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.
Len Blavatnik, Care of Access Industries
Investor Len Blavatnik has agreed to pay $656,000 in civil penalties to resolve charges that he violated federal premerger reporting laws by failing to report voting shares that he acquired in a California technology start up called TangoMe, in August 2014.
Cabell Huntington Hospital/St. Mary's Medical Center, In the Matter of
The Commission filed an administrative complaint alleging that Cabell Huntington Hospital’s proposed acquisition of St. Mary’s Medical Center – two hospitals located three miles apart in Huntington, West Virginia--would create a dominant firm with a near monopoly over general acute care inpatient hospital services and outpatient surgical services in the adjacent counties of Cabell, Wayne, and Lincoln, West Virginia and Lawrence County, Ohio likely leading to higher prices and lower quality of care than would be the case without the acquisition. The Commission also authorized staff to seek a preliminary injunction to maintain the status quo pending the outcome of the administrative proceeding. On March 24, 2016, the Commission withdrew the matter from adjudication. On July 6, 2016, the Commission returned the matter to adjudication and dismiss the complaint without prejudice and issued a statement.
WEX Inc./Electronic Funds Source LLC
POM Wonderful LLC and Roll Global LLC, In the Matter of
Lord & Taylor, LLC, In the Matter of
Hexacon Electric Company
Endo Pharmaceuticals / Impax Labs
The FTC filed a complaint in federal district court alleging 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 Opana ER and Lidoderm with an agreement not to market an authorized generic – often called a “no-AG commitment” – as a form of reverse payment. The complaint, filed in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleges that Endo paid the first generic companies that filed for FDA approval – Impax Laboratories, Inc. and Watson Laboratories, Inc. – to eliminate the risk of competition for Opana ER and Lidoderm, in violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act. Opana ER is an extendedrelease opioid used to relieve moderate to severe pain. Lidoderm is a topical patch used to relieve pain associated with post-herpetic neuralgia, a complication of shingles. 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. Teikoko Pharma USA and Teikoku Seiyaku Co., Ltd. agreed to a stipulated order resolving FTC charges.
In November 2016, the FTC voluntarily dismissed the complaint in this action. On January 23, 2017, the FTC refiled charges related to the Lidoderm agreements in federal court in California (Federal Trade Commission vs. Allergan plc; Watson Laboratories, Inc., et al) and refiled charges related to the Opana ER agreement in a Part 3 administrative proceeding. (In re Impax Laboratories, Inc.)