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.
ValueVision International, Inc.
Resorts Exchange International of America, Inc., et al.
Panda Herbal International
Creative Publishing International, Inc.
Voice Media Inc.orporated, and Ron Levi and Paul Lesser
Siemens AG and Vodafone Group Plc, In the Matter of
Siemens settled charges relating to its proposed $9 billion acquisition of Atecs Mannesmann AG, a subsidiary of Vodafone. The consent order requires, among other things, the divestiture of Vodafone's Mannesmann Dematic Postal Automation business to Northrop Grumman Corporation. Siemens and Vodafone, through its Dematic subsidiary, are the two leading suppliers of postal automation systems in the world.
Microsoft Corporation
Natural Organics, Inc., and Gerald A. Kessler, individually and as an officer of the corporation, In the Matter of
priceline.com Incorporated
Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc.; Carderm Capital L.P.; and Andrx Corporation
A consent order settled allegations in an administrative complaint that charged that Hoechst agreed to pay Andrx Corporation millions of dollars not to market and distribute a generic version of Hoechst’s branded Cardizem CD, a once-a-day diltiazem drug product used in the treatment of hypertension and angina. The consent order prohibits the companies from entering into agreements designed to restrict the entry of generic competitors in an attempt to monopolize relevant markets .
Advanced Public Communications Corporation, et al.
H.J. Heinz Company and Milnot Holding Corp
The FTC sought a preliminary injunction to block H.J. Heinz Company's (Heinz) proposed $185 million acquisition of Milnot Holding Company, owner of Beech-Nut Nutrition Corporation (Beech-Nut), citing concerns that the transaction would reduce the number of competitors in the baby food market from three to two, creating a duopoly. Heinz and Beech-Nut are the nation's second- and third-largest producers of prepared baby food. The district court denied the motion, but the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia reversed the federal district court decision and granted the Commission’s request for entry of a preliminary injunction. Soon after, the parties abandoned the transaction.