Legal Library: Cases and Proceedings

Thru, Inc. reached a settlement with the FTC over allegations that the company made false and misleading representations about its participation in the EU-U.S. and Swiss-U.S. Privacy Shield frameworks.

According to the agency’s April 2019 complaint, UrthBox violated the FTC Act by misrepresenting that positive consumer reviews on the BBB’s and other websites reflected the independent experiences or opinions of impartial consumers, while the reviewers actually had a material connection to the company. The FTC alleged that UrthBox did not adequately disclose that some consumers received compensation, including free snack boxes, to post those positive reviews. The final order settling the FTC’s charges bars the respondents from engaging in similar conduct and requires them to pay $100,000 to the FTC. In December 2019, the FTC returned more than $84,000 to compensate consumers charged after signing up for the trial offer.

The FTC’s December 2016 complaint alleged that between 2011 and 2016 the defendants called timeshare property owners falsely claiming that they had a buyer or renter ready to buy or rent their properties for a specified price, or making false promises to sell the timeshares quickly. A May 2018 settlement order permanently banned the defendants from timeshare resale services and telemarketing and required them to surrender approximately $3.4 million worth of assets to the Commission. On October 10, 2019, the FTC mailed 8,088 refund checks totaling nearly $2.7 million to consumers defrauded by the scheme.

The Federal Trade Commission finalized five separate proposed administrative complaints and orders enforcing the Consumer Review Fairness Act (CRFA), which prohibits businesses from using form contract provisions that bar consumers from writing or posting negative reviews online, or threatening them with legal action if they do. These are the first five Commission actions exclusively focused on enforcing the CRFA, with the complaints filed against: 1) A Waldron HVAC, LLC and its owner, Thomas J. Waldron; 2) National Floors Direct, Inc. (NFD); 3) LVTR LLC (LTVR) and its owner, Tomi A. Truax; 4) Shore to Please Vacations LLC; and 5) Staffordshire Property Management, LLC. Each respondent agreed to separate final Commission orders barring them from using such non-disparagement clauses in form contracts for goods and services, and requiring them to notify consumers who signed such contracts that the prohibited text is not enforceable. The FTC sent two letters in response to public comments in the Staffordshire matter.

The Federal Trade Commission sued Lights of America Inc. and related defendants for violating federal law by misrepresenting the light output and life expectancy of their LED bulbs, and falsely comparing the brightness of their LED bulbs with that of other light bulbs. A federal court ordered the defendants to pay $21 million to the FTC to provide refunds and banned the defendants from misrepresenting material facts about lighting products. Millions of people bought these LED bulbs at Costco, Sam’s Club, Walmart, hardware stores, grocery stores, and on Amazon.com. The FTC has already returned more than $12 million to people who bought these light bulbs. The claims process is still open.

D-Link Systems, Inc., agreed to implement a comprehensive software security program in order to settle Federal Trade Commission allegations over misrepresentations that the company took reasonable steps to secure its wireless routers and Internet-connected cameras. 

In October 2018, the FTC announced that online student loan refinancer SoFi Lending Corp. (SoFi) agreed to stop misrepresenting how much money student loan borrowers have saved, or will save, by refinancing their loans with the company. The Commission approved the final consent in February 2019. In its administrative complaint, announced concurrently with the proposed settlement, the FTC alleged that since April 2016 SoFi made prominent false statements about loan refinancing savings in television, print, and Internet advertisements.

Following a public comment period, the FTC has approved two final orders settling allegations that Creaxion Corporation, Inside Publications, LLC, and their respective principals misrepresented that paid endorsements were independent consumer opinions and that commercial advertising was independent journalistic content.

Following a public comment period, the FTC has approved two final orders settling allegations that Creaxion Corporation, Inside Publications, LLC, and their respective principals misrepresented that paid endorsements were independent consumer opinions and that commercial advertising was independent journalistic content.

