Amicus Briefs

When a court considers a case whose outcome may affect consumers or competition, the FTC may file a “friend of the court” brief to provide information that can help the court make its decision in a way that protects consumers or promotes competition. To find a specific FTC brief, use the filters on this page.

Displaying 1 - 20 of 107

Motorola Mobility LLC v. AU Optronics Corp.

Citation Number: 14-8003
Federal Court: U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Date:

Brief of the United States Department of Justice, Federal Trade Commission, Department of State, and Department of Commerce before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit addressing the proper application of the provisions of the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act of 1982, 15 U.S.C. § 6a, which parallel those of Section 5(a)(3) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a)(3). The brief states that fixing the price of a foreign-produced component can directly, substantially, and reasonably foreseeably affect domestic commerce in products incorporating the component. It also states that effects on U.S. commerce do not give rise to damages claims by Motorola’s foreign affiliates but could give rise to damages claims by the first purchaser in affected U.S. commerce.

Hernandez v. Williams, Zinman & Parham, P.C.

Citation Number: 14-15672
Federal Court: U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Date:

Brief of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Federal Trade Commission before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit addressing the proper application of Section 809 of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1692g, regarding validation notices from debt collectors to consumers.  The brief supports the plaintiff’s appeal from the district court’s denial of her motion for summary judgment and granting of summary judgment to defendants.  The brief takes the position that the district court erroneously interpreted the FDCPA to find that only “the initial communications” from the an initial debt collector need provide the information required by § 1692(g), and that communications from subsequent debt collectors were not required to comply with the statute.

Motorola Mobility LLC v. AU Optronics Corp.

Citation Number: 14-8003
Federal Court: U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Date:

Supplemental brief of the United States Department of Justice, Federal Trade Commission, Department of State, and Department of Commerce before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit further addressing the proper application of the provisions of the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act of 1982, 15 U.S.C. § 6a, which parallel those of Section 5(a)(3) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a)(3). While acknowledging the concern expressed by some foreign governments about the potential collision between foreign and domestic antitrust law associated with the extraterritorial application of federal statutes, the brief notes that it is generally accepted that the Sherman Act applies to foreign conduct meant to produce and producing effects in the United States. By making such conduct subject to the Sherman Act only under certain conditions, Congress struck a balance that protects the country’s commerce and consumers against substantial anticompetitive harm, even when it has foreign origins, while avoiding unreasonable interference with the regulation of foreign markets by other countries.

Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Celgene Corporation

Citation Number: 2:14-CV-2094-ES-MAH
Federal Court: District of New Jersey
Date:

Brief of the Federal Trade Commission before the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey addressing the proper application of antitrust principles to a pharmaceutical company’s refusal to sell samples to potential generic competitors. The brief opposes the defendant’s motion to dismiss the case. The brief takes the position that (a) a brand pharmaceutical company’s refusal to sell samples to a generic company can constitute exclusionary conduct under established Supreme Court precedent; (b) a brand company’s distribution agreements are not immune from antitrust scrutiny, and (c) a brand company’s patents alone do not establish a lack of antitrust injury.    

In re Lamictal Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation

Citation Number: 14-1243
Federal Court: U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Date:

Brief of the Federal Trade Commission as amicus curiae urging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit to reverse a district court determination that a brand-name drug manufacturer’s commitment not to introduce an authorized generic version of its own brand-name drug in exchange for a generic drug company’s promise to drop a challenge to the patent claiming the brand-name drug was not a “reverse-payment” under the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in FTC v. Actavis, Inc., 133 S. Ct. 2224 (2013). Not only can an agreement containing a no-authorized-generic commitment constitute a potentially anticompetitive reverse payment under Actavis, the parties’ mutual agreements not to compete in each other’s markets may violate the antitrust laws as an unlawful market allocation.

Motorola Mobility LLC v. AU Optronics

Citation Number: 14-8003
Federal Court: U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Date:

Brief of the United States Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit addressing the proper application of the provisions of the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act of 1982, 15 U.S.C. § 6a, which parallel those of Section 5(a)(3) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a)(3). The brief supports the appellant’s request for rehearing on grounds that a panel of the Seventh Circuit erred in affirming a district court’s dismissal of the case. The brief takes the position that (a) the panel’s decision concerning the effects showing required under the FTAIA conflicts with the Seventh Circuit’s precedent in Minn-Chem, Inc. v. Agrium, Inc., 683 F.3d 845 (7th Cir. 2012) (en banc), and (b) the issue of whether the effects on U.S. commerce give rise to Motorola’s claims merits further briefing and argument.

Jo Batman v. Facebook, Inc.

Citation Number: 13-16819
Federal Court: U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Date:

Brief of the Federal Trade Commission urging the Ninth Circuit to reject the district court’s suggestion that the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) preempts state law privacy protections for people outside of COPPA’s coverage, including teenagers.

Esther Buchanan v. Northland Group Inc.

Citation Number: 13-2523
Federal Court: U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Date:

Amicus brief of the Federal Trade Commission and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau supporting reversal and providing the agencies’ combined knowledge and expertise on the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and its application to the collection of debts after the statute of limitations to file suit for collection has run on.

