Legal Library: Cases and Proceedings

In December 2018, officers of a company that marketed and sold Nobetes, a pill they claimed treats diabetes, settled an FTC complaint alleging that the advertising claims for the product are false or unsubstantiated. The order settling the FTC’s complaint prohibits the company and its officers from undertaking future deceptive practices, including making unsubstantiated health claims, misleading consumers about the terms of “free trial” offers, billing consumers without their consent, and other practices related to the use of “expert” endorsements and consumer testimonials. In addition, it requires them to pay money to provide refunds to consumers who bought the product. In August 2019, the FTC returned $60,791 to these consumers.

In October 2016, a federal judge granted the FTC’s request for a preliminary injunction against two people and their companies for allegedly tricking small commercial trucking businesses into paying them for federal and state motor carrier registrations by impersonating government transportation agencies, such as the U.S. Department of Transportation. The FTC alleged DOTAuthority.com Inc., DOTFilings.com Inc., Excelsior Enterprises International Inc. and JPL Enterprises International Inc. violated the FTC Act and the Restore Online Shoppers Confidence Act. Under a 2018 settlement order, the DOT Authority defendants are banned from misrepresenting affiliation with any government entity and from using consumers’ billing information to obtain payments without consumers’ express consent. They must also adequately disclose that they are a private third-party service provider and any fees associated with their services. The order imposes a $900,000 judgment to provide refunds to defrauded consumers. In October 2018, the FTC sent $90,000 back to defrauded consumers. In August 2019, the FTC sent an additional $757,946 back to defrauded consumers.

The Federal Trade Commission mailed 1,177 checks totaling more than $380,000 to people who paid for purported business coaching services that were marketed as a way to help them earn thousands of dollars a month.

The operators of two purported sham charities have agreed to settle charges by the FTC and the AGs of Missouri and Florida that they deceived donors with false claims that their organizations helped disabled police officers and military veterans. The operators of both schemes are permanently banned from charitable solicitations or otherwise working for charities.

Repair All PC settled allegations that it operated a computer tech support scam that tricked consumers into believing their computers were infected with viruses and malware, and then charged them hundreds of dollars for unnecessary repairs. 

The operators of two purported sham charities have agreed to settle charges by the FTC and the AGs of Missouri and Florida that they deceived donors with false claims that their organizations helped disabled police officers and military veterans. The operators of both schemes are permanently banned from charitable solicitations or otherwise working for charities.

A federal district court in Arizona entered three stipulated orders on February 26, 2019, settling the FTC’s case against the operators of a sham grant scheme known as Premium Grants. The defendants targeted individuals, many of whom are elderly or have disabilities, who sought help with paying personal expenses such as medical bills, home repairs, and debt.

The FTC filed a lawsuit in federal court to stop a dietary supplement marketer from making misleading claims that its product can help treat and even cure people who are addicted to opiates, including prescription pain medications and illegal drugs such as heroin.

The FTC's complaint alleges 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 Lidoderm.  The agreement not to market an authorized generic – often called a “no-AG commitment” – is the form of reverse payment.  The FTC’s complaint alleges that Endo paid the first generic companies that filed for FDA approval – Watson Laboratories, Inc. – to eliminate the risk of competition for Lidoderm, in violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act.  Lidoderm is a topical patch used to relieve pain associated with post-herpetic neuralgia, a complication of shingles.  Under federal law, the first generic applicant to challenge a branded pharmaceutical’s patent, referred to as the first filer, may be entitled to 180 days of exclusivity as against any other generic applicant upon final FDA approval. But a branded drug manufacturer is permitted to market an authorized generic version of its own brand product at any time, including during the 180 days after the first generic competitor enters the market. According to the FTC, a no-AG commitment can be extremely valuable to the first-filer generic, because it ensures that this company will capture all generic sales and be able to charge higher prices during the exclusivity period.  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.

Endo agreed to settle the charges in a proposed stipulated order to be entered by the court.

On 2/13/2008, the Commission filed a complaint in federal district court charging Cephalon, Inc. with preventing competition to its branded drug Provigil. The conduct under challenge includes paying four firms to refrain from selling generic versions of Provigil until 2012. Cephalon’s anticompetitive scheme, according to the Commission, denies patients access to lower-cost, generic versions of Provigil and forces consumers and other purchasers to pay hundreds of millions of dollars a year more for Provigil. According to the complaint, Cephalon entered into agreements with four generic drug manufacturers that each planned to sell a generic version of Provigil. Each of these companies had challenged the only remaining patent covering Provigil, one relating to the size of particles used in the product. The complaint charges that Cephalon was able to induce each of the generic companies to abandon its patent challenge and agree to refrain from selling a generic version of Provigil until 2012 by agreeing to pay the companies a total amount in excess of $200 million. In so doing, Cephalon achieved a result that assertion of its patent rights alone could not. In 2008, this case was transferred from the District Court of District of Columbia to the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Following a public comment period, the FTC has approved two final orders settling allegations that Creaxion Corporation, Inside Publications, LLC, and their respective principals misrepresented that paid endorsements were independent consumer opinions and that commercial advertising was independent journalistic content.

Following a public comment period, the FTC has approved two final orders settling allegations that Creaxion Corporation, Inside Publications, LLC, and their respective principals misrepresented that paid endorsements were independent consumer opinions and that commercial advertising was independent journalistic content.

Office supply distributors Staples Inc. and Essendant Inc. have agreed to a settlement as part of the companies’ proposed $482.7 million merger in order to resolve Federal Trade Commission allegations that the deal may have harmed competition in the market for office supply products sold to small- and mid-sized businesses.

In December 2018, the Federal Trade Commission announced that the operators of Florida-based student loan debt relief scheme Student Debt Doctor are banned from the debt relief business as part of agreements settling allegations that they collected illegal upfront fees and falsely promised to help some consumers enroll in government programs that would reduce or forgive their student loan debt. In June 2022, the agency announced that it is sending 22,817 checks totaling more than $2 million to borrowers who lost money to the scheme.