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.
M Group, The, Inc., d/b/a Bamboosa, and Mindy Johnson, Michael Moore, and Morris Saintsing, In the Matter of
Sami Designs, LLC, also d/b/a Jonäno, and Bonnie Siefers, individually and as owner of the limited liability company, In the Matter of
Vision Quest, LLC, and Brian K. Cavett, individually and as a member of Vision Quest, LLC, United States of America (for the Federal Trade Commission)
United States of America (for the Federal Trade Commission,) Plaintiff, v. Quality Terminal Services, LLC, a limited liability company, Defendants
United States of America (for the Federal Trade Commission,) Plaintiff, v. Rail Terminal Services, LLC, a limited liability company, Defendants
Global Mortgage Funding, Inc., et al., United States of America (for the FTC)
United States of America (for the Federal Trade Commission), Plaintiff, v. TALX Corporation, Defendant
Liberty Media Corporation and John C. Malone, United States of America (for the Federal Trade Commission)
John C. Malone, CEO and Chairman of Discovery Holding Company, agreed to pay a $1.4 million civil penalty to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that he violated the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act (HSR Act) in connection with acquisitions of Discovery shares in 2005 and 2008. The FTC alleged that Malone failed to file the required notice in 2005 after buying Discovery shares, and then in 2008 purchased additional Discovery shares before the expiration of a waiting period required by the HSR Act.
DIRECT TV, Inc., et al., United States of America (for the Federal Trade Commission)
Comcast Corporation, a Pennsylvania corporation, United States of America (for the Federal Trade Commission)
Enviromate, LLC, and Philip A. Geddes, individually and as the managing member of the corporation, United States of America (for the Federal Trade Commission)
Rental Research Services, Inc., a corporation, et al., United States of America (for the Federal Trade Commission)
Meyer Enterprises, LLC, et al., United States of America (for the Federal Trade Commission)
Central Florida Investments Inc., a Florida Corporation, et al., United States of America (for the Federal Trade Commission)
ESL Partners, L.P., and ZAM Holdings, L.P., United States of America (For the Federal Trade Commission)
Enforcing the mandatory premerger notification filing provisions under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act, the Commission filed a complaint in Federal District Court charging ESL Partners and ZAM Holdings, two investment funds, with failing to make timely filings prior to making two acquisitions. The acquisitions in question were the purchase of blocks of AutoZone, Inc.’s shares in September and October of 2004. According to the Commission’s complaint, the acquisition met the filing threshold established in the HSR act, and thus was required to file. ESL and ZAM agreed to pay civil penalties of $525,000 and $275,000 respectively to settle the Commission’s charges.
Pernod Ricard S.A., In the Matter of
The Commission challenged Pernod Ricard SA’s proposed $9 billion acquisition of V&S Vin & Spirit as harmful to competition among suppliers of “super-premium” vodka. The proposed deal would have merged the two leading brands, Absolut and Stolichnaya, and allowed Pernod to raise prices profitably on both brands. Additionally, the complaint alleges that the markets for cognac, domestic cordials, coffee liqueur, and popular gin would be subject to anticompetitive effects because sensitive pricing and promotion information for Beam Global Brands, a competitor in these product markets, would be available to Pernod after the acquisition as a result of Beam’s joint venture with V&S. The Commission settled the charges by requiring Pernod to divest its distribution interests in Stolichnaya Vodka, and to erect a firewall to prevent the sharing of any competitively sensitive information from Beam Global Brands with Pernod employees.