The American Guild of Organists agreed to eliminate rules that restrict its members from competing for opportunities to perform to settle charges that the guild’s rules restrained competition and harmed consumers in violation of the FTC Act. The guild represents approximately 15,000 member organists and choral directors in 300 chapters in the US and abroad. Under the guild’s code of ethics, if a consumer wished to have someone other than an “incumbent musician” play at a venue for a wedding, funeral or other service, the consumer was required to pay both the incumbent and the consumer’s chosen musician. The code of ethics stated that “members are advised to protect themselves as incumbents” through contracts that secure fees even if they don’t perform. The guild also developed and publicized compensation schedules and formulas, and instructed its chapters and members to develop and use regionally applicable versions to determine charges for their services. The Commission's consent order requires the American Guild of Organists to stop restraining its members from soliciting work as musicians, and to stop issuing compensation schedules, guidance, or model contract provisions for members to use to determine their compensation. The guild must implement an antitrust compliance program, and is required under the order to stop recognizing chapters that fail to certify their compliance with the order’s provisions.

Entrepreneur Mitchell P. Rales agreed to pay $720,000 in civil penalties to resolve charges that he violated the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act by failing to report his purchases of shares in two industrial companies, Colfax Corporation and Danaher Corporation.  The FTC alleged that Rales violated the HSR Act by failing to file as required when his wife purchased shares in Colfax in 2011. The shares, which are attributed to Rales under the applicable HSR Rules, were above the filing threshold. According to the complaint, Rales was in violation of the HSR Act from 2011, when the shares were purchased, to 2016, when he made a corrective filing and observed the waiting period. The complaint also alleged that in 2008, Rales violated the HSR Act by buying shares of Danaher that exceeded the filing threshold and failing to file. Rales was in violation of the HSR Act between 2008, when he bought the shares, and 2016, when he made a corrective filing and observed the waiting period. Although Rales contended that the violations were inadvertent, the Commission determined to seek penalties because, as noted in the complaint, Rales had paid civil penalties to settle an earlier HSR enforcement action brought by the Department of Justice in 1991.

The FTC filed separate complaints against the three largest U.S. suppliers of ductile iron pipe fittings, which are used in municipal water systems around the United States. The FTC charged that the three companies, McWane, Inc., Star Pipe Products, Ltd., and Sigma Corporation, illegally conspired to set and maintain prices for pipe fittings, and that McWane illegally maintained its monopoly power in the market for U.S.-made pipe fittings by implementing an exclusive dealing policy. Sigma settled the FTC's charges prior to litigation (final order dated Feb. 27, 2012); Star settled soon after (final order dated May 8, 2012).  On 5/9/2013, Chief Administrative Law Judge D. Michael Chappell dismissed charges that McWane illegally conspired with its competitors to raise and stabilize DIPF prices but found that McWane violated the antitrust laws when it excluded competitors from the market for U.S. made DIPF (domestic DIPF). On 5/13/2013, both parties filed notices of appeal of the Initial Decision. On February 6, 2014, the Commission issued a decision finding that McWane unlawfully maintained its monopoly in the domestic fittings market through its "Full Support Program", which foreclosed potential entrants from accessing distributors. The Commission's order bars McWane from requiring exclusivity from its customers. On April 17, 2015, the Eleventh Circuit upheld the Commission's order.

An association representing skating teachers agreed to eliminate provisions in its bylaws that the FTC alleged limit competition among the association’s members. In its complaint, the FTC charged that the Professional Skaters Association, through its code of ethics, broadly bans members from soliciting other members’ students, and thereby deprives consumers of the benefits of competition among the 6,400 ice skating teachers and coaches who are members. According to the complaint, the PSA instructed its members that this code provision prohibited coaches from many types of direct and indirect communications with skaters and parents, and actively enforced the ban through a variety of penalties, including suspension, even over the objections of skating students and their parents who wanted to switch coaches. The consent order settling the FTC’s charges requires the Professional Skaters Association to stop restraining its members from soliciting work and competing on the basis of price. It also requires the group to change its code of ethics, publicize its settlement with the FTC, and implement an antitrust compliance program.