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.
Entrepreneurial Strategies, Ltd. and Dale Allison, Jr., U.S.
NBTY, Inc. (formerly known as Nature's Bounty, Inc.), U.S. (for the FTC)
Sacane, Scott R., U.S. (for the FTC)
The complaint alleged that Scott R. Sacane, a Connecticut hedge fund manager, failed to comply with notification and waiting period requirements before making acquisitions of two companies through an investment fund that he controlled. Sacane eventually held more than 50 percent of the voting securities of Aksys Ltd. and more than $100 million of voting securities of Esperion Therapeutics, Inc., without complying with the HSR Act. Under the terms of a consent decree filed simultaneously with the suit, Sacane agreed to pay a civil penalty of $350,000 to settle the charges.
“The U.S. FTC Promotes Better Markets and Better Choices: A Look at Health Care and Financial Services”
Arch Coal, Inc., New Vulcan Coal Holdings, LLC, and Triton Coal Company, LLC, In the Matter of
The Commission authorized staff to file a complaint to block Arch Coal, Inc.’s proposed acquisition of Triton Coal Company, L.L.C. from New Vulcan Holdings, L.L.C. on grounds that the acquisition would increase concentration and tend to create a monopoly in the market for coal mined from the Southern Powder River Basin and in the production of 8800 British Thermal Unit coal. On April 1, 2004, the complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia; the court denied the FTC's motion for a preliminary injunction. On June 13, 2005 the Commission announced that it was closing its investigation, saying that it will not continue with administrative litigation challenging the deal.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, In the Matter of
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company (BMS) settled charges that it engaged in illegal business practices to delay the entry of three low price generic pharmaceuticals that would be in direct competition with three of its branded drugs. The complaint alleged that BMS purposely made wrongful listings in the Orange Book of the U.S. Food & Drug Administration and that it also paid a potential competitor over $70 million to delay the entry of its generic drug. The three drugs involved in the complaint are: Taxol (containing the active ingredient paclitaxel) – used to treat ovarian, breast, and lung cancers; Platinol (containing the active ingredient cisplatin) – used for the treatment of various forms of cancer; and BuSpar (containing the active ingredient buspirone) – used to manage anxiety disorders. To prevent recurrence of Bristol's pattern of alleged improper listings, the consent order eliminates Bristol's ability to obtain a 30-month stay on later-listed patents. By denying Bristol the benefit of the 30-month stay on later-listed patents, the order would reduce Bristol's incentive to engage in improper behavior before the PTO and the FDA to obtain and list a patent for the purpose of obtaining an unwarranted automatic 30-month stay.
Cole Oneta S., plaintiff-appellant, v.. U.S. Capital, Inc., et al.
Stewart, Grover; a/k/a Lee Stewart., U.S.
Perfumes Unlimited, Inc., et al., Defendant Lon Finkelstein., U.S.
Turnkey Vending, Inc., et al., U.S.
Goodtimes Entertainment Ltd., et al., U.S.
Deer Creek Products, Inc.; Golden Age Products, Inc., a.k.a. Lakeside Products; and Michael Distephano., U.S. (For the FTC)
Polygram Holding, Inc.; Decca Music Group Limited; UMG Recordings, Inc.; and Universal Music & Video Distribution Corp
The Commission issued an administrative complaint against Warner Communications, Inc., and several subsidiaries of Vivendi Universal S.A., charging them with illegally agreeing to fix prices for audio and video products featuring The Three Tenors. A settlement with Warner barred future agreements to fix prices or restrict advertising. After an administrative trial against Vivendi, an ALJ found that the agreement, while made in association with an otherwise legal joint venture between the companies, violated Section 5 of the FTC Act by illegally reducing competition in the U.S. market for the audio and video products cited. The Commission upheld the ruling of an administrative law judge and prohibited PolyGram from entering into any agreement with competitors to fix the prices or restrict the advertising of products they have produced independently. In July 2005, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the Commission’s decision in Polygram Holding Inc., validating the Commission’s approach to analyzing horizontal conduct among competitors.