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.
Minnesota Rural Health Cooperative, In the Matter of
The Minnesota Rural Health Cooperative (MRHC), comprised by a group of doctors and hospitals in southwestern Minnesota, agreed to a settlement with the Federal Trade Commission that prohibits anticompetitive tactics the group allegedly used to increase health insurance reimbursement rates. The MRHC is made up of approximately 25 hospitals and 70 doctors, representing most of the hospitals and half of the primary care physicians in southwestern Minnesota. According to the FTC’s complaint, when members join the MRHC, they agree that the group’s board of directors will negotiate and contract with health insurers on their behalf and that they will abide by the MRHC contracts. The settlement order bars the MRHC from using coercive tactics to extract favorable contract terms from health plans. In addition, the order requires the MRHC to offer to renegotiate all current contracts with health plans and to submit any revised contracts for state approval.
Nufarm Limited, In the Matter of
Australian chemical company Nufarm Limited agreed to sell certain assets and modify some of its business agreements to settle charges that its 2008 acquisition of rival A.H. Marks Holding Limited hurt competition in the U.S. market for three herbicides that are relied upon by farmers, landscapers, and consumers. Under the settlement, Nufarm will sell rights and assets associated with two of the herbicides to competitors and will modify agreements with two other companies to allow them to fully compete in the market for the other herbicide. Nufarm’s acquisition of United Kingdom-based A.H. Marks gave Nufarm monopolies in the U.S. markets for two herbicides called MCPA and MCPP-P, which also are known as phenoxy herbicides. The transaction also left only two competitors in the market for a third phenoxy herbicide, called 2,4DB. The three herbicides are widely used in the turf, lawn care, and agriculture industries to eliminate certain weeds safely and cheaply.
Carilion Clinic, a corporation, In the Matter of
The Commission issued an administrative complaint challenging Carilion Clinic’s 2008 acquisition of two competing outpatient clinics in the Roanoke, Virginia, area. The complaint alleges that Carilion’s acquisition of these outpatient centers eliminated competition for patients in the Roanoke area. On October 7, 2009 Carillion agreed to sell two independent outpatient medical clinics it acquired last year to settle the charges.
Solvay S.A
Solvay settled antitrust concerns stemming from its proposed acquisition of Ausimont S.p.A. from Italenergia S.p.A., and agreed to divest its U.S. polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) operations and its interest in Alventia LLC, a joint venture which manufactures the main raw material for PVDF. According to the complaint, the proposed acquisition would lessen competition in two markets: the production and sale of all grades of PVDF; and the production and sale of melt-processible grades of PVDF.
Roaring Fork Valley Physicians I.P.A., Inc.
Roaring Fork Valley Physicians, IPA, Inc., a Colorado physicians’ group, settled Commission charges of price-fixing by agreeing to halt its use of allegedly anticompetitive negotiating tactics against health insurers. The Commission charged Roaring Fork Valley Physicians I.P.A., Inc., which represents about 80 percent of the doctors in Garfield County, Colorado, with violating the FTC Act by orchestrating agreements among its members to set higher prices for medical services and to refuse to deal with insurers that did not meet its demands for higher rates.
Foreclosure Solutions, LLC, and Timothy A. Buckley
Accusearch, Inc. d/b/a Abika.com, and Jay Patel
Chinery, Robert Jr.; Tracy A. Chinery; and RTC Research and Development, LL
Enviromate, LLC, and Philip A. Geddes, individually and as the managing member of the corporation, United States of America (for the Federal Trade Commission)
CVS Caremark, FTC
Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc., In the Matter of
In October of 2008, the Commission issued a consent order to settle charges that Golf Galaxy, a subsidiary of Dick’s Sporting Goods Inc., entered into an illegal agreement with Golf Canada to allocate the market for golf merchandise in the United States and Canada. The agreement barred Golf Canada from opening stores in the United States in exchange for privileged business information from Golf Galaxy, including blueprints, merchandising plans, and sales reports. The Commission’s consent order prevents Golf Galaxy from further dividing or allocating the market, and rendered its 2004 non-compete agreement with Golf Canada unenforceable.
Bacon, Holly A., d/b/a Cleansing Time Pro., In the Matter of
Pernod Ricard S.A., In the Matter of
The Commission challenged Pernod Ricard SA’s proposed $9 billion acquisition of V&S Vin & Spirit as harmful to competition among suppliers of “super-premium” vodka. The proposed deal would have merged the two leading brands, Absolut and Stolichnaya, and allowed Pernod to raise prices profitably on both brands. Additionally, the complaint alleges that the markets for cognac, domestic cordials, coffee liqueur, and popular gin would be subject to anticompetitive effects because sensitive pricing and promotion information for Beam Global Brands, a competitor in these product markets, would be available to Pernod after the acquisition as a result of Beam’s joint venture with V&S. The Commission settled the charges by requiring Pernod to divest its distribution interests in Stolichnaya Vodka, and to erect a firewall to prevent the sharing of any competitively sensitive information from Beam Global Brands with Pernod employees.
Inova Health System Foundation and Prince William Health System
The Commission authorized both an administrative complaint and a motion for a preliminary injunction to challenge the proposed merger of Inova Health System Foundation’s and Prince William Health System (PWHS), alleging that the acquisition would violate federal antitrust laws by reducing competition for general acute care inpatient hospital services in Northern Virginia. On June 17, 2008 the Commission approved an order dismissing its administrative complaint, as the respondents publicly announced their mutual decision to terminate the proposed acquisition agreement.
Home Buyers Consulting Network, Inc., also d/b/a Home Buyers Network, et al.; and Douglas Andersen Moore, a/k/a Douglas A. Moore, individually and as an officer of Home Buyers Consulting Network, Inc.
ERG Ventures, LLC and d/b/a ERG Ventures, LLC2, Media Motor, Joysticksavers.com, and PrivateinPublic.com; Elliot S. Cameron, individually and d/b/a ERG Ventures, LLC2, Media Motor, Joysticksavers.com, and PrivateinPublic.com; Robert A. Davidson, II,
Lockheed Martin Corporation, The Boeing Company, and United Launch Alliance, LLC., In the Matter of
The Commission intervened in the formation of United Launch Alliance (ULA), a proposed joint venture between the Boeing Corp. and Lockheed Martin Corp. The FTC’s complaint alleged that the formation of ULA as originally structured would have reduced competition in the markets for U.S. government medium to heavy launch services and space vehicles. In settling the Commissions’ charges, the parties agreed to take certain actions (such as nondiscrimination requirements and firewalls) to address ancillary competitive harms not inextricably tied to the national security benefits of ULA.