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.
Jore Corporation
Corporate Supplies, Inc., Larry Sarchenko and Robert Henkel
Philip Morris Companies, Inc., and Nabisco Holdings Corp
The consent order permits the merger of Philip Monis and Nabisco Holdings Corporation while settling charges that the merger of the two food companies would reduce competition in the already highly-concentrated food product markets. Under terms of the order, the parties are required to divest Nabisco's dry- mix gelatin, dry-mix pudding, no-bake dessert, and baking powder assets to The Jet Sea Company and Nabisco's intense mints assets to Hershey Foods Corporation.
Black & Decker Corporation and Kwikset Corporation
VISX, Inc.orporated
On June 4, 1999 an administrative law judge dismissed charges against VISX, a key developer of laser eye surgery equipment and technology, known as photorefractive keratectomy (PRK). According to the 1998 administrative complaint., VISX and Summit Technology, the only two firms legally able to market equipment for PRK, placed their competing patents in a patent pool and shared the proceeds each and every time a Summit or VISX laser was used. The administrative law judge also dismissed charges that VISX acquired a key patent by inequitable conduct and fraud on the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, ruling that complaint counsel failed to present evidence that an act of fraud was committed since information was not willfully withheld from the patent office. A final order settled the price fixing allegations in the 1998 complaint. On February 7, 2001, the Commission dismissed its complaint after the U.S. patent and Trademark Office issued a Reexamination Certificate of U.S. Patent No. 5,108,388.
El Paso Energy Corporation and PG&E Corporation
Valspar Corporation, The, In the Matter of
Final order permitted Valspar's acquisition of Lilly Industries, Inc., but requires Valspar to divest its mirror coatings business to Spraylet Corporation. Mirror coatings are applied to the back of a piece of glass in order to produce a mirror.
Computer Sciences Corporation, and Mynd Corporation
Final consent order permitted the acquisition of Mynd Corporation and required the divestiture of Mynd's Claims Outcome Advisor System to Insurance Services Office, Inc. Claims assessment systems are used by insurance companies to evaluate appropriate payments for claims of bodily injury and to evaluate return-to-work plans in workers compensation matters.
FMC Corporation, In the Matter of
Mylan Laboratories, Inc., Cambrex Corporation, Profarmaco S.R.I., and Gyma Laboratories of America, Inc.
Complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia charged Mylan with restraint of trade, monopolization and conspiracy to monopolize the market for two generic drugs used to treat anxiety, lorazepam and clorazepate, through exclusive dealing arrangements. The Commission alleged that Mylan, Gyma Laboratories of America, Inc., Cambrex Corporation and Profarmaco S.R.L. conspired to deny Mylan’s competitors ingredients necessary to manufacture lorazepam and 40 clorazepate. The complaint sought consumer redress of at least $120 million and to enjoin the alleged illegal exclusive licensing agreements. The district court upheld the Commission’s authority to seek restitution in antitrust injunction actions under Section 13(b). The Commission approved a $100 million settlement. The opinion settled Commission concerns that Mylan, Gyma Laboratories of America, Inc., Cambrex Corporation and Profarmaco S.R.L. conspired to deny Mylan’s competitors ingredients necessary to manufacture lorazepam and 40 clorazepate. On February 1, 2002, the court granted approval to a plan of distribution to injured consumers who paid the increased prices and state agencies, including Medicaid programs, that purchased the drugs while the illegal agreements were in effect. The funds were distributed by the states.
Agrium, Inc., and Union Oil Company of California and Unocal Corporation, In the Matter of
A consent order requires Agrium to divest a deepwater terminal near Portland, Oregon, an up water terminal in central Washington and other assets settling charges concerning its proposed acquisition of the nitrogen fertilizer business of Union Oil Company of California. Agrium and Unocal are the leading producers in the Northwest of nitrogen fertilizer – anhydrous ammonia, urea and UAN 32% solution – ingredients used for plant growth.
World Interactive Gaming Corp., et al.
Western United Service Corporation d/b/a Titan Business Solutions and Scott Ford
Wazzu Corporation, et al
Universal Music & Video Distribution Corp.and UMG Recordings, Inc.
The FTC charged that five distributors of recorded music illegally required retailers to advertise compact discs at or above the minimum advertised price (MAP) set by the distribution company in exchange for substantial advertising payments for various types of media including television, radio, newspaper and signs and banners within the retailers own stores. Time-Warner Inc., Bertlesmann, Universal Music and Video Distribution Corporation and UMG Recordings, Inc., EMI Music Distribution, and Sony Music Entertainment represent approximately 85 percent of all CD’s purchased in the United States. According to the complaint, the MAP policies violated the antitrust laws in two respects. First, when considered together, the arrangements constitute practices that facilitate horizontal collusion among the distributors, and, when viewed individually, each distributor's arrangement constitutes an unreasonable vertical restraint of trade under the rule of reason. In separate settlements, each distributor agreed to stop linking promotional funds to the advertised prices of their retailer customers for the next seven years. For the next 13 years after that, each company was prohibited from conditioning promotional money on the prices contained in advertisements they do not pay for, or terminating relationships with any retailer based on that retailer's prices.