The most useful filter from this file is not “fraud” — it is “non-disparagement.” Any current offer that asks a buyer to waive the right to post honest reviews before they buy is offering precisely what the FTC is currently litigating against.
1. The claim they sold
The defendants — operating successively as Empire Ecommerce, Onyx Distribution, and Automators AI — sold business-coaching and “passive investor” packages built around operating storefronts on Amazon, Walmart, and other e-commerce platforms. Marketing materials promised high returns, including claims of “$4k–$6k consistently monthly net profit” and “$200k in one month and 100% ROI in 8 months.” The defendants added an “AI” layer in later promotions, claiming to use “AI machine learning” to maximize revenues, with one ad claiming “We've recently discovered how to use AI tools for our 1 on 1 Amazon coaching program, helping students achieve over $10,000/month in sales!” The defendants also claimed Empire was backed by “venture capital” when, per the FTC complaint, no venture capital had actually been invested.
2. The record
The FTC's complaint, filed Aug. 11, 2023 in the Southern District of California, names Roman Cresto, John Cresto, and Andrew Chapman, through their companies Automators AI, Empire Ecommerce, and Onyx Distribution. The complaint charges violations of the FTC Act, the Business Opportunity Rule, and the Consumer Review Fairness Act, and seeks a permanent shutdown of the operations. The same day, the court entered a temporary restraining order with an asset freeze.
According to the FTC press release, the defendants took in more than $22 million from consumers. The complaint alleges that the vast majority of clients did not earn the promised returns or recoup their initial investment, and that Amazon and Walmart routinely suspended or terminated the stores defendants operated for repeated policy violations. The complaint further alleges that when consumers complained about losses, defendants pressured them to sign non-disparagement agreements instead of issuing refunds.
The August 2025 press release timestamp on this matter is the FTC's republished version of the original; the file reviewed here does not document a final judgment, settlement, or verdict in this matter. Until a primary FTC or court source dated after the TRO is verified, the legal status must be described as pending litigation.
3. What it means for a buyer
For a buyer evaluating a current offer, the most useful filter from this file is not “fraud” — it's “non-disparagement.” The FTC specifically charged that this scheme used non-disparagement agreements to silence complaining buyers. Any current offer that asks a buyer to waive the right to post honest reviews before they buy is offering precisely what the FTC is currently litigating against. That is a question to ask before the question of fraud is reached.
4. Current standing
The scheme is the subject of an active FTC case.