The legal library gives you easy access to the FTC’s case information and other official legal, policy, and guidance documents.
20004744: Corning Incorporated; James F. Moore
20004740: Linc.net, Inc.; Telpro Technologies, Inc.
20004725: Coca-Cola Enterprises Inc.; J. Frank Harrison, Jr.
Value America, Inc.
Office Depot, Inc.
BUY.COM Inc.
Privacy of Customer Financial Information Security - 16 CFR Part 313
Children's Online Privacy Protection Safe Harbor Proposed Self-Regulatory Guidelines; TRUSTe Application - 16 CFR Part 312
20004685: Human Genome Sciences, Inc.; HealthCare Ventures V, L.P.
20004679: Hanny Holdings Limited; Scott A. Blum Separate Property Trust U/D/T 8/2/95
20004670: Kuoni Reisen Holding AG; Mr. Kerrin M. Behrend
20004667: Frederick R. Krueger; Uproar Inc.
20004666: Uproar Inc.; iwin.com, Inc.
20004662: Sodexho Alliance, S.A.; Prison Realty Trust, Inc.
Capitol Records, Inc., d/b/a EMI Music Distribution, et al., In the Matter of
BMG Music, d/b/a BMG Entertainment, In the Matter of
Universal Music & Video Distribution Corp.and UMG Recordings, Inc.
The FTC charged that five distributors of recorded music illegally required retailers to advertise compact discs at or above the minimum advertised price (MAP) set by the distribution company in exchange for substantial advertising payments for various types of media including television, radio, newspaper and signs and banners within the retailers own stores. Time-Warner Inc., Bertlesmann, Universal Music and Video Distribution Corporation and UMG Recordings, Inc., EMI Music Distribution, and Sony Music Entertainment represent approximately 85 percent of all CD’s purchased in the United States. According to the complaint, the MAP policies violated the antitrust laws in two respects. First, when considered together, the arrangements constitute practices that facilitate horizontal collusion among the distributors, and, when viewed individually, each distributor's arrangement constitutes an unreasonable vertical restraint of trade under the rule of reason. In separate settlements, each distributor agreed to stop linking promotional funds to the advertised prices of their retailer customers for the next seven years. For the next 13 years after that, each company was prohibited from conditioning promotional money on the prices contained in advertisements they do not pay for, or terminating relationships with any retailer based on that retailer's prices.