Before it was called FBA Machine, the business opportunity operated by Bratislav Rozenfeld went by a different name: Passive Scaling. According to a federal complaint, that earlier version failed to deliver on its promises, prompting consumers to seek refunds and, in some cases, file lawsuits.DOCUMENTED Rather than shutting the operation down, Rozenfeld rebranded it in 2023 as FBA Machine, this time adding the promise that “AI-powered” tools would help buyers price products and maximize profits on online storefronts.DOCUMENTED
The Federal Trade Commission alleges that under both names, the operation falsely guaranteed that consumers could earn money running online storefronts, and that Rozenfeld and his companies defrauded consumers of more than $15 million in the process.DOCUMENTED A federal court has since approved a final order permanently banning Rozenfeld and FBA Machine from ever selling a business opportunity again.
- The FTC sued FBA Stores, LLC — doing business as FBA Machine and formerly as Passive Scaling — and its principal, Bratislav Rozenfeld, in June 2024.
- Rozenfeld is also known by the names Steven Rozenfeld and Steven Rozen, according to the complaint.
- The scheme is alleged to have collected more than $15 million from consumers through upfront fees for a supposed turnkey e-commerce solution.
- Rozenfeld's wife, Amanda Peremen, was named as a relief defendant for allegedly receiving proceeds of the scheme without being directly involved.
- The final order permanently bans Rozenfeld and FBA Machine from advertising or selling any business opportunity.
- The total monetary judgment is $15.7 million, partially suspended based on the defendants' inability to pay in full.
What the complaint alleges
The FTC's June 2024 complaint alleged that FBA Machine and Rozenfeld falsely guaranteed consumers could make money operating online storefronts using AI-powered software, and that the defendants failed to deliver on those earnings promises.DOCUMENTED As a result of the complaint, a federal court issued an order temporarily halting the operation and placing it under the control of a court-appointed receiver — a step regulators typically seek when they believe a scheme's assets are at risk of being dissipated before a case can be resolved.DOCUMENTED
The agency later amended its complaint to add Amanda Peremen, Rozenfeld's wife, as a relief defendant. The amended complaint alleges that although she was not directly involved in operating the scheme, she received proceeds from it and is therefore required to surrender those funds as part of any resolution.DOCUMENTED Naming a relief defendant who benefited from allegedly ill-gotten funds, without accusing that person of participating in the underlying conduct, is a standard tool the FTC uses to recover assets that might otherwise sit outside the reach of a judgment against the primary defendants.
The rebrand pattern
The shift from Passive Scaling to FBA Machine is, according to the complaint and subsequent reporting on the case, a pattern the agency has flagged in several recent AI-adjacent business opportunity cases: an operation collects fees under one brand, generates complaints and refund demands as the promised income fails to materialize, and then re-emerges under a new name with an added “AI-powered” claim meant to project greater legitimacy or capability than the underlying offering ever had.REVIEWED Legal analysts tracking the FTC's business-opportunity docket have noted that the Rozenfeld case arrived amid several similar actions the agency brought in the same period against operations making comparable AI-branded income claims.REVIEWED
Terms of the final order
Under the final stipulated order, Rozenfeld and his companies are permanently prohibited from promoting or selling any business opportunity, from making unsubstantiated earnings claims, and from including contract terms that would restrict consumers from leaving honest reviews — a specific reference to protections under the Consumer Review Fairness Act.DOCUMENTED The order requires the defendants to turn over funds and assets toward a total monetary judgment of more than $15.7 million, an amount that is partially suspended based on the defendants' claimed inability to pay the full sum.DOCUMENTED
The operation's first version, marketed as Passive Scaling, had already generated consumer lawsuits and refund demands before it was rebranded as FBA Machine with an added “AI-powered” claim.
What consumers surrendered
The order requires Rozenfeld to surrender the contents of multiple financial accounts as well as proceeds realized from the sale of real estate property, with those funds directed toward consumer redress.DOCUMENTED Peremen, as relief defendant, is separately required to surrender funds she received from the scheme.DOCUMENTED
What a receivership accomplishes
The temporary receivership a federal court imposed early in the case is worth explaining, since it is a step that shapes how much money is ultimately available for consumer redress in cases like this one. Once a court places an operation under a receiver, that court-appointed official takes control of the business's assets and finances, halting further consumer harm while also preserving whatever funds remain for eventual distribution back to victims — a mechanism regulators rely on precisely because business-opportunity operators facing FTC scrutiny have, in other cases, moved or spent assets quickly once a lawsuit becomes public.REVIEWED
In the FBA Machine case, the receivership bridged the roughly thirteen months between the original June 2024 complaint and the July 2025 final settlement, a period during which the FTC and the receiver were able to identify the specific bank accounts and real estate later named in the settlement order. That timeline illustrates why business-opportunity cases of this kind rarely resolve quickly: identifying and securing scattered consumer funds, particularly when a defendant has already rebranded once to escape an earlier round of complaints, is itself a substantial part of the enforcement work that precedes any final order.
Why the case matters
The FBA Machine case is a reminder that a rebrand, on its own, resolves nothing about the underlying viability of a business opportunity's earnings claims. For consumers researching a “turnkey” online storefront or AI-powered passive-income program, the fact that an operation carries a new name is not evidence that its previous problems have been fixed — particularly when, as alleged here, the same principal and the same basic pitch simply continued under different branding.
Sources behind this report
Have documents relevant to this story? Reach us through our tips channel.