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.
American Screening, LLC
The Federal Trade Commission filed suit against American Screening for failing to deliver on promises that it could quickly ship products like face masks, sanitizer, and other personal protective equipment (PPE) related to the coronavirus pandemic.
The lawsuits allege that the companies violated the FTC’s Mail, Internet and Telephone Order Rule (Mail Order Rule), which requires that companies notify consumers of shipping delays in a timely manner and give consumers the chance to cancel orders and receive prompt refunds.
Research & Mfg. Corp. of America, d/b/a Ramcoa
American Financial Benefits Center, et al.
In February 2018, the Federal Trade Commission charged student loan debt relief scammer Brandon Frere and his companies, including Ameritech Financial, with bilking millions of dollars from thousands of consumers by falsely promising that consumers’ monthly payments would go towards paying off their student loans. In October 2020, Frere and his companies settled FTC’s charges. In August 2023, the FTC and the Department of Justice sent more than $9 million in refunds to consumers who lost money.
Blessings in No Time
The Federal Trade Commission and the state of Arkansas sued the operators of a “blessing loom” investment program, alleging that it has operated as an illegal pyramid scheme that bilked tens of millions of dollars from thousands of consumers, and targeted African Americans and harmed people struggling financially during the COVID-19 pandemic.
In their joint complaint, the FTC and Arkansas charged that the operators of Blessings in No Time (“BINT”) have lured people into joining their program by falsely promising investment returns as high as 800 percent. The complaint alleges that some BINT members paid as much as $62,700 to participate. In reality, though, as in other pyramid schemes, the vast majority of participants have lost money, the complaint alleges.
BINT’s operators are banned from the business of multi-level marketing as a result of enforcement actions taken by the Federal Trade Commission and the State of Arkansas alleging the operation of an illegal pyramid scheme.
American Vehicle Protection Corporation
In February 2022, the FTC took action in federal court against a Florida-based group of defendants it alleges called hundreds of thousands of consumers nationwide to pitch them expensive “extended automobile warranties” using deceptive telemarketing tactics. According to the FTC complaint, American Vehicle Protection Corp. and related defendants bilked consumers out of more than $6 million over the last four years. Under the terms of proposed court orders, three companies and their owners that were charged by the FTC with running the operation that scammed consumers out of millions of dollars would be permanently banned from participating in the extended automobile warranty market, as well as from any further involvement in outbound telemarketing. An additional court order announced in July 2023 bans an additional corporate defendant and its owner.
The Federal Trade Commission is sending more than $449,000 in refunds to consumers who were harmed by American Vehicle Protection Corp., which engaged in a telemarketing scam that involved calling hundreds of thousands of consumers nationwide to pitch expensive “extended automobile warranties” using deceptive telemarketing tactics.
Legacy Cremation Services
On behalf of the Federal Trade Commission, the Department of Justice is suing Funeral & Cremation Group of North America, LLC, Legacy Cremation Services, LLC, d/b/a Heritage Cremation Provider, and their owner, Anthony Joseph Damiano, for misrepresenting their location and prices, illegally threatening and failing to return cremated remains to consumers, and failing to provide disclosures required by the Funeral Rule. The FTC is asking the court to stop violations of the FTC Act and the Funeral Rule and impose civil penalties on the defendants. In April 2023, the FTC announced that the defendants will pay civil penalties and abide by strict requirements on how they communicate with customers to resolve the lawsuit filed on behalf of the FTC by the U.S. Department of Justice.
Hikma Pharmaceuticals/Custopharm
As a condition of Hikma Pharmaceuticals PLC’s $375 million acquisition of generic drug services company Custopharm, Inc., the Federal Trade Commission required Custopharm’s parent company, private equity fund Water Street Healthcare Partners, LLC to retain and transfer Custopharm’s assets related to the corticosteroid drug triamcinolone acetonide, or TCA, to another company Water Street owns, Long Grove Pharmaceuticals, LLC. According to the complaint, absent a remedy, Hikma likely would have stopped developing its injectable TCA product, forestalling the increased price competition it would have brought to the market. Thus without this remedy, the acquisition likely would have harmed future competition in the U.S. market for injectable triamcinolone acetonide.
American Securities Partners/Ferro, In the Matter of
The Federal Trade Commission has required Prince International Corp. and Ferro Corp. to divest three facilities used to make porcelain enamel frit, glass enamel, and forehearth colorants, as a condition of Prince’s parent company – American Securities Partners VII, L.P. – acquiring competitor Ferro Corp. for $2.1 billion. According to the complaint, the acquisition as proposed likely would allow the merged firm to unilaterally raise prices for porcelain enamel frit in the North American market, and for forehearth colorants in the world market. It also would eliminate Prince as an independent competitor in the world market for glass enamel, increasing the likelihood of coordination between the merged firm and its largest competitor, Fenzi Holdings SPV S.p.A. On July 5, 2022, the Commission announced the final consent agreement in this matter.
