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.
Cure Encapsulations, Inc.
The FTC today announced its first case challenging a marketer’s use of fake paid reviews on an independent retail website. In settling the agency’s complaint, Cure Encapsulations, Inc. and its owner, Naftula Jacobowitz, resolved allegations that they made false and unsubstantiated claims for their garcinia cambogia weight-loss supplement and that they paid a third-party website to write and post fake reviews on Amazon.com.
Tronox/Cristal USA, In the Matter of
The FTC issued an administrative complaint (and authorized staff to seek a TRO and PI which have not been filed) challenging the merger of two top suppliers of chloride process titanium dioxide (TiO2), a white pigment used in a wide variety of products including paint, industrial coatings, plastic, and paper. The FTC’s administrative complaint charges that Tronox Limited’s proposed acquisition of competitor Cristal, for $1.67 billion and a 24 percent stake in the combined entity, would violate the antitrust laws by significantly reducing competition in the North American market (comprised of the United States and Canada) for chloride process titanium dioxide. The FTC alleges that the acquisition, if consummated, would increase the risk of coordinated action among the remaining competitors, and increase the risk of future anticompetitive output reductions by Tronox.
Disabled Police and Sheriffs Foundation, Inc.
The operators of two purported sham charities have agreed to settle charges by the FTC and the AGs of Missouri and Florida that they deceived donors with false claims that their organizations helped disabled police officers and military veterans. The operators of both schemes are permanently banned from charitable solicitations or otherwise working for charities.
Underground Sports Inc., doing business as Patriot Puck, et al., In the Matter of
Following public comment periods, the Federal Trade Commission has approved final consent orders in two separate cases in which the agency alleged that companies falsely claimed their products were made in the United States. The companies were Sandpiper of California and Underground Sports Inc.
Sandpiper of California, Inc. et al., In the Matter of
Following public comment periods, the Federal Trade Commission has approved final consent orders in two separate cases in which the agency alleged that companies falsely claimed their products were made in the United States. The companies were Sandpiper of California and Underground Sports Inc.
Fresenius Medical Care and NxStage Medical, In the Matter of
The FTC required healthcare companies Fresenius Medical Care AG & KGaA and NxStage Medical, Inc. to divest all rights and assets related to NxStage’s bloodline tubing set business to B. Braun Medical, Inc. as part of a settlement resolving charges that Fresenius’s proposed $2 billion acquisition of NxStage likely would be anticompetitive. The FTC’s complaint alleges that the proposed merger would harm competition in the U.S. market for bloodline tubing sets that are compatible with hemodialysis machines used in clinics that treat chronic renal failure. Bloodline tubing sets are single-use plastic tube sets used during hemodialysis treatments. Fresenius and NxStage are two of only three significant suppliers of bloodline tubing sets used in open architecture hemodialysis machines in the United States. Fresenius and NxStage together control 82 percent of the market for bloodlines.The settlement requires Fresenius and NxStage to divest to B. Braun all assets and rights to research, develop, manufacture, market, and sell NxStage’s bloodline tubing sets.
American Veterans Foundation, Inc.
The operators of two purported sham charities have agreed to settle charges by the FTC and the AGs of Missouri and Florida that they deceived donors with false claims that their organizations helped disabled police officers and military veterans. The operators of both schemes are permanently banned from charitable solicitations or otherwise working for charities.
Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. (FTC v. Actavis)
On 2/2/2009, the Commission filed a complaint in federal district court challenging and agreement between Solvay Pharmaceuticals and two generic drug manufacturers in which Solvay paid for the delayed release of generic equivalents to its own testosterone-replacement drug, AndroGel, typically used in the treatment of men with low testosterone levels due to advanced age, certain cancers, and HIV/AIDS. According to the Commission’s complaint, in an effort to prevent Watson Pharmaceuticals and Par Pharmaceuticals from acquiring patents for their competing testosterone replacement drugs, Solvay paid the companies to delay entry for a nine year period, ending in 2015.
This case was transferred from the United States District Court for the Central District of California to the Northern District of Georgia. The district court dismissed the Commission's complaint, and the Eleventh Circuit affirmed, holding that anticompetitive effects within the scope of patent protection are per se legal under the antitrust laws.
On 10/4/2012, the FTC filed a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court. On June 17, 2013, the Supreme Court reversed the 11th Circuit, rejecting the scope of the patent test and permitting antitrust review of reverse payment patent settlement agreements.
There are three related administrative proceedings:
Allergan, Watson and Endo
The FTC's complaint alleges that Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. and several other drug companies violated antitrust laws by using pay-for-delay settlements to block consumers’ access to lower-cost generic versions of Lidoderm. The agreement not to market an authorized generic – often called a “no-AG commitment” – is the form of reverse payment. The FTC’s complaint alleges that Endo paid the first generic companies that filed for FDA approval – Watson Laboratories, Inc. – to eliminate the risk of competition for Lidoderm, in violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act. Lidoderm is a topical patch used to relieve pain associated with post-herpetic neuralgia, a complication of shingles. Under federal law, the first generic applicant to challenge a branded pharmaceutical’s patent, referred to as the first filer, may be entitled to 180 days of exclusivity as against any other generic applicant upon final FDA approval. But a branded drug manufacturer is permitted to market an authorized generic version of its own brand product at any time, including during the 180 days after the first generic competitor enters the market. According to the FTC, a no-AG commitment can be extremely valuable to the first-filer generic, because it ensures that this company will capture all generic sales and be able to charge higher prices during the exclusivity period. The FTC is seeking a court judgment declaring that the defendants’ conduct violates the antitrust laws, ordering the companies to disgorge their ill-gotten gains, and permanently barring them from engaging in similar anticompetitive behavior in the future.
Endo agreed to settle the charges in a proposed stipulated order to be entered by the court.
Social Finance, Inc. and Sofi Lending Corp., In the Matter of
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.
NutriMost LLC
The FTC is mailing 3,483 checks totaling more than $1.95 million to consumers who bought the NutriMost Ultimate Fat Loss System between October 1, 2012 and August 9, 2016, in the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania area. Each consumer will receive a refund of $560.54.
Koninklijke Ahold and Delhaize Group, In the Matter of
Koninklijke Ahold and Delhaize Group, which together own and operate five well-known U.S. supermarket chains, have agreed to sell 81 stores to settle charges that their proposed $28 billion merger would likely be anticompetitive in 46 local markets in Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia. Ahold operated 760 supermarkets under the Stop & Shop, Giant, and Martin’s banners in ten Eastern states and the District of Columbia.Delhaize operated 1,291 supermarkets under the Food Lion and Hannaford banners in 14 Eastern and Southern states. Under the proposed consent agreement, Ahold and Delhaize will divest a total of 81 stores to seven divestiture buyers.