Legal Library: Cases and Proceedings

The Federal Trade Commission issued a proposed order imposing strict limits on future mergers by DaVita, Inc., a dialysis service provider with a history of fueling consolidation in life-saving health industries. The complaint alleged that DaVita’s proposed acquisition of the University of Utah Health’s dialysis clinics would reduce competition in vital outpatient dialysis services in the Provo, Utah market. Under the proposed order, DaVita is required to divest three Provo-area dialysis clinics to Sanderling Renal Services, Inc. and is prohibited from entering into or enforcing non-compete agreements and other employee restrictions.

The Federal Trade Commission obtained an order permanently banning a payment processor that facilitated a fraudulent student loan debt relief scheme from processing debt relief payments. The order also requires the company and its owner to surrender $500,000 to the FTC for consumer redress.

The FTC’s complaint against Automatic Funds Transfer Services, Inc. (AFTS) and its owner, Eric Johnson, alleges that AFTS processed at least $31 million in consumer payments for a fraudulent student loan debt relief scheme sued by the FTC in 2019. The debt relief scheme used numerous names, including The Student Loan Group (SLG).

The Federal Trade Commission filed an administrative complaint and authorized a suit in federal court, to block Hackensack Meridian Health, Inc.’s proposed acquisition of Englewood Healthcare Foundation. The complaint alleges that the merged healthcare system would control three of the six inpatient general acute care hospitals in Bergen County, New Jersey. The proposed acquisition would eliminate close competition between Hackensack Meridian Health and Englewood in Bergen County and leave insurers with few alternatives for inpatient general acute care services, which encompass a broad range of inpatient medical and surgical diagnostic and treatment services that require an overnight hospital stay. The administrative trial will begin 30 days after the Third Circuit Court of Appeals rules on the appeal of the Preliminary Injunction.

The Federal Trade Commission has issued a complaint charging Broadcom with illegally monopolizing markets for semiconductor components used to deliver television and broadband internet services through exclusive dealing and related conduct. The complaint alleges that Broadcom illegally maintained its power in the three monopolized markets by entering long-term agreements with both OEMs and service providers that prevented these customers from purchasing chips from Broadcom’s competitors. The complaint also alleges that Broadcom leveraged its power in the three monopolized chip markets to extract from customers exclusivity and loyalty commitments for the supply of chips in the five related markets. Under the consent order, Broadcom must stop requiring its customers to source components from Broadcom on an exclusive or near exclusive basis.

In April 2020, the marketers of three supplements called Neurocet, Regenify, and Resetigen-D settled FTC charges that they deceptively promoted their products to older Americans using false claims that their products could stop pain and treat age-related ailments. The proposed order bars the defendants—five related companies and their principals from making any claims about the health benefits of their products unless they are true and supported by scientific evidence. In October 2021, the FTC announced it was returning $1.1 million to consumer who bought the defendants’ products.

A federal court issued a temporary restraining order against Marc and Courtney Grisham and two companies they operate, Disruption Theory LLC and Emergent Technologies LLC, which do business as inmatecall.com and inmatecallsolutions.com, related to FTC allegations they offered fake calling plans for unlimited minutes and falsely claiming to be affiliated with companies authorized to provide calling services to people who are incarcerated.

The operators of the MoviePass subscription service have agreed to settle Federal Trade Commission allegations they took steps to block subscribers from using the service as advertised, while also failing to secure subscribers’ personal data.The operators of the MoviePass subscription service have agreed to settle Federal Trade Commission allegations they took steps to block subscribers from using the service as advertised, while also failing to secure subscribers’ personal data.

Announced in June 2019 as part of a crackdown on illegal robocalls against operations around the country responsible for more than one billion calls, thisFTC complaint against five corporate and four individual defendants<, alleges that since at least 2017 the defendants have used a combination of illegal telemarketing robocalls, live telephone calls, text messaging, internet ads, emails, social media, and live events to market and sell consumers fraudulent money-making opportunities. The complaint charges the defendants, who operate from California, Colorado, New York, and Tennessee, with violating the FTC Act, the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR), or both, by making deceptive earnings claims through robocalls and other marketing techniques. In September 2021, The Federal Trade Commission sent checks totaling more than $1 million to consumers who were harmed by the company.

