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.
Valero, L.P., Valero Energy Corporation, et al., In the Matter of
Aloha Petroleum, Ltd., et al.
Cytec Industries Inc., In the Matter of
A final consent order requires Cytec Industries, Inc. to divest UCB’s Amino Resins Business in Massachusetts and Germany to a Commission-approved buyer. According to the complaint issued with the agreement, the acquisition as proposed would eliminate direct competition between the two firms in the market for amino resins used for industrial liquid coatings and rubber adhesion promotion.
Chevron Corporation and Unocal Corporation, In the Matter of
Under the terms of the consent orders Chevron and Unocal will cease enforcing Unocal’s patents covering reformulated gasoline that complies with California Air resources Board Standard, will not undertake any new enforcement efforts related to the particular patents, and will cease all attempts to collect damages, royalties, or other payments related to the use of any of the patents. In addition, the companies will dismiss all pending legal actions related to alleged infringement of the patents. According to the complaint, the acquisition of the Unocal patents by Chevron would have facilitated coordinated interaction among downstream refiners and marketers of CARB gasoline.
Union Oil Company of California, In the Matter of
An administrative law judge dismissed a complaint in its entirety against Union Oil of California that charged the company with committing fraud in connection with regulatory proceedings before the California Air Resources Board regarding the development of reformulated gasoline. The judge ruled much of Unocal’s conduct was permissible activity under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine and that the resolution of the issues outlined in the complaint would require an in depth analysis of patent law which he believed were not with the jurisdiction of the Commission. In July 2004, the Commission reversed the judge’s ruling and reinstated charges that Unocal illegally acquired monopoly power in the technology market for producing a “summer-time” low-emissions gasoline mandated for sale and use by the CARB for use in the state for up to eight months of the year. While the case was pending before the administrative law judge, Unocal agreed to settle the claims and cease and desist enforcing Unocal’s patents covering reformulated gasoline that complies with California Air resources Board Standard, will not undertake any new enforcement efforts related to the particular patents, and will cease all attempts to collect damages, royalties, or other payments related to the use of any of the patents. The settlement in this case was related to the settlement of FTC charges that Chevron's acquisition of Unocal would substantially lessen competition in the refining and marketing of CARB reformulated gasoline, as Chevron would acquire the relevant Unocal patents through the acquisition and would be able to use its position to coordinate with its downstream competitors, to the detriment of consumers. See In the Matter of Chevron Corporation and Unocal Corporation.
Impulse Media Group, Inc., et al., US vs
Occidental Petroleum Corporation and Vulcan Materials Company, In the Matter of
Nestle Holdings, Inc.; Dreyer's Grand Ice Cream Holdings, Inc.; and Dreyer's Grand Ice Cream, Inc.
The Commission authorized staff to seek a preliminary injunction to block the merger of Nestlé and Dreyer’s Grand Ice Cream, Inc. on grounds that the merger would reduce competition in the highly concentrated market for super-premium ice cream. Nestlé markets super-premium ice cream under the Häagen Dazs brand; Dreyer’s super-premium brands include Dreamery, Godiva and Starbucks. Before the complaint was filed in a federal district court, the parties agreed to enter into a consent agreement to settle the charges. The final order requires the divestiture of super-premium ice cream brands Dreamery and Godiva, the Whole Fruit sorbet brand, and Nestlé’s distribution assets to CoolBrands International, Inc.
Entergy Corporation and Entergy-Koch, LP
A consent order settles allegations that Entergy-Koch LP's (a limited partnership owned equally by Entergy Corporation and Koch) acquisition of 50 percent of the Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP from Koch would lessen competition for the sale of electricity to consumers in Louisiana and western Mississippi and the distribution of natural gas to consumers in New Orleans and Baton Rouge. Entergy is the regulated electric and natural gas utility in parts of Louisiana and Mississippi. The order requires Entergy to establish a transparent process to buy natural gas and natural gas transportation that will assist state regulators in determining whether Entergy purchased gas supplies at inflated prices from its Entergy-Koch partnership.
New Millennium Orthopaedics, LLC; et al., In the Matter of
The Commission settled charges with two small groups of orthopedic physicians in the Cincinnati area that had formed an independent practice association that jointly negotiated contracts regarding the rates its physician members would charge health plans and other payors for their services. In addition to the usual prohibitions on joint negotiations, the Commission’s order disbanded the IPA and prohibited future collective bargaining.
Arch Coal, Inc., New Vulcan Coal Holdings, LLC, and Triton Coal Company, LLC, In the Matter of
The Commission authorized staff to file a complaint to block Arch Coal, Inc.’s proposed acquisition of Triton Coal Company, L.L.C. from New Vulcan Holdings, L.L.C. on grounds that the acquisition would increase concentration and tend to create a monopoly in the market for coal mined from the Southern Powder River Basin and in the production of 8800 British Thermal Unit coal. On April 1, 2004, the complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia; the court denied the FTC's motion for a preliminary injunction. On June 13, 2005 the Commission announced that it was closing its investigation, saying that it will not continue with administrative litigation challenging the deal.
Dissenting Statement of Commissioner Harbour, In the Matter of Arch Coal, Inc., New Vulcan Coal Holdings, LLC, and Triton Coal Company, LLC
Additional Statement of Commissioner Leary, In the Matter of Arch Coal, Inc., New Vulcan Coal Holdings, LLC, and Triton Coal Company, LLC
Statement of the Commission, In the Matter of Arch Coal, Inc., New Vulcan Coal Holdings, LLC, and Triton Coal Company, LLC
Hoechst AG and Rhone-Poulenc S.A., to be renamed Aventis S.A
A final order settled charges stemming from Hoechst's merger with Rhone-Poulenc S.A. According to the complaint, the merger (the merged firm would be renamed Aventis S.A.) raised antitrust concerns in the market for cellulose acetate and direct thrombin acetate. The order requires the divestiture of the 'subsidiary, Rhodia, a specialty chemicals firm that produces cellulose acetate.
Preferred Health Services, Inc., In the Matter of
The order prohibits Preferred Health Services from orchestrating collective agreements and other terms for physician services when negotiating with health insurance plans and other third party payers. According to the complaint these agreements among the physician-hospital organization of doctors and the Oconee Memorial Hospital in northwestern South Carolina to collectively negotiate fees and terms of services could lead to higher health care costs and limited physician access.
California Pacific Medical Group, Inc., In the Matter of
With an administrative complaint issued on July 8, 2003 the Commission charged a San Francisco, California physicians’ organization with engaging in an agreement under which its competing members agreed collectively on the price and other terms on which they would enter into contracts with health plans or other third party payers. The complaint also alleged that Brown and Toland directed its physicians to end their preexisting contracts with payers and required its physician members to charge specified prices in all Preferred Provider Organization contracts. A final consent order prohibits Brown and Toland from negotiating with payers on behalf of physicians, refusing to deal with payers, and setting terms for physicians to deal with payers, unless the physicians are clinically or financially integrated.