Every year the FTC brings hundreds of cases against individuals and companies for violating consumer protection and competition laws that the agency enforces. These cases can involve fraud, scams, identity theft, false advertising, privacy violations, anti-competitive behavior and more. The Legal Library has detailed information about cases we have brought in federal court or through our internal administrative process, called an adjudicative proceeding.
Fidelity National Financial, Inc, In the Matter of (LandAmerica Financial)
To settle charges that its 2008 acquisition of three LandAmerica Financial, Inc. subsidiaries was anticompetitive, Fidelity National Financial, Inc. agree to sell several title plants and related assets in six geographic areas: 1) the Portland, Oregon, metropolitan area, consisting of Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington counties; 2) Benton County, Oregon; 3) Jackson County, Oregon; 4) Marion County, Oregon; 5) Linn County, Oregon; and 6) the Detroit, Michigan, metropolitan area consisting of Oakland, Macomb, and Wayne counties.
Mark Dreher, Ph.D., In the Matter of
Your Money Access, LLC, et al., FTC, State of Illinois, State of Iowa, State of Nevada, State of North Carolina, State of North Dakota, State of Ohio, and State of Vermont
XACTA 3000, Inc., et al.
Intel Corporation, In the Matter of
The Commission filed an administrative complaint against Intel Corp., the world’s leading computer chip maker, charging that the company had illegally used its dominant market position for a decade to stifle competition and strengthen its monopoly. The complaint alleged that Intel engaged in a course of conduct to shut out rivals’ competing microchips by cutting off their access to the marketplace. In particular, the complaint alleged that Intel unlawfully maintained its monopoly in relevant central processing unit, or CPU, markets, and sought to acquire a second monopoly in the relevant graphics markets, using a variety of unfair methods of competition. In August of 2010, Intel agreed to a settlement containing provisions that would undo the effects of Intel's past conduct, and prohibiting Intel from suppressing competition in the future.
Abt Electronics, Inc., d/b/a abt.com, In the Matter of
Pinnacle Marketing Group, Corp., d/b/a Homeeverything.com, In the Matter of
P.C. Richard & Son, Inc.
Nationwide Credit Services, Inc., et al.
Air Products and Chemicals, Inc.
Industrial gas supplier Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. reached an agreement with the Commission requiring the company to sell certain liquid gas assets to resolves FTC charges that Air Products’ proposed acquisition of Airgas would harm competition in five regional markets for bulk liquid oxygen and bulk liquid nitrogen, which are used in a range of applications from hospital patient care to the manufacture of frozen foods.
Direct Marketing Concepts, Inc., et al.
Promedica Health System, Inc.
El Paso Energy Corporation and The Coastal Corporation
The FTC allowed the $16 billion merger of El Paso Energy Corporation and the Coastal Corporation after requiring the companies to divest their interests in 11 natural gas pipeline systems totaling more than 2,500 miles of pipe. The agreement provides for the divestiture of the proposed Gulfstream pipeline in Florida to a new purchaser - restoring competition to pre-merger levels and assuring future competition for natural gas transportation into the state. The agreement also provides for divestiture of El Paso and Coastal interests in existing natural gas pipelines serving customers in New York State and the Midwest. In addition, it would restore competition in the Gulf of Mexico by requiring the divestiture of seven pipelines and establishing a development fund for the purchaser of El Paso's Green Canyon and Tarpon pipelines to cover the costs of extending these pipelines to specified areas in the Gulf where El Paso and Coastal pipelines are significant competitors. Under the FTC’s Order, El Paso Energy divested certain pipelines in the Gulf of Mexico to Williams Field Services and established a $40 million development fund for Williams to use to build a pipeline or related facility. The Commission later modified its order to remove the requirement that El Paso maintain the development fund.