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.
California Association of Legal Support Professionals, In the Matter of
According to the FTC complaint, the California Association of Legal Support Professionals (CALSPro), which represents companies and individuals that provide legal support services in California, violated the FTC Act through code of ethics provisions that restrained its members from competing against each other on price, disparaging each other through advertising, and soliciting legal support professionals for employment. The proposed order requires the association to cease and desist from such practices in the future. The order also requires CALSPro to maintain an antitrust compliance program.
Music Teachers National Association, Inc., In the Matter of
The FTC’s complaint against the Music Teachers National Association, Inc. (MTNA), which represents over 20,000 music teachers nationwide, alleges that the association and its members restrained competition in violation of the FTC Act through a code of ethics provision that restricted members from soliciting clients from rival music teachers. The proposed order requires MTNA to stop restricting or declaring it unethical for its members to solicit teaching work from other music teachers. The order also requires MTNA to maintain an antitrust compliance program. In addition, MTNA is an umbrella organization for more than 500 state and local music teaching association affiliates throughout the country. Some of these affiliates have codes of ethics that restrain their members from charging fees that are lower than the average in the community, offering free lessons or scholarships, or advertising free scholarships or tuition. The proposed settlement requires MTNA to, among other things, stop affiliating with any association that MTNA knows is restricting solicitation, advertising, or price-related competition by its members.
Nielsen Holdings N.V., and Arbitron Inc., In the Matter of
Media research company Nielsen Holdings N.V. settled charges that its acquisition of Arbitron Inc. may substantially lessen competition for national syndicated cross-platform audience measurement services. Nielsen and Arbitron are the best-positioned firms to develop (or partner with others to develop) a national syndicated cross-platform audience measurement service because of their existing audience measurement panels and proven audience measurement technology assets. To settle the charges, the Commission required the divestiture of assets related to Arbitron’s cross-platform audience measurement business, including data from its representative panel, to a Commission-approved buyer.
AB Acquisition LLC, In the Matter of
According to the complaint, the proposed merger of Albertson’s and United is likely to reduce competition in local grocery markets within Amarillo and Wichita Falls, which would harm consumers through higher prices, lower quality and reduced service levels. To preserve competition in these markets, Albertson’s will sell its lone stores in Amarillo and Wichita Falls, Texas, to MAL Enterprises, Inc., which operates under the Lawrence Brothers IGA, Cash Saver and Save-A-Lot supermarket banners.
Mylan Inc., Agila Specialties Global Pte.Limited, Agila Specialties Private Limited, and Strides Arcolab Limited, In the Matter of
Under a settlement with th FTC, Mylan, Inc., and Agila Specialties Global Pte. Ltd and Agila Specialties Pvt. Ltd. (collectively, Agila) divested 11 generic injectable drugs as a condition of allowing Mylan’s proposed acquisition of Agila from Strides Arcolab Ltd. (Strides). According to the complaint, in each of these 11 markets, Mylan and Agila are two of only a limited number of current or likely future competitors. The number of suppliers in generic pharmaceutical markets matters because prices generally decrease as the number of competing generic suppliers increases. In addition, the injectable generic products of concern are highly susceptible to supply disruptions caused by the inherent difficulties of producing sterile liquid drugs.
Ardagh Group, S.A., Compagnie De Saint-Gobain, and Saint-Gobain Containers, Inc.
The FTC challenged Ardagh Group, S.A.’s proposed $1.7 billion acquisition of Saint-Gobain Containers, Inc., alleging that it will reduce competition and result in the two firms – the merged firm and its only remaining significant competitor, Owens-Illinois – controlling in excess of 75 percent of the U.S. markets for glass containers for beer and spirits customers, resulting in higher prices for those customers. The FTC issued an administrative complaint against the two companies, alleging that the acquisition would violate U.S. antitrust law. The proposed acquisition would combine the second-largest manufacturer of glass containers (Saint-Gobain) and the third-largest (Ardagh).The complaint alleges that glass container competitors possess a wealth of information about each other and the glass container industry, and that reducing the number of major competitors from three to two will make it substantially easier for the remaining two competitors to coordinate with one another to achieve supracompetitive prices or other anticompetitive outcomes. The Commission also filed a motion for a preliminary injunction in federal court to preserve the status quo pending the outcome of the administrative trial on the merits. On 11/3/13, the parties stipulated to a hold separate order in the federal court proceeding. On 11/8/13 the Commission stayed the part 3 litigation pending settlement discussions. On 4/10/14, Ardagh Group SA agreed to sell six of its nine glass container manufacturing plants in the United States to settle the FTC's charges. The FTC’s settlement order requires Ardagh to sell six of the manufacturing plants and related assets it acquired through its 2012 acquisition of Anchor Glass Container Corporation, along with Anchor’s former corporate headquarters in Tampa, Fla.
Greensavers, LLC d/b/a Elite Services and Advanced Data Solutions, et al.
