Legal Library: Cases and Proceedings

The Commission charged a group of optometrists in Puerto Rico with violating the FTC Act by orchestrating agreements among members of the Colegio de Optometras to refuse, or threaten to refuse, to accept vision and health care contracts except on collectively agreed-upon terms. Two leaders of the group were also charged with facilitating the agreement by urging members not to participate in the vision network. The Commission’s consent order settling these charges bars the group and the two leaders from engaging in such conduct, while allowing them to undertake certain kinds of joint contracting arrangements by which physician participants control costs and improve quality by managing the provision of services. FTC staff worked with the Office of Monopolistic Affairs of Puerto Rico’s Department of Justice on this case.

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.

Final consent order requiring the restructuring of the acquisition of Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. settles antitrust concerns that the acquisition would restrict competition in cable television programming and distribution. The order requires Tele-Communications, Inc., the nation's number one cable operator, to divest its interests in Turner; reduces contractual agreements between TCI, Turner and Time Warner to carry certain programming; reduces opportunities for bundling programming; prohibits price discrimination against competing cable systems; and requires Time Warner's cable systems to carry a rival news channel to compete with CNN.

After an administrative trial, the administrative law judge found that a group of affiliated intrastate movers had engaged in horizontal price-fixing by filing collective rates on behalf of its member motor common carriers for the intrastate transportation of property within the Commonwealth of Kentucky. The judge also ruled that the association’s conduct was not protected by the state action doctrine because the State of Kentucky did not supervise the rate-making practices of the group. On July 12, 2004, the Kentucky Household Goods Carriers Association, Inc. filed an appeal of the initial decision with the Commission. On June 22, 2005, the Commission issued a unanimous opinion finding that the Kentucky Household Goods Carriers Association, Inc. engaged in illegal price-fixing by jointly filing tariffs containing collective rates on behalf of its members, and that the state action doctrine does not immunize that activity from antitrust liability. On August 22, 2006, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the opinion of the Commission.