The legal library gives you easy access to the FTC’s case information and other official legal, policy, and guidance documents.
Prepared Statement of the Federal Trade Commission Before the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, United States Senate
16 CFR Part 24: Guides for Select Leather and Imitation Leather Products
James L. Dolan
James L. Dolan, Executive Chairman of Madison Square Garden Company, has agreed to pay $609,810 in civil penalties to resolve Federal Trade Commission allegations that he violated the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act by failing to report in a timely manner his acquisition of voting securities in Madison Square Garden Company.
Premium Grants
A federal district court in Arizona entered three stipulated orders on February 26, 2019, settling the FTC’s case against the operators of a sham grant scheme known as Premium Grants. The defendants targeted individuals, many of whom are elderly or have disabilities, who sought help with paying personal expenses such as medical bills, home repairs, and debt.
1903004 Informal Interpretation
20190809: Tiger Global Private Investment Partners IX, L.P.; Starry, Inc.
Dissenting Statement of Commissioner Noah Joshua Phillips and Commissioner Christine S. Wilson - Regulatory Review of Safeguards Rule
16 CFR Part 313: Privacy of Consumer Financial Information Rule under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act
Advertising Strategies, LLC, et al.
The Federal Trade Commission is sending refund checks totaling more than $7 million to people deceived by the operators of an alleged business opportunity fraud that targeted seniors and others living on a fixed income. The refunds stem from a settlement the FTC reached in 2017 with Advertising Strategies, LLC, under which the defendants surrendered virtually all their assets to provide consumer refunds.
1903002 Informal Interpretation
Crystal Ewing (Health Nutrition Products, LLC)
The FTC filed a lawsuit in federal court to stop a dietary supplement marketer from making misleading claims that its product can help treat and even cure people who are addicted to opiates, including prescription pain medications and illegal drugs such as heroin.
20190869: Mubadala Investment Company PJSC; John Laing Group plc
Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. (FTC v. Actavis)
On 2/2/2009, the Commission filed a complaint in federal district court challenging and agreement between Solvay Pharmaceuticals and two generic drug manufacturers in which Solvay paid for the delayed release of generic equivalents to its own testosterone-replacement drug, AndroGel, typically used in the treatment of men with low testosterone levels due to advanced age, certain cancers, and HIV/AIDS. According to the Commission’s complaint, in an effort to prevent Watson Pharmaceuticals and Par Pharmaceuticals from acquiring patents for their competing testosterone replacement drugs, Solvay paid the companies to delay entry for a nine year period, ending in 2015.
This case was transferred from the United States District Court for the Central District of California to the Northern District of Georgia. The district court dismissed the Commission's complaint, and the Eleventh Circuit affirmed, holding that anticompetitive effects within the scope of patent protection are per se legal under the antitrust laws.
On 10/4/2012, the FTC filed a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court. On June 17, 2013, the Supreme Court reversed the 11th Circuit, rejecting the scope of the patent test and permitting antitrust review of reverse payment patent settlement agreements.
There are three related administrative proceedings:
Musical.ly, Inc.
Video social networking app Musical.ly, Inc., now known as TikTok, agreed to pay $5.7 million to settle Federal Trade Commission allegations that the company illegally collected personal information from children in violation of the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act.
Allergan, Watson and Endo
The FTC's complaint alleges that Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. and several other drug companies violated antitrust laws by using pay-for-delay settlements to block consumers’ access to lower-cost generic versions of Lidoderm. The agreement not to market an authorized generic – often called a “no-AG commitment” – is the form of reverse payment. The FTC’s complaint alleges that Endo paid the first generic companies that filed for FDA approval – Watson Laboratories, Inc. – to eliminate the risk of competition for Lidoderm, in violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act. Lidoderm is a topical patch used to relieve pain associated with post-herpetic neuralgia, a complication of shingles. Under federal law, the first generic applicant to challenge a branded pharmaceutical’s patent, referred to as the first filer, may be entitled to 180 days of exclusivity as against any other generic applicant upon final FDA approval. But a branded drug manufacturer is permitted to market an authorized generic version of its own brand product at any time, including during the 180 days after the first generic competitor enters the market. According to the FTC, a no-AG commitment can be extremely valuable to the first-filer generic, because it ensures that this company will capture all generic sales and be able to charge higher prices during the exclusivity period. The FTC is seeking a court judgment declaring that the defendants’ conduct violates the antitrust laws, ordering the companies to disgorge their ill-gotten gains, and permanently barring them from engaging in similar anticompetitive behavior in the future.
Endo agreed to settle the charges in a proposed stipulated order to be entered by the court.