On 2 July 2026, the Federal Trade Commission finalized an order against Publishing.com LLC and its two principals, brothers Christian and Rasmus Mikkelsen, settling allegations that the company misled consumers about how much money they could realistically earn using its self-publishing courses and services.DOCUMENTED
The finalized order followed a complaint the FTC first announced in April 2026. Under its terms, Publishing.com and the Mikkelsens will pay $1.5 million and are now required to substantiate any future earnings claims before making them.DOCUMENTED
- The FTC alleges Publishing.com promised consumers substantial income from publishing e-books and audiobooks, and that the Mikkelsen brothers claimed to have personally built significant wealth using the same system.
- Most consumers who purchased the company's products never earned the income promised in its advertising, according to the complaint.
- Refund requests reportedly ran into conditions "buried in fine print or the company's lengthy terms of service," making refunds difficult or impossible to obtain.
- The FTC further alleges the company did not disclose that some positive reviews were written by employees or relatives of the Mikkelsens, and that incentives were offered for positive testimonials.
- The Commission voted 2-0 to finalize the order; Publishing.com and the Mikkelsens settled without admitting or denying the allegations.
The three-part structure
What the FTC's order describes is not one deception but three layered together, each reinforcing the others. First, an earnings claim — the promise of "substantial income" — anchored by the founders' own asserted success. Second, a refund process designed, in the FTC's language, with conditions that made money-back guarantees difficult to actually invoke. Third, a review layer: positive testimonials that appeared to be independent consumer opinion but that the FTC alleges came from people with an undisclosed stake in the company's success — its own employees and the founders' relatives.DOCUMENTED
The company failed to disclose when reviews were written by company employees or other interested people, including relatives of the Mikkelsens, and offered incentives to people for providing positive testimonials.
Each layer targets a different point of consumer skepticism. A buyer who doubts the earnings promise is offered the founders' personal story as proof. A buyer who wants a safety net is offered a refund policy whose real terms only become apparent after purchase. A buyer who checks reviews before buying finds testimonials that read as independent, because nothing discloses otherwise.REVIEWED
Why this belongs on the Media desk
This case sits squarely in the manufactured-credibility economy Watchdog Journal has covered before: undisclosed insider reviews function exactly like paid placements and rented "as seen in" credibility — the reader is shown what looks like independent third-party validation, when the validation's source has an undisclosed financial stake in the outcome. The FTC's Consumer Review Rule, covered in our earlier report on the agency's warning letters to ten companies, explicitly targets this exact practice: reviews from insiders without disclosure of the relationship.REVIEWED
The final order's remedy reflects that connection directly — Publishing.com and the Mikkelsens are now required to disclose any material connection with endorsers or reviewers, and any payments or incentives for posting reviews, going forward.DOCUMENTED
What the settlement does and doesn't establish
Because this is a settled FTC order, Publishing.com and the Mikkelsens did not admit to the allegations — a standard structure in FTC settlements that allows a company to resolve a matter without a formal finding of wrongdoing. The $1.5 million payment and the future compliance requirements are real and binding; the underlying factual allegations remain allegations that the company chose not to contest, rather than facts established at trial.DOCUMENTED
Sources behind this report
Have documents relevant to an earnings-claim, review-manipulation, or "business opportunity" scheme? Reach us through our tips channel.