The owner and operator of Inmate Magazine Service, a company that scammed prisoners and their families by charging them for magazine subscriptions that either showed up late or not at all, will be permanently banned from selling or marketing magazine subscriptions.

Under the terms of a settlement with the Federal Trade Commission and the Florida Office of Attorney General, Roy Snowden, who owned and operated a number of businesses that operated as Inmate Magazine Service, will also be required to surrender the contents of multiple bank accounts.

The FTC and Florida’s complaint against Snowden and his companies alleged that they marketed magazine subscriptions to consumers serving prison sentences, as well as their families, offering to send the magazines to the prisoners while they were incarcerated and promising the magazines would arrive within 120 days.

In many cases, the magazines never arrived or were delivered far later than promised, with no notification to the consumers about delayed shipment or the chance to cancel their orders as required by the FTC’s Mail, Internet, or Telephone Order Merchandise Rule. The complaint also alleged that consumers were almost never able to contact the company to request refunds or status updates on orders.

The FTC filed an administrative complaint charging that 1-800 Contacts, the largest online retailer of contact lenses in the United States, unlawfully orchestrated a web of anticompetitive agreements with rival online contact lens sellers that suppress competition in certain online search advertising auctions and that restrict truthful and non-misleading internet advertising to consumers. According to the administrative complaint, 1-800 Contacts entered into bidding agreements with at least 14 competing online contact lens retailers that eliminate competition in auctions to place advertisements on the search results page generated by online search engines such as Google and Bing. The complaint alleges that these bidding agreements unreasonably restrain price competition in internet search auctions, and restrict truthful and non-misleading advertising to consumers, constituting an unfair method of competition in violation of federal law.

The FTC filed a complaint in federal district court in September 2014 charging that AbbVie Inc. and its partner Besins Healthcare Inc. illegally blocking American consumers’ access to lower-cost alternatives to Androgel by filing baseless patent infringement lawsuits against potential generic competitors. In a June 2018 decision, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ruled that AbbVie used sham litigation to illegally maintain its monopoly over the testosterone replacement drug Androgel, and ordered $448 million in monetary relief to consumers who were overcharged for Androgel as a result of AbbVie’s conduct.

In September 2020, the Third Circuit affirmed the district court’s finding of liability on the FTC’s sham litigation claim, and reinstated the reverse payment claim, two important legal victories that protect competition in pharmaceutical markets.

While handing the Commission important legal victories, the Third Circuit reversed the district court’s nearly half-billion dollar monetary judgment for consumers, holding that the FTC is not entitled to disgorgement under 13(b) of the FTC Act. This determination was effectively affirmed by the Supreme Court’s decision in AMG Capital Management v. FTC.

Since the initial filing of the lawsuit, generic AndroGel products have entered the market, so that patients now benefit from competition among multiple suppliers. AbbVie and Teva are also now subject to Commission orders preventing them from entering into certain reverse-payment settlements. On July 30, 2021, the Commission announced that it has withdrawn its reverse-payment claim from federal district court, ending its litigation against AbbVie.

Globex Telecom, Inc. and an affiliated company will pay a total of $1.9 million to settle Federal Trade Commission and State of Ohio charges that they facilitated a scheme that peddled bogus credit card interest rate relief, illegally charging consumers millions of dollars. The settlement marks the end of the FTC’s first consumer protection case against a Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) service provider.

The FTC and Ohio alleged that Globex provided a company called Educare Centre Services with the means to make calls to U.S. consumers, including illegal robocalls, to market Educare’s phony credit card interest rate reduction services.

The FTC and Ohio charged that both Globex and Educare were controlled by Mohammed Souheil, Globex’s former CEO and president, who was named in the lawsuit along with a number of other corporations and individuals.

Kuuhuub Inc., Kuu Hubb Oy and Recolor Oy settled FTC allegations that they violated a children’s privacy law by collecting and disclosing personal information about children who used the app without notifying their parents and obtaining their consent.