Sykes v. Mel S. Harris and Associates LLC

Citation Number: 13-2742
Federal Court: U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Date:

Brief of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Federal Trade Commission as amici curiae before the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, addressing the question of whether false communications or other misconduct must be directed at the consumer in order to be actionable under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).

Lotes Co., Ltd. v. Hon Hai Precision Industry Co., Ltd., et al.

Citation Number: 13-2280
Federal Court: U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Date:

Brief of the United States Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit addressing the proper application of the provisions of the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act of 1982, 15 U.S.C. § 6a, which parallel those of Section 5(a)(3) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a)(3). The brief takes the position that (a) the district court decision dismissing plaintiff’s antitrust complaint may be affirmed on the ground that the plaintiff’s claim does not arise from anticompetitive effects on U.S. commerce, and (b) the analysis of the effects of defendants’ alleged conduct failed to follow the proper “proximate cause” standard.

Moran v. The Screening Pros LLC

Citation Number: 12-57246
Federal Court: U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Date:

Brief of Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Federal Trade Commission as amici curiae before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, addressing the question of how long, under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), a consumer reporting agency can report certain negative information about an individual.  The FCRA generally prohibits the reporting of adverse information for more than seven years. The brief takes the position that the seven-year period for a dismissed criminal charge begins on the date of the charge, not the date of dismissal.

Wellbutrin XL Antitrust Litigation, In re

Citation Number: 2:08-cv-2431
Federal Court: Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Date:
Brief of the Federal Trade Commission as Amicus Curiae before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, addressing whether a branded company's commitment not to launch an authorized generic in competition with a generic company can constitute a reverse payment under the Supreme Court’s ruling in FTC v. Actavis, 133 S. Ct. 2223 (2013), and describing the Commission’s review of pharmaceutical patent settlement agreements under the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003.

Deborah Jackson v. Payday Financial, LLC

Citation Number: 12-2617
Federal Court: U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Date:

Brief of the Federal Trade Commission in response to an invitation from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit to present the Commission’s views.  The brief explains that, although the FTC’s separate litigation challenging defendants’ practices inducing consumers into Tribal Court presents distinct issues, aspects of the defendants’ conduct that make it unfair and deceptive under the FTC Act are relevant to whether the clause in the loan contracts requiring tribal arbitration of consumer claims is unconscionable.

Nwabueze v. AT&T, Inc.

Citation Number: 3:09-cv-01529-SI
Federal Court: Northern District of California
Date:

Federal Trade Commission’s Memorandum of Law as Amicus Curiae, presenting the Commission’s opposition to the proposed settlement of a class-action challenging unauthorized charges from third-party merchants placed on consumers’ telephone bills through a practice known as “cramming.” The memorandum explains that the proposed settlement is not fair, reasonable, or adequate because it imposes an unduly burdensome claims process, contains inadequate injunctive relief, imposes an unfair and overbroad release, and improperly rewards plaintiff’s counsel.

In re Effexor XR Antitrust Litigation

Citation Number: 3:11-cv-05479
Federal Court: District of New Jersey
Date:

Brief of the Federal Trade Commission as amicus curiae before the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, addressing the question of whether a branded company's commitment not to launch an authorized generic in competition with a generic company can be a reverse payment under the Supreme Court’s ruling in FTC v. Actavis, 133 S. Ct. 2223 (2013)

Juanita Delgado v. Capital Management Services, LP

Citation Number: 13-2030
Federal Court: U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Date:

Brief of the Federal Trade Commission and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in response to an invitation from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit to present the Commission’s views on the application of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act to the collection of debts barred by the statute of limitations.

Anita White, et al., v. EDebitPay, L.L.C., et al.,

Citation Number: 2:11-cv-06738-CBM-FFM
Federal Court: Central District of California
Date:
Brief of the Federal Trade Commission as amicus curiae before the United States District Court for the Central District of California opposing the proposed settlement of a class-action suit alleging defendants misrepresented the nature of their shopping clubs and charged consumers membership fees without authorization. The brief challenges the settlement as not fair, adequate, or reasonable, because it provides little compensation to the class after deducting the cost of the claims administration and attorneys’ fees, and provides insufficient notice of its terms to the putative class members.

Lewis Brothers Bakeries Inc. and Chicago Baking Co. v. Interstate Brands Corp.

Citation Number: 11-1850
Federal Court: U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Date:

Brief of the United States and the Federal Trade Commission in response to the invitation of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit to present the government’s views on the proper application of the executory contract doctrine in 11 U.S.C. Section 365 to contracts that implement antitrust divestiture decrees.

Actelion Pharmaceuticals Ltd., et al. v. Apotex Inc.

Citation Number: 1:12-cv-05743-NLH-AMD
Federal Court: District of New Jersey
Date:

Brief of the Federal Trade Commission as amicus curiae before the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, addressing the question of whether a branded pharmaceutical company’s refusal to sell product samples to potential generic competitors may violate the antitrust laws.

American Express Company, et al., Petitioners, v. Italian Colors Restaurant, et al., Respondents

Citation Number: No. 12-133
Federal Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Date:

Brief of the United States as amicus curiae supporting respondents before the Supreme Court of the United States, addressing whether a court should enforce an arbitration agreement under the Federal Arbitration Act when the plaintiff demonstrates that its non-recoverable costs of arbitration will greatly exceed its potential recovery on a federal statutory claim.

Pages