as established revenue without any bank records, tax filings, or third-party verification, creating a confidence gap between the claim and the evidence shown.

Original quote: “On his LinkedIn, he brags about making $826,000 in a day with paid traffic. This is his own LinkedIn.”

Customer data screenshots = proof of systematic recurring billing scam — Missing Context (50/100)

At 13:49

Shows CRM tracking without proving deceptive billing or lack of consent

Why this score: Subscription businesses legitimately track customer lifetime value and renewal rates. The framing presents standard SaaS metrics as evidence of exploitation, but without showing unauthorized charges or hidden terms, the data alone doesn't establish fraud.

Original quote: “I actually got a bunch of his customer data. I've cut off a lot of the names and uh phone numbers here, but you can see they have upsell category, upsell recurring. They're tracking each and every one of these customers and how long they can bill them for.”

Sets up 'no comment' as suspicious — Missing Context — Missing Context (45/100)

At 14:50

Frames corporate 'no comment' as guilt signal, but that's standard legal procedure.

Why this score: By leading with Meta's refusal and then contrasting it with Soflo's partial response, the speaker creates an implication that silence equals admission. In reality, media relations protocols almost always instruct lawyers to decline comment on active allegations, regardless of guilt or innocence. The frame omits this baseline context.

Original quote: “I reached out to both Meta and Soflo Antonio in preparation for this story. Meta's lawyers said no comment. Soflo Antonio, after three different attempts, said, "Okay, I'll respond to some of this."”

Insider origin story framed as conspiracy — Anonymous Authority — Anonymous Authority (35/100)

At 15:07

Cites unnamed 'insider' as definitive source without any verification path.

Why this score: The speaker presents an anonymous source's claim about another anonymous source (the person allegedly 'just off the phone with Coffeezilla') as established fact. This is the classic anonymous authority move — there's no way for the viewer to assess the credibility of either source, yet the narrative treats their existence as proof the allegations are tainted.

Original quote: “He accuses me of being seriously misinformed on several of these issues. quote, I know where these allegations originated. The person behind them told me himself he had just gotten off the phone with Coffeezilla.”

Business partner conflict framed as total discrediting — Straw Man — Straw Man (40/100)

At 15:24

Equates 'had a business dispute' with 'everything he says is fabricated.'

Why this score: The speaker accepts Soflo's framing that because the source (Chester) was a profit-sharing partner who later had a falling out, his testimony is automatically invalid. This sets up a false binary: either the accuser is a completely neutral outsider, or their claims are worthless. It ignores that business partners often have the best visibility into operations and that personal grievances don't automatically negate factual allegations.

Original quote: “The person behind this wasn't just an outside observer. He was my business partner, was directly involved with the operation, received 45% of the profits... He says his name is Chester. I can substantiate his involvement and compensation if needed.”

Shipping proof offered without verification — Confidence Mismatch — Confidence Mismatch (50/100)

At 15:56

Presents unverified spreadsheet as evidence while the actual claim remains untested.

Why this score: The speaker reports that Soflo provided a tracking spreadsheet as proof of legitimate shipping, but never indicates whether this document was independently verified, cross-checked against customer complaints, or even examined for basic authenticity markers. The narrative moves forward as if the existence of a spreadsheet equals proof of fulfillment, when the document itself requires the same scrutiny as any other piece of evidence in the story.

Original quote: “He says we were actually shipping the Bibles, the roses. And to help prove this, one of the things he gave me was a giant, you know, tracking spreadsheet of a bunch of the orders they fulfilled... He puts a lot of the blame on his business partner, Chester Sussex Tag. He claims that he's the one…”

Blames partner for "dirt" while admitting involvement — false equivalence framing — False Equivalence (20/100)

At 16:30

Calls both "bad people" to soften own role — classic "two sides" dodge.

Why this score: By labeling both parties equally guilty, the speaker avoids accountability for their own actions while still pointing fingers. This lets them admit the scam happened without owning it.

Original quote: “is because we had this business falling out. He's mad at me, but actually he's the guy who thought of all this stuff. He knew all the dirt we were doing and you can't let him off the hook. Basically, he throws him under the bus as well, which is fine with me, by the way.”

Dismisses Antonio's defense as missing the point — missing context framing — Missing Context (45/100)

At 16:49

Claims main allegations "go unaddressed" while ignoring Antonio's denial — one-sided presentation.

Why this score: The speaker acknowledges the lawsuit exists but doesn't mention whether it was resolved, settled, or dismissed. This leaves the viewer assuming guilt without evidence that the case actually proves the scam happened.

Original quote: “The reality is that the customer complaints are real. The meta lawsuit is real. That's why I was doing the story in the first place. And those main allegations go basically unressed here.”

Uses 98% one-star reviews as proof of scam — volume game framing — Volume Game (45/100)

At 17:21

Treats review volume as automatic truth — ignores fake reviews and review-bombing possibility.

Why this score: High negative review percentages can reflect real problems, but they can also be manipulated. Without checking if reviews are verified purchases or coordinated attacks, the 98% figure becomes a blunt instrument rather than evidence.

Original quote: “but when 98% of your reviews are one star, that is a pattern of behavior. So many of these reviews use the word scam, fraud.”

Calls Antonio's exit "convenient timing" — loaded language framing — Loaded Language (20/100)

At 17:42

"Convenient timing" implies guilt without evidence — assumes motive, skips alternatives.

Why this score: The speaker frames the decision to stop as suspicious because it coincides with investigation. But businesses often shut down when unprofitable or when ad accounts get banned — both reasons Antonio actually gave. The loaded phrase turns normal business behavior into evidence of wrongdoing.

Original quote: “He also appears to claim to finally have stopped doing this, which is very convenient now that uh we're investigating. He says separately, the business has become unprofitable. I already decided to stop actively marketing these stores and move away from the drop shipping model. That's also why the…”

FTC citation without source — classic anonymous authority move — Anonymous Authority (45/100)

At 18:46

Says 'the FTC says' but never names which rule, page, or case — authority without receipts.

Why this score: The speaker invokes the FTC as the final word, yet provides zero specific regulation, settlement, or enforcement action. Without the actual citation, the claim leans on institutional weight rather than evidence. A neutral framing would name the exact FTC guidance or case, letting viewers verify the standard themselves.

Original quote: “These people will try to tell you it's your fault for not reading the fine print. But in actual fact, the FTC says clearly signups must be clear, consensual, and easy to cancel.”