General Electric Company, In the Matter of
The FTC charged that GE’s proposed acquisition of Avio would substantially lessen competition in the sale of engines for the A320neo aircraft, which would result in higher prices, reduced quality, and engine delivery delays for A320neo customers. GE -- through CFM International, its joint venture with France’s Snecma S.A. -- and Pratt & Whitney are the only two firms that manufacture engines for Airbus’s A320neo aircraft. Avio designs a critical component -- the accessory gearbox or AGB -- for Pratt & Whitney’s PW1100G engine. Pratt & Whitney has no viable alternatives to Avio for development of the AGB for the PW1100G engine. According to the FTC, GE's acquisition of Avio would give GE the ability and incentive to disrupt the design and certification of Avio’s AGB for the PW1100G engine used on A320neo aircraft. The FTC order remedies the acquisition’s likely anticompetitive effects by removing GE’s ability and incentive to disrupt Avio’s AGB work during the design, certification, and initial production ramp-up phase
Sterling, Christopher Andrew, d/b/a sterlingvisa.com, rebatedataprocessor.com, and creditcardworker.com
Skechers U.S.A., Inc., d/b/a Skechers
North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners, The, In the Matter of
The FTC issued an administrative complaint on 7/17/2010 alleging that the state dental board in North Carolina is harming competition by blocking non-dentists from providing teeth-whitening services in the state. The FTC charged that the North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners impermissibly ordered non-dentists to stop providing teeth-whitening services, which has made it harder to obtain these services and more expensive for North Carolina consumers. According to the FTC’s administrative complaint, teeth-whitening services are much less expensive when performed by non-dentist than when performed by dentists. In an Initial Decision issued July 14, 2011, the ALJ found that non-dentists compete with dentists to provide teeth whitening services in North Carolina and that the Dental Board's concerted action to exclude non-dentist-provided teeth whitening services from the market had a tendency to harm competition. The ALJ further found that the Dental Board's action had no valid pro competitive justification and constituted an unreasonable restraint of trade and an unfair method of competition. On February 8, 2011, the Commission denied the respondent's motion to dismiss, ruling that the Board's actions were not entitled to state action immunity. The Commission ruled that because the Board is controlled by practicing dentists, its condcut must be actively supervised by the state. OnDecember 7, 2011, the Commission issued an Opinion concluding that the Dental Board violated of Section 5 of the FTC Act, and agreed with the ALJ that the Dental Board's conduct "constituted concerte action, . . . had a tendency to harm competition and did in fact harm competition," and had no legitimate pro-competitive justification. The Commission concluded that the Dental Board's conduct could be deemed illegal under the "inherently suspect" mode of analysis because the challenged conduct had a clear tendency to suppress competition and lacked any countervailing procompetitive virtue. On May 3, 2013, the Fourth Circuit denied the Board's petition to review the Commission's decision and on 2/25/15, the Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Práxedes E. Alvarez Santiago, M.D., et al. (“PR Nephrologists”), In the Matter of
Eight independent nephrologists in Puerto Rico settled Federal Trade Commission charges that they illegally collectively bargained with insurers and refused to treat health plan patients when their price demands were rebuffed. Under a proposed order settling the FTC’s charges, the doctors are barred from jointly negotiating prices, jointly refusing to deal with any insurer, and jointly refusing to treat patients. According to the FTC’s complaint, the eight doctors have violated federal antitrust laws since late 2011 by 1) collectively negotiating and fixing the prices upon which they would contract with Humana to extract higher reimbursement rates, and 2) collectively terminating their contracts with Humana and refusing to treat Humana patients enrolled in the Mi Salud program when Humana would not meet their price demands.
AEA Investors 2006 Fund L.P., et al.
Houghton International, Inc., the leading North American provider of hot rolling oil used to process aluminum, agreed to sell some of the assets it acquired in 2008 through its purchase of D.A. Stuart GmbH, a transaction that included multiple product markets. The FTC’s investigation found that Houghton’s acquisition of D.A. Stuart GmbH combined the two largest suppliers of aluminum hot rolling oil (AHRO) in North America, giving the combined firm control of almost 75 percent of the North American market. The FTC’s complaint alleges that, through its purchase of Stuart, Houghton could unilaterally raise AHRO prices to U.S. consumers. The complaint also alleges that the acquisition could decrease innovation for this vital input into aluminum manufacturing. Under the order settling the FTC’s charges, Houghton will sell Stuart’s AHRO business to Quaker Chemical Corporation.
C.A.L.M. Ventures, Inc., In the Matter of
J.A.G. Rents, LLC, also d/b/a ColorTyme, In the Matter of
Oltrin Solutions, LLC, a company; JCI Jones Chemicals, Inc.
The FTC required bleach producer and seller Oltrin Solutions, LLC to release its competitor, JCI Jones Chemicals, Inc. from an agreement not to sell bleach in North Carolina and South Carolina. This non-compete agreement was part of a 2010 transaction between the two firms that the FTC alleges violated antitrust laws. The FTC’s settlement with Oltrin and JCI will restore competition between these two producers and sellers of bulk bleach, which is primarily used to disinfect water. The FTC contends that the deal between the two firms eliminated substantial competition between Oltrin and JCI in the relevant geographic market; substantially increased the market concentration for bulk bleach sales in the relevant geographic market; and increased Oltrin’s ability to raise bulk bleach prices. The FTC order requires Oltrin to release JCI from the non-compete agreement, transfer a minimum volume of its bulk bleach contracts back to JCI, and provide a short-term backup supply agreement that will facilitate JCI’s re-entry into the bulk bleach market in North Carolina and South Carolina.