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.
Solera Holdings, Inc.
The FTC charged that Solera's 2012 acquisition of Actual Systems likely would substantially lessen competition in the market for yard management systems, which was already highly concentrated. To address the FTC's competitive concerns, Solera must sell assets related to Actual Systems' YMS to ASA Holdings.
FTC v. Actavis and the Future of Reverse Payment Cases
Greensavers, LLC d/b/a Elite Services and Advanced Data Solutions, et al.
Iovate Health Sciences USA, Inc.
General Electric Company, In the Matter of
The FTC charged that GE’s proposed acquisition of Avio would substantially lessen competition in the sale of engines for the A320neo aircraft, which would result in higher prices, reduced quality, and engine delivery delays for A320neo customers. GE -- through CFM International, its joint venture with France’s Snecma S.A. -- and Pratt & Whitney are the only two firms that manufacture engines for Airbus’s A320neo aircraft. Avio designs a critical component -- the accessory gearbox or AGB -- for Pratt & Whitney’s PW1100G engine. Pratt & Whitney has no viable alternatives to Avio for development of the AGB for the PW1100G engine. According to the FTC, GE's acquisition of Avio would give GE the ability and incentive to disrupt the design and certification of Avio’s AGB for the PW1100G engine used on A320neo aircraft. The FTC order remedies the acquisition’s likely anticompetitive effects by removing GE’s ability and incentive to disrupt Avio’s AGB work during the design, certification, and initial production ramp-up phase
Sterling, Christopher Andrew, d/b/a sterlingvisa.com, rebatedataprocessor.com, and creditcardworker.com
Skechers U.S.A., Inc., d/b/a Skechers
Capella Heathcare/St. Joseph’s Mercy System (now “Mercy Hot Springs”)
Dissenting Statement of Commissioner Joshua D. Wright - Regarding Amendments to Hart-Scott-Rodino Rules
Bosley, Inc., Aderans America Holdings, Inc., and Aderans Co., Ltd.
On 4/8/2013, Bosley, Inc., the nation’s largest manager of medical/surgical hair restoration procedures, settled Federal Trade Commission charges that it illegally exchanged competitively sensitive, nonpublic information about its business practices with one of its competitors, HC (USA), Inc., commonly known as Hair Club, in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act. In settling the FTC’s charges, Bosley has agreed not to communicate such information in the future, and will institute an antitrust compliance program. The FTC alleged that for at least the past four years, Bosley exchanged competitively sensitive, nonpublic information about its business operations with Hair Club. The information exchanged by the companies’ CEOs included details about future product offerings, surgical hair transplantation price floors and discounts, plans for business expansion and contraction, and current business operations and performance.
Biglari Holdings, Inc.
On 9/25/2012, Biglari Holdings, Inc., a publicly traded holding company, agreed to pay $850,000 to resolve Federal Trade Commission allegations that it violated premerger reporting laws in connection with its 2011 acquisition of a stake in the restaurant operator Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc. At the request of the FTC, the U.S. Department of Justice has filed a complaint for civil penalties, alleging that Biglari improperly failed to report the transaction to U.S. antitrust authorities by claiming the purchases were a “passive” investment when, in reality, Biglari intended to become actively involved in the management of Cracker Barrel. The complaint alleges that, at the time of its acquisitions, Biglari Holdings intended to actively participate in the management of Cracker Barrel, including seeking a seat on the company’s board of directors. As a result, Biglari Holdings was ineligible for the passive investor exemption and was required to submit an HSR notification before acquiring shares of Cracker Barrel in excess of $66 million.
Universal Health Services and Alan B. Miller
The FTC required hospital management company Universal Health Services, Inc. to sell an acute inpatient psychiatric facility in the El Paso, Texas/Santa Teresa, New Mexico area to settle charges that UHS’s proposed acquisition of Ascend Health Corporation would be anticompetitive. As proposed, the deal allegedly would lead to a virtual monopoly in the provision of acute inpatient psychiatric services to commercially insured patients in the El Paso/Santa Teresa area. The FTC's final order requires UHS to sell its Peak Behavioral Health Services facility within six months to an FTC-approved buyer. In addition, to ensure that the Peak assets are able to attract a buyer that can effectively compete with UHS after the sale, the proposed order allows the Commission to require a second UHS hospital, Mesilla Valley Hospital in Las Cruces, New Mexico, to be sold together with Peak if Peak alone is not divested to an approved buyer within six months.
Práxedes E. Alvarez Santiago, M.D., et al. (“PR Nephrologists”), In the Matter of
Eight independent nephrologists in Puerto Rico settled Federal Trade Commission charges that they illegally collectively bargained with insurers and refused to treat health plan patients when their price demands were rebuffed. Under a proposed order settling the FTC’s charges, the doctors are barred from jointly negotiating prices, jointly refusing to deal with any insurer, and jointly refusing to treat patients. According to the FTC’s complaint, the eight doctors have violated federal antitrust laws since late 2011 by 1) collectively negotiating and fixing the prices upon which they would contract with Humana to extract higher reimbursement rates, and 2) collectively terminating their contracts with Humana and refusing to treat Humana patients enrolled in the Mi Salud program when Humana would not meet their price demands.