Displaying 21 - 40 of 402
Agency Information Collection Activities; Prop. Collection; Comment Request; Extension (Fuel Rating Rule)
Agency Information Collection Activities; Prop. Collection; Comment Request; Extension (Pre-Sale Availability Rule)
Statement of Chair Lina M. Khan Joined by Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter and Commissioner Alvaro M. Bedoya Regarding the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on the Negative Option Rule
7-Eleven, Inc. and Marathon Petroleum Corporation have agreed to divest retail fuel assets used to sell gasoline and diesel fuel in 293 local markets across 20 states, to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that 7-Eleven’s acquisition of Marathon’s Speedway subsidiary violated federal antitrust laws. The complaint alleges that the acquisition will harm competition for the retail sale of fuel in 293 local markets across Arizona; California; Florida; Illinois; Indiana; Kentucky; Massachusetts; Michigan; North Carolina; New Hampshire; Nevada; New York; Ohio; Pennsylvania; Rhode Island; South Carolina; Tennessee; Utah; Virginia, and West Virginia. In addition to the divestitures, the proposed order prohibits 7-Eleven from enforcing any noncompete provisions as to any franchisees or employees working at or doing business with the divested assets. On November 10, 2021, the Commission announced the final consent agreement in this matter.
The Federal Trade Commission sued 7-Eleven, Inc and its parent company, Seven & i Holdings Co., Ltd., alleging the convenience store chain violated a 2018 FTC consent order by acquiring a fuel outlet in St. Petersburg, Fla. without providing the Commission prior notice.
The Federal Trade Commission is taking action against DK Automation and its owners, Kevin David Hulse and David Shawn Arnett for using unfounded claims of big returns to entice consumers into moneymaking schemes involving Amazon business packages, business coaching, and cryptocurrency. The FTC’s complaint alleges that the defendants promised consumers that they could “generate passive income on autopilot” when the truth was that few consumers ever made money from these schemes.
A proposed court order would require the defendants to turn over $2.6 million to be used to refund consumers harmed by their deception, as well as requiring them to stop their deceptive earnings pitches and follow the law.