Legal Library: Cases and Proceedings

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.

The FTC required casino operators Penn National Gaming, Inc. and Pinnacle Entertainment, Inc. to divest casino-related assets in three Midwestern cities to  resolves charges that Penn’s $2.8 billion agreement to acquire Pinnacle likely would be anticompetitive. The complaint alleges that the proposed acquisition would harm competition for casino services in metropolitan St. Louis, Missouri; Kansas City, Missouri; and Cincinnati, Ohio. Casino services include gaming services such as slots and table games, as well as related lodging, entertainment, and food and beverage services, according to the complaint. Typically, casino operators generate the vast majority of their revenues from gaming. Casinos are highly regulated, with a limited number of licenses granted in any given state, as well as age restrictions on who can gamble. According to the complaint, the acquisition, if consummated, likely would eliminate direct competition between Penn and Pinnacle, increasing the likelihood that Penn would unilaterally exercise market power, and lead to higher prices and reduced quality for consumers of casino services.

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.

10 Companies and 10 individuals settled Federal Trade Commission allegations that their deceptive and unfair tactics violated the FTC Act and the Fair Debt Collection Practice Act. The action is part of the FTC's continuing crackdown on all players involved in phantom debt schemes, including those who sell fake debt portfolios and those who harass consumers to collect the phony debt. 

The Federal Trade Commission is sending payments totaling more than $1 million to 1,966 consumers who were harmed by a debt collection scheme that conned consumers into paying debts they did not owe. The defendants used several names including GAFS Group, Global Mediation Group, and Mediation Services.

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.

The FTC issued an administrative complaint charging that Wilhelmsen Maritime Services’ proposed $400 million acquisition of Drew Marine Group would violate the antitrust laws by significantly reducing competition in an important market for marine water treatment chemicals and services used by global fleets. Marine water treatment chemicals and services are used by tankers, container ships, bulk carriers, cruise ships, and military support vessels to maintain critical on-board equipment. The FTC alleges that if consummated, the merger would result in a company controlling at least 60 percent of the global marine water treatment chemical and service market, leaving only inferior alternatives for global fleets. The FTC also authorized staff to seek in federal court a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction to prevent the parties from consummating the merger, and to maintain the status quo pending the administrative proceeding.

The FTC challenged ProMedica Health System, Inc.’s consummated acquisition of rival St. Luke’s Hospital in Lucas County, Ohio. The FTC’s administrative complaint alleged that the deal will reduce competition and allow ProMedica to raise prices for general acute-care and inpatient obstetrical services. The FTC staff also filed a separate complaint in federal district court seeking an order requiring ProMedica to preserve St. Luke’s as a separate, independent competitor during the FTC’s administrative proceeding. The action in federal district court was brought jointly with the Attorney General of the State of Ohio. The PI hearing was held on February 10 and 11, 2011. The District Court granted the FTC's request for a preliminary injunction. With an Initial Decision issued on 1/05/2012, the Chief Administrative Law Judge D. Michael Chappell ruled that ProMedica Health System, Inc.'s consummated acquisition of rival St. Luke's Hospital harmed competition in violation of U.S. antitrust law and would allow ProMedica to raise the prices of general acute care inpatient hospital services in Lucas County, Ohio (the Toledo area). Judge Chappell ordered ProMedica to divest St. Luke's Hospital to an FTC-approved buyer within 180 days after the order becomes final. On 3/28/2012, The FTC issued its Opinion and Final Order in a 4-0 decision, ordering ProMedica to divest St. Luke's Hospital to an FTC-approved buyer within six months after the Commission order becomes final. ProMedica appealed to the Sixth Circuit, which upheld the Commission's order.

Alimentation Couche-Tard Inc. agreed to divest up to 71 retail fuel stations with convenience stores to Empire Petroleum Partners in order to settle charges that ACT’s proposed $4.4 billion acquisition of competitor CST Brands, Inc. would violate federal antitrust law. The divestiture order requires ACT to divest 70 CST fuel stations to Empire, and to give Empire the option of acquiring an additional location owned by ACT. The fuel stations to be divested are in Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, New Mexico, Ohio, and Texas. According to the complaint, the geographic markets for the retail sale of gasoline and diesel are localized, generally ranging from a few blocks to a few miles. The complaint alleges that without a remedy the merger would significantly increase market concentration for the retail sales of gasoline or diesel in each of the 71 local markets, resulting in a monopoly in ten markets and reducing the number of competitors in the rest to two or three.

The Sherwin-Williams Company agreed to settle charges that its proposed $11.3 billion acquisition of Valspar Corporation is likely anticompetitive by selling Valspar’s North America Industrial Wood Coatings Business to Axalta Coating Systems Ltd. The transaction would combine Sherwin-Williams and Valspar, two of the top three industrial wood coatings manufacturers. According to the complaint, the acquisition as originally proposed likely would reduce competition in the North American market for industrial wood coatings used to make furniture, kitchen cabinets, and building products. Under the terms of the consent agreement, Sherwin-Williams will divest to Axalta two Valspar industrial wood coatings plants, one in High Point, North Carolina, and the other in Cornwall, Ontario. Axalta will also receive the research and development facilities, warehouses and testing facilities of Valspar’s Industrial Wood Coatings Business, as well as customer contracts, intellectual property, inventory, accounts receivable, government licenses and permits, and business records.