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.
Duncan, Dan L., EPCO, Inc., Texas Eastern Products Pipeline Company, LLC, and TEPPCO Partners, LP, In the Matter of
Proposed Acquisition of McData Corporation by Brocade Communications Systems Inc.
Advocate Health Partners, et al., In the Matter of
The final consent order settles charges that the conduct of several organizations representing more than 2,900 independent Chicago-area physicians for agreeing to fix prices and for refusing to deal with certain health plans except on collectively determined terms. The order will prohibit the respondents from engaging in such anticompetitive conduct in the future.
Fresenius AG, In the Matter of
Fresenius AG settled charges that its purchase of rival dialysis provider Renal Care Group, Inc. would likely have resulted in higher prices for dialysis services. The consent order requires that Fresenius AG will sell 91 outpatient kidney dialysis clinics and financial interests in 12 more.
Williams Companies, The, Inc.
Consent order permits the acquisition of MAPCO, Inc. but requires Williams to lease its pipeline to Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, a terminal competitor of MAPCO, to ensure that Kinder Morgan can continue to exist as an independent competitor in the transportation and terminaling of propane in certain Midwest markets. Under terms of the consent order Williams agreed to connect its Wyoming gas processing plant to any new competing pipeline in the future.
Ice.com, LLC., U.S. (for the FTC)
Health Care Alliance of Laredo, L.C., In the Matter of
Union Oil Company of California, In the Matter of
An administrative law judge dismissed a complaint in its entirety against Union Oil of California that charged the company with committing fraud in connection with regulatory proceedings before the California Air Resources Board regarding the development of reformulated gasoline. The judge ruled much of Unocal’s conduct was permissible activity under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine and that the resolution of the issues outlined in the complaint would require an in depth analysis of patent law which he believed were not with the jurisdiction of the Commission. In July 2004, the Commission reversed the judge’s ruling and reinstated charges that Unocal illegally acquired monopoly power in the technology market for producing a “summer-time” low-emissions gasoline mandated for sale and use by the CARB for use in the state for up to eight months of the year. While the case was pending before the administrative law judge, Unocal agreed to settle the claims and cease and desist enforcing Unocal’s patents covering reformulated gasoline that complies with California Air resources Board Standard, will not undertake any new enforcement efforts related to the particular patents, and will cease all attempts to collect damages, royalties, or other payments related to the use of any of the patents. The settlement in this case was related to the settlement of FTC charges that Chevron's acquisition of Unocal would substantially lessen competition in the refining and marketing of CARB reformulated gasoline, as Chevron would acquire the relevant Unocal patents through the acquisition and would be able to use its position to coordinate with its downstream competitors, to the detriment of consumers. See In the Matter of Chevron Corporation and Unocal Corporation.
Occidental Petroleum Corporation and Vulcan Materials Company, In the Matter of
Entergy Corporation and Entergy-Koch, LP
A consent order settles allegations that Entergy-Koch LP's (a limited partnership owned equally by Entergy Corporation and Koch) acquisition of 50 percent of the Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP from Koch would lessen competition for the sale of electricity to consumers in Louisiana and western Mississippi and the distribution of natural gas to consumers in New Orleans and Baton Rouge. Entergy is the regulated electric and natural gas utility in parts of Louisiana and Mississippi. The order requires Entergy to establish a transparent process to buy natural gas and natural gas transportation that will assist state regulators in determining whether Entergy purchased gas supplies at inflated prices from its Entergy-Koch partnership.
Kraft Foods Inc. (Altria Group) - Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company
Hoechst AG and Rhone-Poulenc S.A., to be renamed Aventis S.A
A final order settled charges stemming from Hoechst's merger with Rhone-Poulenc S.A. According to the complaint, the merger (the merged firm would be renamed Aventis S.A.) raised antitrust concerns in the market for cellulose acetate and direct thrombin acetate. The order requires the divestiture of the 'subsidiary, Rhodia, a specialty chemicals firm that produces cellulose acetate.
Enterprise Products Partners L.P., and Dan L. Duncan, In the Matter of
Cephalon, Inc., and CIMA Labs, Inc.
The consent order settled charges that Cephalon's proposed acquisition of Cima Labs, Inc. would allow Cephalon to continue its monopoly in the United States market for drugs that eliminate or reduce the spikes of severe pain that chronic cancer patients experience. The consent order required Cephalon to grant Barr Laboratories, Inc. a fully paid, irrevocable license to make and sell a generic version of Cephalon's breakthrough cancer pain drug, Actiq, in the United States.
Prince Lionheart, Inc. and Thomas E. McConnell
General Electric Co./Vivendi Universal S.A.
Tenet Healthcare Corporation and Frye Regional Medical Center, Inc.
A consent order prohibits Frye Regional Medical Center, Inc., an acute care hospital in Hickory, North Carolina, and its parent company Tenet Healthcare Corporation from entering into any agreement to negotiate fees on behalf of any physician practicing in four North Carolina counties and from refusing to deal with insurance companies and other payers. Also refer to related administrative complaint issued to Piedmont Health Alliance. This settlement is the first case in which the Commission has named a hospital as a participant in an alleged physician price-fixing conspiracy.