TDARX, Inc., In the Matter of
TDARX, Inc., settled Federal Trade Commission allegations that the company made false claims in connection with the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield framework.
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.
TDARX, Inc., settled Federal Trade Commission allegations that the company made false claims in connection with the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield framework.
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.
DCR Workforce, Inc. reached a settlement with the FTC over allegations that the company made false or misleading representations about its participation in the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield framework.
LotaData settled Federal Trade Commission allegations that the company falsely claimed certification under the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield framework.
EmpiriStat settled Federal Trade Commission allegations that the company falsely claimed certification under the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield framework.
Trueface.ai settled Federal Trade Commission allegations that the company falsely claimed certification under the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield framework.
Thru, Inc. reached a settlement with the FTC over allegations that the company made false and misleading representations about its participation in the EU-U.S. and Swiss-U.S. Privacy Shield frameworks.
Medable settled Federal Trade Commission allegations that it falsely claimed participation in the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield framework, which enables companies to transfer consumer data legally from European Union countries to the United States.
Miami Beach-based retailer Truly Organic Inc. (Truly Organic) and its founder and CEO, Maxx Harley Appelman, will pay $1.76 million to settle a FTC complaint alleging that their nationally marketed bath and beauty products are neither “100% organic” nor “certified organic” by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).
The FTC alleged that while SecurTest initiated a Privacy Shield application in September 2017 with the U.S. Department of Commerce, the company did not complete the steps necessary to be certified as complying with the frameworks. Because it failed to complete certification, SecurTest was not a certified participant in the frameworks, despite representations to the contrary on its website. The settlement with the FTC prohibits SecurTest from misrepresenting its participation in any privacy or security program sponsored by a government, self-regulatory, or standard-setting organization, including the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield and Swiss-U.S. Privacy Shield frameworks. It also must comply with reporting and compliance requirements.
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.
Equifax, Inc. agreed to pay at least $575 million, and potentially up to $700 million, as part of a global settlement with the Federal Trade Commission, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), and 50 U.S. states and territories to settle allegations that the credit reporting company's failed to take reasonable steps to secure its network.
The FTC required healthcare companies Fresenius Medical Care AG & KGaA and NxStage Medical, Inc. to divest all rights and assets related to NxStage’s bloodline tubing set business to B. Braun Medical, Inc. as part of a settlement resolving charges that Fresenius’s proposed $2 billion acquisition of NxStage likely would be anticompetitive. The FTC’s complaint alleges that the proposed merger would harm competition in the U.S. market for bloodline tubing sets that are compatible with hemodialysis machines used in clinics that treat chronic renal failure. Bloodline tubing sets are single-use plastic tube sets used during hemodialysis treatments. Fresenius and NxStage are two of only three significant suppliers of bloodline tubing sets used in open architecture hemodialysis machines in the United States. Fresenius and NxStage together control 82 percent of the market for bloodlines.The settlement requires Fresenius and NxStage to divest to B. Braun all assets and rights to research, develop, manufacture, market, and sell NxStage’s bloodline tubing sets.
Koninklijke Ahold and Delhaize Group, which together own and operate five well-known U.S. supermarket chains, have agreed to sell 81 stores to settle charges that their proposed $28 billion merger would likely be anticompetitive in 46 local markets in Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia. Ahold operated 760 supermarkets under the Stop & Shop, Giant, and Martin’s banners in ten Eastern states and the District of Columbia.Delhaize operated 1,291 supermarkets under the Food Lion and Hannaford banners in 14 Eastern and Southern states. Under the proposed consent agreement, Ahold and Delhaize will divest a total of 81 stores to seven divestiture buyers.
FTC Bureau of Competition Director Bruce Hoffman issued the following statement regarding the U.S. District Court ruling today that granted the FTC’s request for a preliminary injunction in the proposed merger of Tronox Limited and Cristal. The companies are top suppliers in the United States and Canada of chloride process titanium dioxide (TiO2), a white pigment used in paints, industrial coatings, plastic and paper:
The FTC filed a complaint in federal district court charging Shire ViroPharma Inc. with violating the antitrust laws by abusing government processes to delay generic competition to its branded prescription drug, Vancocin HCl Capsules. The complaint alleges that to maintain its monopoly, ViroPharma waged a campaign of serial, repetitive, and unsupported filings with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and courts to delay the FDA’s approval of generic Vancocin Capsules, and exclude competition. According to the FTC, ViroPharma submitted 43 filings with the FDA and filed three lawsuits against the FDA between 2006 and 2012. According to the FTC, ViroPharma knew that it was the FDA’s practice to refrain from approving any generic applications until it resolved any pending relevant citizen petition filings. Viropharma intended for its serial filings to delay the approval of generics, and thus competition and lower prices. The FTC seeks a court order permanently prohibiting ViroPharma from submitting repetitive and baseless filings with the FDA and the courts, and from similar and related conduct as well as any other necessary equitable relief, including restitution and disgorgement.
The FTC required global healthcare company Grifols S.A. to divest blood plasma collection centers in three U.S. cities, among other conditions, as part of a settlement resolving charges that Grifols’ acquisition of Florida-based Biotest US Corporation is anticompetitive and violates federal antitrust law. The complaint alleges that, as proposed, the acquisition would harm competition in the markets for collection of human blood plasma in Lincoln, Nebraska, Augusta, Georgia, and Youngstown, Ohio. Grifols and Biotest US are the only companies that operate plasma collection centers in these cities, and, without a remedy, the merger would result in a merger-to-monopoly in these cities. Under the terms of the proposed settlement, Grifols will divest its plasma collection centers in these three cities to KedPlasma, which is a subsidiary of Kedrion Biopharma Inc., a leading manufacturer of protein products and the fifth-largest producer of plasma proteins worldwide.
The complaint also alleges that, absent a remedy, the acquisition would harm the U.S. market for hepatitis B immune globulin, or HBIG, a plasma-derived injectable medicine that provides hepatitis B antibodies for preventing hepatitis B infections. When Grifols announced the proposed acquisition in December 2017, Biotest US owned 41 percent of ADMA Biologics, Inc., which has the largest share in the U.S. market for HBIG and competes with Grifols and one other supplier. Biotest US has recently transferred its ownership share in ADMA to The Biotest Divestiture Trust, the parent company of Biotest US. Because Grifols is only seeking to acquire Biotest US and not its parent, Grifols will not acquire any ownership interest in ADMA under the proposed acquisition. Under the proposed consent agreement, Grifols is prohibited, without prior notification, from acquiring any ownership interest in ADMA or obtaining any rights to nominate or obtain representation on the ADMA Board of Directors.