Benefytt Settlement: The FTC Sent Nearly $100 Million to 463,629 People

Who qualifies

• The people paid were consumers the FTC identified from Benefytt's own records as having been charged for the products described in the complaint — the sham health plans and the unauthorized add-on products sold alongside them.
• Nobody applied. Because this was an FTC refund program rather than a class action, there was no claim form, no eligibility questionnaire, no proof to submit and no deadline to file. The FTC calculated who was owed money and mailed checks.
• Payment arrived as a paper check in March 2024, carrying a 90-day cashing deadline printed on it. That is the most common way an eligible person ends up with nothing: an unexpected government check gets mistaken for junk mail and thrown away, and after 90 days it cannot be cashed.
• If you bought coverage under the MyBenefitsKeeper, AgileHealthInsurance or Health Insurance Innovations names and received nothing, calling Epiq Systems at 1-888-574-3126 to ask about your record is still worthwhile. Have the dates you were paying and the name the plan was billed under.
• The people hit hardest were those who buy their own coverage rather than getting it through an employer, because that is who Benefytt's deceptive websites targeted — people actively searching for an ACA-qualified plan.

What Benefytt sold, and how the $100 million was paid out

1. 1

   Who Benefytt was

   Benefytt Technologies, Inc. was previously named Health Insurance Innovations, Inc. It sold health products through subsidiaries and brands including Health Plan Intermediaries Holdings, LLC and HealthPocket, Inc. doing business as AgileHealthInsurance, and it billed customers under names such as MyBenefitsKeeper. The name changes matter practically: many people who were charged never recognized "Benefytt" at all, which is part of why an FTC refund landing in the mail was a surprise.

2. 2

   The scheme, per the FTC's complaint

   According to the FTC's August 2022 complaint, Benefytt and third-party partners ran a series of deceptive websites aimed at people searching for comprehensive health insurance qualified under the Affordable Care Act. Sales agents then pitched Benefytt's plans even though they were not ACA-qualified and lacked key elements of comprehensive coverage. Consumers were led to believe they had bought real health insurance and were charged as much as hundreds of dollars per month for products that often left them unprotected in a medical catastrophe.

3. 3

   The junk fees and the add-ons

   The FTC also alleged Benefytt illegally charged people for unwanted add-on products without their permission — things like life or accident insurance bolted onto the bill — and made it hard for customers to cancel. The order that resolved the case prohibits the company from lying about its products or charging illegal junk fees, and requires it to stop the cancellation obstruction.

4. 4

   August 2022 — the $100 million order

   The FTC filed its complaint on August 8, 2022 in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Civil Action No. 22-cv-1794, under FTC Matter Number 192-3141. The court entered stipulated orders on August 11, 2022. The company defendants — Benefytt Technologies, Health Plan Intermediaries Holdings and HealthPocket — agreed to pay $100 million for consumer refunds. Separate orders permanently banned former chief executive Gavin D. Southwell and former vice president of sales Amy E. Brady from selling or marketing any healthcare-related product, and additionally banned Brady from telemarketing.

5. 5

   March 2024 — the refunds go out

   The FTC sent nearly $100 million to 463,629 consumers, announced on March 18, 2024. Epiq Systems administered the distribution. Checks carried the standard 90-day cashing instruction. The average worked out to roughly $214 per person, which is unusually high for an FTC redress program and reflects how much people were actually paying each month for coverage that was not what they thought.

6. 6

   Why there was no claim form

   This is an FTC enforcement action, not a class action, and the difference decides how you get paid. The FTC identifies affected consumers from the defendant's own billing records and mails payment, so there is no claim form, no opt-out, no proof of purchase and no filing deadline. What there is instead is a hard redemption deadline on the check itself — and unlike a class action deadline, nobody sends you a reminder about it.

7. 7

   If you think you were missed

   Call Epiq Systems at 1-888-574-3126 and ask them to check your record. Before you do, two things are worth knowing: the FTC never requires you to pay a fee, transfer money, or hand over bank account or card numbers to receive a refund, and the Commission never demands immediate action. Any message doing those things is a scam trading on this case's name.

8. 8

   How to avoid buying the next one of these

   The tell in this case was the search-to-sale funnel: a site that looks like an insurance marketplace, an agent who pitches a plan as comprehensive coverage, and a monthly charge that is cheaper than real ACA coverage for a reason. Before buying individual health coverage, confirm the plan on HealthCare.gov or your state marketplace, and check that the insurer is licensed in your state. If a plan is not ACA-qualified, that is a fact the seller must be able to state plainly.

Frequently asked questions

Sources and official records

Every figure and date on this page was taken from the primary records below — court dockets, agency releases, and the settlement administrator's own notices. Payout averages we describe as averages are calculated from the official totals, not reported per-person estimates.

• FTC — Benefytt Technologies Refunds page: nearly $100 million to 463,629 people, the MyBenefitsKeeper and AgileHealthInsurance names, and the Epiq administrator line
• FTC press release, March 18, 2024 — the distribution of nearly $100 million to 463,629 consumers and the 90-day check cashing window
• FTC case record — Benefytt Technologies, et al., FTC v., Civil Action No. 22-cv-1794 (M.D. Fla.), Matter 192-3141, with the complaint and the three stipulated orders