ANI/Novitium, In the Matter of
The Federal Trade Commission required generic drug marketers ANI Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Novitium Pharma LLC to divest, to Prasco LLC, ANI’s development rights to one generic drug and assets with respect to another generic drug as part of a settlement resolving charges that ANI’s $210 million acquisition of Novitium likely would be anticompetitive. According to the complaint, without a remedy, the acquisition would likely harm future competition in U.S. markets for both of these generic products. The order requires ANI and Novitium to divest ANI’s rights and assets to generic SMX-TMP oral suspension and generic dexamethasone tablets to Prasco within 10 days after the acquisition is final. On Jan. 12, 2022, the Commission announced the final consent order in this matter.
Nordic Clinical, Inc. and Encore Plus Solutions, Inc.
In April 2020, the marketers of three supplements called Neurocet, Regenify, and Resetigen-D settled FTC charges that they deceptively promoted their products to older Americans using false claims that their products could stop pain and treat age-related ailments. The proposed order bars the defendants—five related companies and their principals from making any claims about the health benefits of their products unless they are true and supported by scientific evidence. In October 2021, the FTC announced it was returning $1.1 million to consumer who bought the defendants’ products.
Electronic Payment Solutions of America, Inc., et al.
AbbVie Inc., et al.
The FTC filed a complaint in federal district court in September 2014 charging that AbbVie Inc. and its partner Besins Healthcare Inc. illegally blocking American consumers’ access to lower-cost alternatives to Androgel by filing baseless patent infringement lawsuits against potential generic competitors. In a June 2018 decision, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ruled that AbbVie used sham litigation to illegally maintain its monopoly over the testosterone replacement drug Androgel, and ordered $448 million in monetary relief to consumers who were overcharged for Androgel as a result of AbbVie’s conduct.
In September 2020, the Third Circuit affirmed the district court’s finding of liability on the FTC’s sham litigation claim, and reinstated the reverse payment claim, two important legal victories that protect competition in pharmaceutical markets.
While handing the Commission important legal victories, the Third Circuit reversed the district court’s nearly half-billion dollar monetary judgment for consumers, holding that the FTC is not entitled to disgorgement under 13(b) of the FTC Act. This determination was effectively affirmed by the Supreme Court’s decision in AMG Capital Management v. FTC.
Since the initial filing of the lawsuit, generic AndroGel products have entered the market, so that patients now benefit from competition among multiple suppliers. AbbVie and Teva are also now subject to Commission orders preventing them from entering into certain reverse-payment settlements. On July 30, 2021, the Commission announced that it has withdrawn its reverse-payment claim from federal district court, ending its litigation against AbbVie.
Career Education Corporation
Career Education Corporation (CEC) and its subsidiaries, American InterContinental University, Inc., AIU Online, LLC, Marlin Acquisition Corporation, Colorado Technical University, Inc., and Colorado Tech., Inc. (collectively, CEC), has been ordered to pay $30 million to the FTC to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that the operator used sales leads from lead generators that falsely told consumers they were affiliated with the U.S. military, and that used other unlawful tactics to generate leads. CEC’s lead generators also induced consumers to submit their information under the guise of providing job or benefits assistance. The FTC also charged that CEC’s lead generators falsely told consumers that their information would not be shared, and that both CEC and its lead generators illegally called consumers registered on the National Do Not Call (DNC) Registry.
The Federal Trade Commission is sending nearly $30 million in refunds to people tricked by agents working on behalf of Career Education Corporation (currently operating as Perdoceo Education Corporation), the operator of several post-secondary schools.
Reckitt Benckiser Group PLC
Reckitt Benckiser Group plc has agreed to pay $50 million to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that it violated the antitrust laws through a deceptive scheme to thwart lower-priced generic competition to its branded drug Suboxone. According to the complaint, before the generic versions of Suboxone tablets became available, Reckitt and its former subsidiary Reckitt Benckiser Pharmaceuticals, now known as Indivior, Inc., developed a dissolvable oral film version of Suboxone and worked to shift prescriptions to this patent-protected film. Worried that doctors and patients would not want to switch to Suboxone Film, Reckitt allegedly employed a “product hopping” scheme where the company misrepresented that the film version of Suboxone was safer than Suboxone tablets because children are less likely to be accidentally exposed to the film product. Indivior has agreed to pay an additional $10 million to settle FTC charges. On May 10, 2021, the FTC announced that it sent nearly $60 million in payments to consumers who were victims of the scheme.
Quickwork LLC and Eric A. Nepute
In April 2021, the FTC charged St. Louis-based chiropractor Eric Anthony Nepute and his company Quickwork LLC with violating the COVID-19 Consumer Protection Act and the Federal Trade Commission Act, by deceptively marketing products containing vitamin D and zinc as scientifically proven to treat or prevent COVID-19. This is the first such case in which the agency has sought civil penalties.
Impax Laboratories, Inc., In the Matter of
The FTC's administrative complaint against Impax charges that in 2010, Impax and Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. illegally agreed that Impax would not compete by marketing a generic version of Endo’s Opana ER until January 2013. In exchange, Endo paid Impax more than $112 million.
Endo agreed to settle these charges in a stipulated order entered in federal court. See FTC v. Allergan plc, and Watson Laboratories, Inc. et al.
The Commission’s 2019 opinion held that the FTC staff had proven that the agreement between Impax and Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. violated Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act. The Commission’s opinion reversed Chief Administrative Law Judge D. Michael Chappell’s initial decision.
In April 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld the Commission’s opinion.