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.
United States of America (for the Federal Trade Commission,) Plaintiff, v. Rail Terminal Services, LLC, a limited liability company, Defendants
Global Mortgage Funding, Inc., et al., United States of America (for the FTC)
United States of America (for the Federal Trade Commission), Plaintiff, v. TALX Corporation, Defendant
America Online, Inc., and CompuServe Interactive Services, Inc.,In the Matter of
Liberty Media Corporation and John C. Malone, United States of America (for the Federal Trade Commission)
John C. Malone, CEO and Chairman of Discovery Holding Company, agreed to pay a $1.4 million civil penalty to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that he violated the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act (HSR Act) in connection with acquisitions of Discovery shares in 2005 and 2008. The FTC alleged that Malone failed to file the required notice in 2005 after buying Discovery shares, and then in 2008 purchased additional Discovery shares before the expiration of a waiting period required by the HSR Act.
American Veterans Relief Foundation, Inc., et al., FTC
DIRECT TV, Inc., et al., United States of America (for the Federal Trade Commission)
American Telecom Services Inc.
Comcast Corporation, a Pennsylvania corporation, United States of America (for the Federal Trade Commission)
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company
Drug maker Bristol-Myers Squibb Company (BMS) agreed to pay $2.1 million – the largest fine allowed by law – for failing to inform the FTC of agreements reached with Apotex, Inc., regarding potential generic competition to its blockbuster drug Plavix. BMS’s conduct violated a 2003 FTC Order and the Medicare Modernization Act, which requires that certain drug company agreements be accurately reported to both the Commission and the U.S. Department of Justice. The complaint alleges that BMS failed to disclose that, as part of a patent settlement in which Apotex agreed not to launch its generic version of Plavix for several years, BMS also orally stated, among other things, that it would not compete with Apotex during the first 180 days after Apotex did market its new generic drug.
Enviromate, LLC, and Philip A. Geddes, individually and as the managing member of the corporation, United States of America (for the Federal Trade Commission)
Rental Research Services, Inc., a corporation, et al., United States of America (for the Federal Trade Commission)
Meyer Enterprises, LLC, et al., United States of America (for the Federal Trade Commission)
Alexander Heckman, d/b/a Omega Supply, and Erick Del Rio, In the Matter of
American Nationwide Mortgage Company, Inc.
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., a corporation, and Barr Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a corporation, In the Matter of
In December 2008, the Commission settled antitrust concerns raised by the proposed $8.9 billion acquisition of Barr Pharmaceuticals by Teva Pharmaceutical Industries. The proposed acquisition would have lessened competition in the markets for 17 commonly used generic medications including drugs used in the treatment of cancer, bacterial infections, diabetes, acid reflux, and depression as well as several varieties of oral contraceptives. According to the Commission’s complaint, the acquisition would have likely led to higher prices for consumers through the removal of one of only four competitors in each of these markets. The Commission’s consent agreement requires both Teva and Barr to sell assets in 29 U.S. markets to either Watson Pharmaceuticals or Qualitest Pharmaceuticals.
Central Florida Investments Inc., a Florida Corporation, et al., United States of America (for the Federal Trade Commission)
Herff Jones/American Achievement Corporation
ESL Partners, L.P., and ZAM Holdings, L.P., United States of America (For the Federal Trade Commission)
Enforcing the mandatory premerger notification filing provisions under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act, the Commission filed a complaint in Federal District Court charging ESL Partners and ZAM Holdings, two investment funds, with failing to make timely filings prior to making two acquisitions. The acquisitions in question were the purchase of blocks of AutoZone, Inc.’s shares in September and October of 2004. According to the Commission’s complaint, the acquisition met the filing threshold established in the HSR act, and thus was required to file. ESL and ZAM agreed to pay civil penalties of $525,000 and $275,000 respectively to settle the Commission’s charges.