The Federal Trade Commission authorized an administrative complaint against the proposed merger between Microsoft Corp. and Activision Blizzard, Inc., a video game developer that creates and publishes games such as Call of Duty, World of Warcraft, Diablo, and Overwatch. Microsoft sells the Xbox gaming console and also offers a video game subscription service called Xbox Game Pass, as well as a cloud-based video game streaming service. The agency alleges that the deal would enable Microsoft to suppress competitors to its Xbox gaming consoles and its rapidly growing subscription and cloud-gaming business. The Commission withdrew the matter from adjudication in July 2023, and returned it to adjudication on September 26, 2023. The evidentiary hearing will commence 21 days after the issuance of the district court's decision in FTC v. Microsoft.
In some situations the FTC files a complaint under its administrative process instead of taking the case to a federal court. This is called an adjudicative proceeding. The party can decide to settle with us or they can contest the charges. If they contest the case it is heard before an administrative law judge in a trial-type proceeding. The Legal Library has information about cases brought by us before an administrative law judge.
GTCR BC Holdings, LLC and Surmodics, Inc., In the Matter of
The Federal Trade Commission issued an administrative complaint to challenge GTCR BC Holdings, LLC’s acquisition of Surmodics, Inc., alleging that the deal, which seeks to combine the two largest manufacturers of critical medical device coatings, is anticompetitive. The FTC charges that private equity firm GTCR’s proposed acquisition of Surmodics would create a combined company controlling more than 50% of the market for outsourced hydrophilic coatings. These coatings are often used by medical device manufacturers and are applied to lifesaving medical devices such as catheters and guidewires.
The Federal Trade Commission filed an amended complaint adding the states of Illinois and Minnesota as co-plaintiffs in the Commission’s lawsuit challenging GTCR BC Holdings, LLC’s (GTCR) acquisition of Surmodics, Inc. (Surmodics). The amended complaint also adds GTCR, LLC as an additional defendant in the case.
Uber, FTC v.
The Federal Trade Commission sued Uber Technologies, Inc. and Uber USA LLC (collectively, “Uber”) for alleged violations of Section 5 of the FTC Act and the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence
Act (“ROSCA”). Among other things, the complaint alleges that Uber charges consumers for its subscription service, Uber One, through a negative option feature but has failed to provide a simple mechanism to stop recurring charges. The complaint also alleges Uber has charged consumers without their consent in violation of the FTC Act and ROSCA. Further, the complaint alleges Uber falsely claims that consumers can cancel Uber One at “any time” with no additional fees.
The FTC filed a lawsuit today against Uber, alleging the rideshare and delivery company charged consumers for its Uber One subscription service without their consent, failed to deliver promised savings, and made it difficult for users to cancel the service despite its “cancel anytime” promises.
Asbury Automotive Group, Inc., et al., In the Matter of
The Federal Trade Commission is acting against a large automotive dealer group, Asbury Automotive, for systematically charging consumers for costly add-on items they did not agree to or were falsely told were required as part of their purchase. The FTC also alleges that Asbury discriminates against Black and Latino consumers, targeting them with unwanted and higher-priced add-ons.
In an administrative complaint, the FTC alleges that three Texas dealerships owned by Asbury that operate as David McDavid Ford Ft. Worth, David McDavid Honda Frisco, and David McDavid Honda Irving, along with Ali Benli, who acted as general manager of those dealerships, engaged in a variety of practices to sneak hidden fees for unwanted add-ons past consumers. These tactics included a practice called “payment packing,” where the dealerships convinced consumers to agree to monthly payments that were larger than needed to pay for the agreed-upon price of the car, and then “packed” add-on items to the sales contract to make up that difference.
Tempur Sealy International, Inc. and Mattress Firm Group Inc., In the Matter of
The Federal Trade Commission moved to block Tempur Sealy International, Inc.’s (Tempur Sealy) proposed $4 billion acquisition of Mattress Firm Group Inc. (Mattress Firm).
The Commission issued an administrative complaint and authorized a lawsuit in federal court to block the acquisition, alleging that Tempur Sealy—the world’s largest mattress supplier and manufacturer—will have the ability and incentive to suppress competition and raise prices for mattresses for millions of consumers once it acquires Mattress Firm.
Caremark Rx, Zinc Health Services, et al., In the Matter of (Insulin)
The FTC filed a lawsuit against the three largest prescription drug benefit managers (PBMs)—Caremark Rx, Express Scripts (ESI), and OptumRx—and their affiliated group purchasing organizations (GPOs) for engaging in anticompetitive and unfair rebating practices that have artificially inflated the list price of insulin drugs.
