The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.
The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.
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.
On 4/8/2013, Bosley, Inc., the nation’s largest manager of medical/surgical hair restoration procedures, settled Federal Trade Commission charges that it illegally exchanged competitively sensitive, nonpublic information about its business practices with one of its competitors, HC (USA), Inc., commonly known as Hair Club, in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act. In settling the FTC’s charges, Bosley has agreed not to communicate such information in the future, and will institute an antitrust compliance program. The FTC alleged that for at least the past four years, Bosley exchanged competitively sensitive, nonpublic information about its business operations with Hair Club. The information exchanged by the companies’ CEOs included details about future product offerings, surgical hair transplantation price floors and discounts, plans for business expansion and contraction, and current business operations and performance.
In 2006, Ovation Pharmaceuticals, manufacturer of Indocin, a drug used in the treatment of patent ductus arteriosus, a congenital heart defect usually found in severely underweight premature babies, purchased the rights to the drug NeoProfen, a drug about to receive FDA approval for the treatment of the same condition which effects approximately 30,000 babies per year in the United States. After its FDA approval, Ovation released its NeoProfen treatment, charging similar prices. According to the Commission’s complaint, Ovation’s acquisition was intended to maintain its monopoly in the market for this treatment, and the Commission sought divestiture of assets related to one of the two treatments, and also disgorgement of all unlawfully obtained profits from the sale of these two treatments. In August 2010, the district court dismissed the complaint, finding that the two drugs were in separate product markets. The Commission, along with the State of Minnesota, has appealed the court’s ruling to the Eighth Circuit. On August 19, 2011 the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. FTC and Minnesota filed a petition for rehearing en banc on October 3, 2011, and the petition was denied. The FTC closed its investigation.
In May 1996, the Commission filed an administrative complaint charging Toys "R" Us with using its dominant position as a toy distributor to obtain agreements from toy manufacturers to stop selling to warehouse clubs the same toys that they sold to Toys "R" Us. After an administrative trial, the ALJ issued an initial decision finding that Toys "R' Us' policy to stop carrying toys made by a manufacturer that sold the same toys to discount club stores had induced manufacturers to agree to stop supplying some toys to club stores in violation of the antitrust laws. In October 1998, the Commission issued its decision that Toys "R Us had orchestrated horizontal and vertical agreements with and among toy manufacturers to restrict the availability of popular toys to warehouse clubs, and ordered the company to stop pressuring manufacturers to limit supply or otherwise refuse to sell to discount club stores. Toys "R" Us appealed to the Seventh Circuit, and in August 2000, the appellate court upheld the Commission's order.
In April 2014, on a petition from Toys "R" Us, the Commission modified its order to set aside certain provisions that restricted the company's ability to enter into certain conditional supply relationships, finding that Toys "R" Us is no longer the largest toy retailer.