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.
Inadvertent Sharing Protection Working Group Voluntary Best Practices Compliance
Inadvertent Sharing Protection Working Group Voluntary Best Practices Compliance
Health Alliance IPA, Inc./Health Alliance PO, L.L.C.
Dallas Methodist Physicians Network
Vision Quest, LLC, and Brian K. Cavett, individually and as a member of Vision Quest, LLC, United States of America (for the Federal Trade Commission)
Transcontinental Warranty, Inc., and Christopher D. Cowart
Inadvertent Sharing Protection Working Group Voluntary Best Practices Compliance
GigaTribe Software Application (Version 2.52) Compliance With Voluntary Best Practices -- Created by the Distributed Computing Industry Association -- To Minimize the Inadvertent Sharing of Sensitive Files Over Peer-To-Peer Networks
Alta Bates Medical Group, Inc.
Alta Bates Medical Group, Inc., a 600-physician independent practice association serving the Berkeley and Oakland, California, area, settleed Commission charges that it violated federal antitrust law by fixing prices charged to health care insurers. The consent order prohibits Alta Bates from collectively negotiating fee-for-service reimbursements and engaging in related anticompetitive conduct. In addition to price-fixing of fee-for-service reimbursements, the FTC’s complaint alleges an unlawful concerted refusal to deal.
First Alliance Mortgage Company, First Alliance Corporation, First Alliance Mortgage Company
Clifton Telecard Alliance One LLC, et al.
Native Essence Herb Company; Mark J. Hershiser, individually, d/b/a Native Essence Herb Company, and as an officer of the corporation; and Marianne Hershiser, individually, d/b/a Native Essence, In the Matter of
Independent Physicians Associates Medical Group, Inc., d/b/a AllCare IPA, In the Matter of
The Commission challenged the conduct of AllCare IPA, alleging that AllCare restrained competition in fee-for-service contracts by fixing prices and other contract terms with payers, engaging in collective negotiations over the terms and conditions of dealing with payers, and preventing group members from negotiating with payers except on terms approved by All Care. The Commission issued a consent order prohibiting All Care from entering into agreements between or among physicians: 1) to negotiate on behalf of any physician with any payer; 2) to refuse to deal, or threaten to refuse to deal, with any payer; 3) to designate the terms, conditions, or requirements upon which any physician deals, or is willing to deal, with any payer, including, but not limited to price terms; 4) not to deal individually with any payer, or not to deal with any payer through any arrangement other than one involving All Care.
Mortgage Foreclosure Solutions, Inc., Debra Behrens, and Michael Siani
U.S. Safe Web Act Request from Australian Agencies for Telemarketing Investigative Assistance Omnibus Resolution
North Texas Specialty Physicians, In the Matter of
An administrative law judge upheld the administrative complaint that charged that the North Texas Specialty Physicians (NTSP), a physician group practicing in Forth Worth, Texas, collectively determined acceptable fees for physician services in negotiating contracts with health insurance plans and other third party payers; thus engaging in horizontal price fixing. On December 1, 2005, the Commission issued a unanimous decision upholding the allegations that NTSP negotiated agreements among participating physicians on price and other terms, refused to negotiate with payers except on terms agreed to among its members, and refused to submit payors offers to members if the terms did not satisfy the group’s demands. The Commission concluded that the group’s contracting activities with payors amounts to unlawful horizontal price fixing and that respondent’s efficiency claims were not legitimate and not supported by the evidence.
The respondent appealed the Commission decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The Court agreed with the Commission that the anticompetitive effects of NTSP’s practices were obvious. Per remand by the Court, the Commission modified one provision of its remedial order, issuing a Final Order in September 2008. On February 28, 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court denied NTSP's petition for review.