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.
Carlyle Partners IV, L.P., et al., In the Matter of
The Commission challenged the proposed acquisition by Carlyle Partners IV, L.P. of INEOS Group Ltd., alleging that the deal would be anticompetitive in the highly concentrated Midwestern market for sodium silicate. Sodium silicates are used in detergents and other products, and are important chemicals used by the pulp and paper industry. The acquisition would have joined market leader PQ Corporation, which is owned by Carlyle, with INEOS, the third-largest sodium silicate provider. Under the Commission’s order, Carlyle must divest PQ’s sodium silicate plant in Utica, Illinois, and all associated intellectual property required to operate the plant to Oak Hill Company within five days of consummating the transaction.
McCormick & Company, Incorporated, In the Matter of
The Commission challenged McCormick & Company’s $605 million acquisition of Lawry’s and Adolph’s brands of seasoned salt products from Unilever N.V., alleging that the transaction would be detrimental to competition in the highly concentrated U.S. market for seasoned salts. According to the Commission’s complaint, the proposed deal would combine the two companies that comprise almost the entire $100 million market for seasoned salt, increasing the likelihood that McCormick would be able unilaterally to increase prices. McCormick agreed to divest its Season-All business to Morton, an FTC approved buyer, within 10 days of completing the acquisition.
Electronic Arts Inc.'s Proposed Acquisition of Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc.
Missouri Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors, In the Matter of
Under the terms of the proposed consent order, the Missouri Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors agreed to settle charges that it deterred competitive entry in the retail sale of caskets by adopting a rule that only licensed funeral directors could sell caskets to consumers on an at-need basis. Under the proposed settlement, the Board is required to communicate to the public that it is not necessary to obtain a license from the Board to offer for retail sale caskets and other funeral merchandise to customers in Missouri.
Inova Health System Foundation and Prince William Health System
The Commission authorized both an administrative complaint and a motion for a preliminary injunction to challenge the proposed merger of Inova Health System Foundation’s and Prince William Health System (PWHS), alleging that the acquisition would violate federal antitrust laws by reducing competition for general acute care inpatient hospital services in Northern Virginia. On June 17, 2008 the Commission approved an order dismissing its administrative complaint, as the respondents publicly announced their mutual decision to terminate the proposed acquisition agreement.
Think All Publishing, LLC. and Yuri Mintskovsky
Multiple Listing Service, Inc., In the Matter of
Multiple Listing Service, Inc. (MLS), a group of real estate professionals based in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, settled charges that its rules unreasonably restrained competition among real estate brokers in Milwaukee. The complaint alleges that MLS acted anticompetitively by adopting rules and policies that limit the publication and marketing of certain sellers’ properties, but not others, based solely on the terms of their respective listing contracts. The Commission alleged that the rules were collusive and exclusionary and served to withhold valuable benefits of the MLS from brokers who did not use traditional listing contracts with their customers. Under the terms of the December 2007 consent, MLS is barred from adopting or enforcing any rule that treats one type of real estate listing agreement more advantageously than any other, and from interfering with the ability of its members to enter into any kind of lawful listing agreement with home sellers.