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.
Dissenting Statement of Commissioner Maureen K. Ohlhausen - 2010 Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) Rule Review
Stefanchik John, individually and as an officer and director of Beringer Corporation, et al.
Commission Letter Approving Aristotle, Inc.’s Safe Harbor Program Application Under the Children's Online Privacy Protection Rule
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, and Orchid Cellmark Inc.
The Commission required laboratory testing companies Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings and Orchid Cellmark Inc. to divest a portion of Orchid's paternity testing business, to resolve the FTC complaint alleging that LabCorp's $85.4 million acquisition of Orchid would have an anticompetitive impact in the market for paternity testing services used by government agencies. Under the proposed settlement order, the portion of Orchid's U.S. paternity testing business that is focused on sales to government agencies, and related assets, will be sold to another testing company, DNA Diagnostics Center (DDC). On 2/1/2012, the FTC approved a final order.
Universal Health Services, Inc., Psychiatric Solutions, Inc., and Alan B. Miller, In the Matter of
The FTC required Universal Health Services, Inc., one of the nation’s largest hospital management companies, to sell 15 psychiatric facilities as a condition of its $3.1 billion acquisition of Psychiatric Solutions, Inc. As originally proposed the acquisition would have reduced competition in the provision of acute inpatient psychiatric services in three local markets: Delaware, Puerto Rico, and metropolitan Las Vegas, Nevada.
Roberts, Brian L.
On 12/16/2011, Brian L. Roberts, the Chief Executive Officer of Comcast Corporation, agreed to pay a $500,000 penalty to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that he violated the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvement Act (HSR Act) in connection with his acquisitions of Comcast stock between 2007 and 2009. The FTC alleged that Roberts failed to file required notices before acquiring Comcast shares. The amount of the fine was limited by a number of factors, including that the violation was inadvertent and technical; that it was apparently due to faulty advice from outside counsel; that Roberts did not gain financially from the violation; and that he reported the violation promptly once it was discovered.
Simon Property Group, Inc., In the Matter of
Under the terms of the settlement, Simon Property Group, Inc. is required to divest property and modify tenant leases to preserve outlet center competition in parts of southwest Ohio, Chicago, Illinois, and Orlando, Florida, in the wake of Simon’s purchase of Prime Outlets Acquisition Company, LLC. In addition, Simon has agreed to remove radius restrictions for tenants with stores in its outlet malls serving the Chicago and Orlando markets.
Chitika, Inc., In the Matter of
Fidelity National Financial, Inc, In the Matter of (LandAmerica Financial)
To settle charges that its 2008 acquisition of three LandAmerica Financial, Inc. subsidiaries was anticompetitive, Fidelity National Financial, Inc. agree to sell several title plants and related assets in six geographic areas: 1) the Portland, Oregon, metropolitan area, consisting of Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington counties; 2) Benton County, Oregon; 3) Jackson County, Oregon; 4) Marion County, Oregon; 5) Linn County, Oregon; and 6) the Detroit, Michigan, metropolitan area consisting of Oakland, Macomb, and Wayne counties.
Intel Corporation, In the Matter of
The Commission filed an administrative complaint against Intel Corp., the world’s leading computer chip maker, charging that the company had illegally used its dominant market position for a decade to stifle competition and strengthen its monopoly. The complaint alleged that Intel engaged in a course of conduct to shut out rivals’ competing microchips by cutting off their access to the marketplace. In particular, the complaint alleged that Intel unlawfully maintained its monopoly in relevant central processing unit, or CPU, markets, and sought to acquire a second monopoly in the relevant graphics markets, using a variety of unfair methods of competition. In August of 2010, Intel agreed to a settlement containing provisions that would undo the effects of Intel's past conduct, and prohibiting Intel from suppressing competition in the future.
Statement of FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz Regarding the Announcement that Arthur D. Levinson Has Resigned from Google's Board
Accusearch, Inc. d/b/a Abika.com, and Jay Patel
Chinery, Robert Jr.; Tracy A. Chinery; and RTC Research and Development, LL
CRH plc, Oldcastle, Inc., Oldcastle Architectural, Inc., Robert Schlegel, and Pavestone Company, L.P., In the Matter of
The Commission issued an administrative complaint to challenge Oldcastle Architectural’s (a subsidiary of CRH) proposed $540 million acquisition of Pavestone Companies as anticompetitive in the US market for drycast concrete hardscape products sold to retailers such as The Home Depot, Lowe’s, and Wal-Mart Stores. According to the complaint, the acquisition would reduce competition by combining the only two companies capable of the national manufacture and sale of these heavy products, which include concrete pavers, segmented retaining wall blocks, and concrete patio products, due to the difficulty in distribution of such products, and the fact that both Oldcastle and Pavestone already possess large distribution networks. The acquisition as proposed would result in Oldcastle gaining a 90% market share for the manufacture and sale of these drycast products to home centers in the United States. The Commission also authorized staff to file a complaint in federal court seeking a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to prevent consummation of the proposed transaction, but the respondents decided not to proceed with the proposed merger and the Commission dismissed the administrative complaint.
Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V., Chicago Bridge & Iron Company, and Pitt-Des Moines, Inc., In the Matter of
In an administrative complaint issued on October 25, 2001, the Commission challenged the February 2001 purchase of the Water Division and Engineered Construction Division of Pitt-Des Moines, Inc. alleging that the consummated merger significantly reduced competition in four separate markets involving the design and construction of various types of field-erected specialty industrial storage tanks in the United States. On June 27, 2003, an administrative law judge upheld the complaint and ordered the divestiture all of the assets acquired in the acquisition. In December 2004, the Commission approved an interim consent order prohibiting Chicago Bridge & Iron from altering the assets acquired from Pitt-Des Moines, Inc. except “in the ordinary course of business.” These assets included but were not limited to real property; personal property; equipment; inventories; and intellectual property. On January 7, 2005 the Commission upheld in part the ruling of an administrative law judge that Chicago Bridge & Iron’s acquisition of the Water Division and the Engineered Construction Division of Pitt-Des Moines, Inc. created a near-monopoly in four separate markets involving the design and construction of various types of field-erected specialty industrial storage tanks in the United States. In an effort to restore competition as it existed prior to the merger, the Commission ordered Chicago Bridge to reorganize the relevant product business into two separate, stand-alone, viable entities capable of competing in the markets described in the complaint and to divest one of those entities within six months. On January 25, 2008 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld the Commission's order. In November 2008, the Commission approved divestiture of the assets to Matrix Service Company.