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 81 - 100 of 106

Powers v. Harris

Citation Number: CIV-01-445-F
Date:

Memorandum of the Federal Trade Commission, as amicus curiae, submitted to the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, in a case challenging Oklahoma state restrictions on the sale of caskets. The memorandum does not take a position on the constitutionality of those restrictions, but explains why the policies of the Commission's Funeral Rule do not lend support to restrictions of this sort.

George Carter, et al. v. ICR Services, Inc., d/b/a National Credit Repair

Federal Court: Northern District of Alabama
Date:

Amicus brief objecting to the proposed settlement’s claims process and the size of the proposed counsel fee in a case involving the allegedly deceptive marketing of credit repair services. The Commission argued that the claims process was unfair to certain class members and that the proposed legal fee for class counsel was excessive and would deplete the defendants’ resources and affect the FTC’s ability to obtain redress in its own broader case.

American Bioscience v. Bristol-Myers

Citation Number: CV-00-08577 WMB
Date:

Amicus brief before the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California regarding a proposed settlement between American Bioscience, Inc. (ABI) and Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. regarding the listing of a patent purportedly covering the cancer drug Taxol on the Food and Drug Administration’s Orange Book. The brief advises the court that, because the Commission had just initiated an investigation of the conduct of ABI and Bristol, the Commission was not taking a position with regard to appropriateness of listing the patent. The brief further explains the potential consequences of the proposed settlement on generic entry and the potential harm to consumers of delaying such entry. The brief expresses concern that the judicial finding that the settlement contemplates — that the patent meets the statutory requirements for listing in the Orange Book — will prejudice parties who may later challenge the listing. The brief requests the court to consider the ramifications for generic entry and the pendency of the Commission’s investigation before entering the order proposed by the parties.

Armstrong Surgical Center, Inc., Petitioner v. Armsrong County Memorial Hospital, et al.

Citation Number: 99-905
Date:

Amicus brief for the United States and the Federal Trade Commission urging denial of Supreme Court review in a case raising the issue whether misrepresentations to state agency, in the course of petitioning activity, precludes a claim of immunity from antitrust liability.

Nynex Corporation, et al., Petitioners v. Discon, Incorporated

Citation Number: 96-1570
Date:

Amicus brief for the United States and the Federal Trade Commission, urging denial of Supreme Court review in a case raising issue whether seller can maintain antitrust action based on a conspiracy between a rival seller and a single buyer, a regulated monopolist, to raise prices to the monopolist's customers by circumventing regulatory constraints.

Pages