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.
Schering-Plough Corporation, Upsher-Smith Laboratories, and American Home Products Corporation, In the Matter of
In the complaint dated March 30, 2001 the Commission alleged that Schering - Plough, the manufacturer of K-Dur 20 - a prescribed potassium chloride, used to treat patients with low blood potassium levels - entered into anticompetitive agreements with Upsher-Smith Laboratories and American Home Products Corporation to delay their generic versions of the K-Dur 20 drug from entering the market. According to the charges, Schering-Plough paid Upsher- Smith $60 million and paid American Home Products $15 million to keep the low-cost generic version of the drug off the market. The charges against American Home Products were settled by a consent agreement. An initial decision filed July 2, 2002 dismissed all charges against Schering - Plough and Upsher-Smith Laboratories. On December 8, 2003 the Commission reversed the administrative law judge’s initial decision and found that Schering-Plough Corporation entered into agreements with Upsher-Smith Laboratories, Inc. and American Home Products to delay the entry of generic versions of Schering’s branded K-Dur 20. According to the opinion, the parties settled patent litigation with terms that included unconditional payments by Schering in return for agreements to defer introduction of the generic products. The Commission entered an order that would bar similar conduct in the future. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit set aside and vacated the Commission decision finding that the agreements were immune from antitrust review if their anticompetitive effects were within the scope of the exclusionary potential of the patent. The Commission filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court in August 2005, which the Court denied.
United Fitness of America, LLC; George Sylva; EBrands Commerce Group LLC, et al.
Duraisami, Nanda Kumar, a.k.a Nanda Dumar and D.N. Kumar, d/b/a Best American Investment Services; Bellfield Rose International Corp.; BIC; and Melbourne International Bank
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., and Supermercados Amigo, Inc.
A consent order settled Commission charges that Wal-Mart's proposed acquisition of the largest supermarket chain in Puerto Rico, Supermercados Amigo, Inc., would eliminate competition between supercenters and club stores owned or controlled by Wal-Mart and supermarkets owned or controlled by Arnigo. Under the consent order, Wal-Mart must divest four Amigo supermarkets in Cidra, Ponce, Manati, and Vega Baja, Puerto Rico to Supermercados Maximo.
Bayer AG, and Aventis S.A, In the Matter of
A consent order permits Bayer to purchase Aventis CropScience Holdings S.A. from Aventis S.A. The order requires Bayer to divest businesses and assets in the following four major markets: new generation chemical insecticide products: new- generation chemical insecticide active ingredients; post-emergent grass herbicides for spring wheat; and cool weather cotton defoliants. According to the complaint, the transaction as proposed would result in the elimination of both actual and competition in the four markets; increase barriers to entry; reduce innovation competition for certain products; and increase the possibility of coordinated interaction between competitors.
Pelle Pelle, Inc., United States of America (for the Federal Trade Commission)
Diageo PLC and Vivendi Universal S.A., In the Matter of
The Commission authorized staff to file a motion for a preliminary injunction to block the proposed acquisition of Vivendi Universal S.A.’s Seagram Wine and Spirits Business on grounds that the transaction, would combine the second- and third-largest rum producers in the U.S. eliminating actual competition between the firms, leading to higher prices for rum. The Commission charged that Diageo and Bacardi together would control 95 percent of all U.S. premium rum sales, and that Diageo would have access to highly sensitive business information about Seagram's Gin, Chivas Regal Scotch whisky, The Glenlivet Scotch, and Martell Cognac, products with which Diageo is in significant competition. If Diageo were to acquire these brands, it would maintain (or have a financial interest in) virtually all popular gin sales, virtually all deluxe Scotch whisky sales, 32 percent of all single malt Scotch whisky sales, and 63 percent of all Cognac sales in the United States. Those brands, which compete directly with other brands marketed by Diageo in the United States (including Gordon's Gin, Classic Malt Scotch whiskies, Johnnie Walker Black Scotch, and Hennessy Cognac), are Seagram's Gin, Chivas Regal Scotch whisky, The Glenlivet Scotch whisky, and Martell Cognac. The parties settled the charges and by consent order, Diageo was required to divest the Malibu rum business worldwide to a Commission-approved buyer. The order also prevented Diageo from obtaining or using any competitively sensitive business information related to Seagram's Gin, Chivas Regal Scotch whisky, The Glenlivet Scotch whisky, or Martell Cognac.
United States of America (filed at the request of the FTC) v. The Hearst Trust and The Hearst Corporation
Spencer, Robert C., d/b/a Aaron Company, and Lisa M. Spencer., In the Matter of
American Information Labor Services, Inc., American Data Bureau, LLC, et al.
Mylan Laboratories, Inc., Cambrex Corporation, Profarmaco S.R.I., and Gyma Laboratories of America, Inc.
Complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia charged Mylan with restraint of trade, monopolization and conspiracy to monopolize the market for two generic drugs used to treat anxiety, lorazepam and clorazepate, through exclusive dealing arrangements. The Commission alleged that Mylan, Gyma Laboratories of America, Inc., Cambrex Corporation and Profarmaco S.R.L. conspired to deny Mylan’s competitors ingredients necessary to manufacture lorazepam and 40 clorazepate. The complaint sought consumer redress of at least $120 million and to enjoin the alleged illegal exclusive licensing agreements. The district court upheld the Commission’s authority to seek restitution in antitrust injunction actions under Section 13(b). The Commission approved a $100 million settlement. The opinion settled Commission concerns that Mylan, Gyma Laboratories of America, Inc., Cambrex Corporation and Profarmaco S.R.L. conspired to deny Mylan’s competitors ingredients necessary to manufacture lorazepam and 40 clorazepate. On Feburary 1, 2002, the court granted approval to a plan of distribution to injured consumers who paid the increased prices and state agencies, including Medicaid programs, that purchased the drugs while the illegal agreements were in effect. The funds were distributed by the states.
CMO Distribution Centers of America, Inc.
Digital Equipment Corporation
Final order settles allegations that Intel's acquisition of Digital Equipment Corporation's assets could endanger the continuing and future development of the Alpha microprocessor, a direct competitor of Intel's Pentium line of computer system components. The order requires Digital to license the Alpha technology to Advanced Micro Devices and to Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. or to other Commission-approved companies to manufacture Digital's microprocessor devices.
Urological Stone Surgeons, Inc.; Stone Centers of America, L.L.C.; Urological Services, Ltd.; Donald M. Norris, M.D.; and Marc A. Rubenstein, M.D
Consent order settles allegations that Urological Stone Surgeons, Parkside Kidney Stone Centers, Urological Services. Ltd and two physicians engaged in a price-fixing conspiracy to raise the price for professional urologist services for lithotripsy procedures in the Chicago metropolitan area. The complaint alleges that the parties agreed to use a common billing agent, established a uniform fee for lithotripsy services, prepared and distributed fee schedules, and negotiated contracts with third party payers on behalf of all urologists using the Parkside facility. The consent order prohibits such practices in the future and requires the parties to notify the Commission at least 45 days before forming or participating in an integrated joint venture to provide lithotripsy professional services.