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.
Beech-Nut Nutrition Corporation
Martek Biosciences Corporation
Statement of Commissioner Thomas B. Leary, In the Matter of Arch Coal, Inc., New Vulcan Coal Holdings, LLC, and Triton Coal Company, LLC
Inspired Ventures, Inc., I.V.I. Management Corp., Source Systems, Inc., et al.
Alpha Acquisition Corporation, In the Matter of
Tenet Healthcare Corporation and Frye Regional Medical Center, Inc.
A consent order prohibits Frye Regional Medical Center, Inc., an acute care hospital in Hickory, North Carolina, and its parent company Tenet Healthcare Corporation from entering into any agreement to negotiate fees on behalf of any physician practicing in four North Carolina counties and from refusing to deal with insurance companies and other payers. Also refer to related administrative complaint issued to Piedmont Health Alliance. This settlement is the first case in which the Commission has named a hospital as a participant in an alleged physician price-fixing conspiracy.
D&C National Holdings Ltd., First British National Holdings Ltd., et al.
Koninklijke DSM N.V., Roche Holding AG, and Fritz Gerber, In the Matter of
The FTC charged that, as proposed, DSM's purchase of RV&FC would have a significant adverse effect on competition in the worldwide market for phytase. Phytase is an enzyme added to certain animal feed to promote the digestion of nutrients necessary for livestock production. According to the complaint, absent relief, the transaction would lead to DSM being part of alliances that supply more than 90 percent of the $150 million phytase market worldwide. A consent order permitted DSM N.V. to acquire the Vitamins and Fine Chemicals Division of Roche Holding AG but requires DSM to divest its phytase business to BASF AG.
Schering-Plough Corporation, Upsher-Smith Laboratories, and American Home Products Corporation, In the Matter of
In the complaint dated March 30, 2001 the Commission alleged that Schering - Plough, the manufacturer of K-Dur 20 - a prescribed potassium chloride, used to treat patients with low blood potassium levels - entered into anticompetitive agreements with Upsher-Smith Laboratories and American Home Products Corporation to delay their generic versions of the K-Dur 20 drug from entering the market. According to the charges, Schering-Plough paid Upsher- Smith $60 million and paid American Home Products $15 million to keep the low-cost generic version of the drug off the market. The charges against American Home Products were settled by a consent agreement. An initial decision filed July 2, 2002 dismissed all charges against Schering - Plough and Upsher-Smith Laboratories. On December 8, 2003 the Commission reversed the administrative law judge’s initial decision and found that Schering-Plough Corporation entered into agreements with Upsher-Smith Laboratories, Inc. and American Home Products to delay the entry of generic versions of Schering’s branded K-Dur 20. According to the opinion, the parties settled patent litigation with terms that included unconditional payments by Schering in return for agreements to defer introduction of the generic products. The Commission entered an order that would bar similar conduct in the future. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit set aside and vacated the Commission decision finding that the agreements were immune from antitrust review if their anticompetitive effects were within the scope of the exclusionary potential of the patent. The Commission filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court in August 2005, which the Court denied.
Universal Nutrition Corporation, MTM Marketing and Consulting, Inc., and Robert J. Michnal
Medical-Billing.com, Inc. a corporation, et al.
Ballenger Group, LLC, and Ballenger Holdings, LL
Polygram Holding, Inc.; Decca Music Group Limited, et al., In the Matter of
Polygram Holding, Inc.; Decca Music Group Limited; UMG Recordings, Inc.; and Universal Music & Video Distribution Corp
The Commission issued an administrative complaint against Warner Communications, Inc., and several subsidiaries of Vivendi Universal S.A., charging them with illegally agreeing to fix prices for audio and video products featuring The Three Tenors. A settlement with Warner barred future agreements to fix prices or restrict advertising. After an administrative trial against Vivendi, an ALJ found that the agreement, while made in association with an otherwise legal joint venture between the companies, violated Section 5 of the FTC Act by illegally reducing competition in the U.S. market for the audio and video products cited. The Commission upheld the ruling of an administrative law judge and prohibited PolyGram from entering into any agreement with competitors to fix the prices or restrict the advertising of products they have produced independently. In July 2005, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the Commission’s decision in Polygram Holding Inc., validating the Commission’s approach to analyzing horizontal conduct among competitors.