Legal Library: Cases and Proceedings

To settle charges that it violated Section 5 of the FTC Act by engaging in unfair methods of competition and unfair acts or practices related to the licensing of standard essential patents (SEPs) for cellular, video codec, and wireless LAN stanards, Google Inc. agreed to change some of its business practices. Under a settlement reached with the FTC, Google agreed to meet its prior commitments to allow competitors access – on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory terms – to patents on critical standardized technologies needed to make popular devices such as smart phones, laptop and tablet computers, and gaming consoles.

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.

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.