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.
H.J. Heinz Company, Milnot Holding Corporation, and Madison Dearborn Partners Capital, L.P., In the Matter of
H.J. Heinz Company; Milnot Holding Corporation; and Madison Dearborn Partners Capital, L.P., In the Matter of
YP.Net, Inc., et al.
Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc.; Carderm Capital L.P.; and Andrx Corporation
A consent order settled allegations in an administrative complaint that charged that Hoechst agreed to pay Andrx Corporation millions of dollars not to market and distribute a generic version of Hoechst’s branded Cardizem CD, a once-a-day diltiazem drug product used in the treatment of hypertension and angina. The consent order prohibits the companies from entering into agreements designed to restrict the entry of generic competitors in an attempt to monopolize relevant markets .
Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., Carderm Capital L.P., and Andrx Corporation, In the Matter of
Great Pacific Vending Corp. and Collie Wainer
Tim Cho Investment Corp., et al.
Swedish Match North America Inc., and National Tobacco Company, L.P., In the Matter of
Swedish Match North America Inc., and National Tobacco Company, L.P
The Commission authorized staff to seek a preliminary injunction to block the proposed acquisition of National Tobacco Company, L.P. on grounds that the $165 million acquisition would lessen competition in the market for loose leaf chewing tobacco and that Swedish Match’s market share would increase to 60 percent. On December 14, 2000, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued a 42-page opinion granting the Commission’s motion for the injunction. On December 22, 2000, the parties abandoned the transaction.
World Interactive Gaming Corp., et al.
Hain Food Group
BP Amoco p.l.c., and Atlantic Richfield Company
The Commission authorized staff to file a motion in federal district court to prevent the merger of BP Amoco p.1.c. and Atlantic Richfield Company. The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleged that the merger would reduce competition in the exploration and production of Alaska North Slope crude oil and its sale to West Coast refineries, and in the market for pipeline and storage facilities in Cushing, Oklahoma. Under the terms of the order, BP Amoco was required to divest all of ARCO's assets relating to oil production on Alaska's North Slope (ANS) to Phillips Petroleum Company or another Commission-approved purchaser. BP Amoco also would have to divest all ARCO assets related to its Cushing, Oklahoma crude oil business within four months.
Universal Music & Video Distribution Corp.and UMG Recordings, Inc.
The FTC charged that five distributors of recorded music illegally required retailers to advertise compact discs at or above the minimum advertised price (MAP) set by the distribution company in exchange for substantial advertising payments for various types of media including television, radio, newspaper and signs and banners within the retailers own stores. Time-Warner Inc., Bertlesmann, Universal Music and Video Distribution Corporation and UMG Recordings, Inc., EMI Music Distribution, and Sony Music Entertainment represent approximately 85 percent of all CD’s purchased in the United States. According to the complaint, the MAP policies violated the antitrust laws in two respects. First, when considered together, the arrangements constitute practices that facilitate horizontal collusion among the distributors, and, when viewed individually, each distributor's arrangement constitutes an unreasonable vertical restraint of trade under the rule of reason. In separate settlements, each distributor agreed to stop linking promotional funds to the advertised prices of their retailer customers for the next seven years. For the next 13 years after that, each company was prohibited from conditioning promotional money on the prices contained in advertisements they do not pay for, or terminating relationships with any retailer based on that retailer's prices.