Scott Shell, In the Matter of
H&R Block, In the Matter of
The Federal Trade Commission is taking action against tax preparation company H&R Block for unfairly deleting consumers’ tax data and requiring them to contact customer service when they downgrade to more affordable online products, and deceptively marketing their products as “free” when they were not free for many consumers. These practices cost consumers time and money.
A proposed FTC settlement would stop H&R Block from unfairly requiring consumers seeking to downgrade to a cheaper H&R Block product to contact customer service, from unfairly deleting users' previously entered data and from making deceptive claims about “free” tax filing.
The tax-filing company has agreed to a proposed settlement that will require the company to make a number of changes for the 2025 tax filing season in addition to longer-term changes. The settlement would also require the company to pay $7 million to the FTC to be used to redress consumers harmed by the company’s unlawful practices.
In January 2025, The Federal Trade Commission finalized an order requiring the tax preparation company H&R Block to make a number of changes for the 2025 tax filing season in addition to longer-term changes. The settlement also requires the company to pay $7 million to be used to compensate consumers harmed by the company’s unlawful practices.
Kroger Company/Albertsons Companies, Inc., In the Matter of
The Federal Trade Commission sued to block the largest proposed supermarket merger in U.S. history—Kroger Company’s $24.6 billion acquisition of the Albertsons Companies, Inc.—alleging that the deal is anticompetitive.
Michael Hewitt, In the Matter of
SuperGoodDeals.com, Inc.
The FTC filed a complaint against SuperGoodDeals.com, Inc. and its owner, Kevin J. Lipsitz, alleging that the defendants falsely promised consumers next-day shipping of facemasks and other personal protective equipment (PPE) to deal with the coronavirus pandemic. In addition, the FTC alleged that some of the other merchandise sold through the SuperGoodDeals website were falsely advertised as “authentic” or “certified.”
Kevin Lipsitz, who defrauded consumers by falsely promising “next day” shipping of facemasks and respirators to consumers at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, will be banned from selling personal protective equipment (PPE) and be required to turn over more than $145,000 to the FTC.
In December 2024, the FTC sent more than $114,000 to consumers who were deceived by “next day shipping” claims on badly needed personal protective equipment (PPE) by online seller SuperGoodDeals.com.
Dr. Scott Shell, DVM, In the Matter of
Jim Iree Lewis, In the matter of
American Future Systems, Inc.
In May 2020, the FTC sued the operators of a Pennsylvania-based telemarketing scheme, alleging that they charged organizations such as businesses, schools, fire and police departments, and non-profits for books and newsletter subscriptions they never ordered. The agency’s complaint also names the defendants behind a New York-based debt collection operation, alleging that they illegally threatened the organizations if they failed to pay for the unordered merchandise.
In April 2023, International Credit Recovery, Inc. (ICR), officer Richard Diorio, Jr., and manager Cynthia Powell, have agreed to a permanent ban from the debt collection industry after being charged with engaging in bogus debt collection efforts against businesses and non-profits.
In March 2024, the district court ruled against the FTC on its claims. In June 2024, the district court denied the FTC's post-trial motion to alter or amend judgment.
Elanor Martin and Oscar Ceballos, In the Matter of
Natalia Lynch, In the Matter of
Chris Allen Hartman, In the Matter of
W. Bret Calhoun, In the Matter of
Illumina, Inc., and GRAIL, Inc., In the Matter of
The Federal Trade Commission filed an administrative complaint and authorized a federal court lawsuit to block Illumina’s $7.1 billion proposed acquisition of Grail—a maker of a non-invasive, early detection liquid biopsy test that can screen for multiple types of cancer in asymptomatic patients at very early stages using DNA sequencing. Illumina is the only provider of DNA sequencing that is a viable option for these multi-cancer early detection, or MCED, tests in the United States.
The complaint alleges the proposed acquisition will diminish innovation in the U.S. market for MCED tests, which could be used to detect up to 50 types of cancer. Most of these types of cancer are not screened for at all today, and the MCED test could save millions of lives around the world. The trial began on Aug. 24, 2021. On May 20, 2021, the FTC authorized staff to dismiss its federal court complaint for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order.
In April 2023, the Commission issued an opinion and order reversing the Administrative Law Judge’s dismissal of the proceeding and requiring Illumina to divest Grail. In June 2023, Illumina petitioned the Fifth Circuit to review the Commission’s order and opinion, and the Fifth Circuit heard arguments in the case in September 2023.
On December 15, 2023, the Fifth Circuit issued an opinion in the case finding that there was substantial evidence supporting the Commission’s ruling that the deal was anticompetitive. The Fifth Circuit vacated the Commission’s order and remanded it for further proceedings based on the standard the Commission applied when reviewing one aspect of Illumina’s rebuttal evidence. On December 17, 2023, Illumina then announced it would divest Grail.