Legal Library: Cases and Proceedings

In July 2020, the FTC required global suppliers of animal products, Elanco Animal Health, Inc. and Bayer Animal Health GmbH, to divest three animal health products to settle charges that Elanco’s proposed $7.6 billion acquisition of Bayer would likely be anticompetitive in those markets. On Sept. 11, 2020, the Commission announced the final consent agreement in this matter.

Pharmaceutical companies AbbVie Inc. and Allergan plc have agreed to divest assests to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that AbbVie's proposed $63 billion acquisition of Allergan would violate federal antitrust law. On Sept. 4, 2020, the Commission announced the final consent agreement in this matter.

The FTC entered into a settlement with the operators of LendEDU.com to resolve allegations that LendEDU falsely claimed that the website provided “objective,” “accurate,” and “unbiased” information about consumer financial products, such as student loans, personal loans, and credit cards, when in fact they offered higher rankings and ratings to companies that paid for placement.

In March 2020, Nevada-based Health Center, Inc. (HCI) and its owner Peggy Pearce agreed to halt their allegedly deceptive advertising claims about three “cure-all” health and wellness products that targeted older consumers nationwide, in a settlement with the Federal Trade Commission. The order settling the FTC’s complaint prohibits HCI and Pearce from such deceptive conduct and imposes a partially suspended monetary judgment.

Office Depot, Inc. and its tech support software provider Support.com, Inc., settled Federal Trade Commission allegations that the two companies tricked customers into buying millions of dollars' worth of computer repair and technical services by deceptively claiming their software had found malware on the customers' computers. 

The Federal Trade Commission authorized an action to block Illumina Inc.’s proposed $1.2 billion acquisition of Pacific Biosciences of California, alleging in an administrative complaint that Illumina is seeking to unlawfully maintain its monopoly in the U.S. market for next-generation DNA sequencing systems by extinguishing PacBio as a nascent competitive threat. The Commission vote to issue the administrative complaint and to authorize staff to seek a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction was 5-0. On Jan. 2, 2020, the parties abandoned the transaction.

The FTC and the State of Connecticut sued the marketers of LeanSpa in December 2011, charging that they used fake websites to promote acai berry and “colon cleanse” weight-loss products, and falsely told consumers they could receive free trials by paying a nominal shipping and handling cost. In reality, consumers paid $79.95 for the trial, and for recurring monthly shipments of the product that were hard to cancel. The LeanSpa marketers settled the complaint in 2014, agreeing to stop their allegedly deceptive practices and surrender assets for consumer redress. In October 2015, the FTC announced it was mailing more than 23,000 checks totaling over $3.7 million to consumers who bought LeanSpa products. In December 2019, the FTC sent a second round of checks totaling over $321,000 to consumers who bought LeanSpa products.

In November 2017, the Federal Trade Commission charged a Georgia-based debt collection business with tricking people into paying money for debts they did not owe. A federal court temporarily halted the scheme and froze its assets at the FTC’s request. In September 2018, the operators settled the FTC’s claims and are now banned from the debt collection business and from buying or selling debt. The FTC mailed refund checks in September 2019 totaling more than $516,000 to 3,977 consumers as part of the settlement.

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 reached settlements with a group of St. Louis-based defendants who used deceptive Internet pop-up ads to trick consumers into buying unnecessary technical support services.

The FTC is mailing 53,595 refund checks totaling $748,070 to consumers nationwide who signed up for an online auction kit that was supposed to be free, but wasn’t. The kit actually cost consumers up to $59.95 per month if they failed to cancel a trial membership in a business opportunity program called Online Supplier.

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.

Video social networking app Musical.ly, Inc., now known as TikTok, agreed to pay $5.7 million to settle Federal Trade Commission allegations that the company illegally collected personal information from children in violation of the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act. 

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.