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.
Colegio de Optometras, Edgar Davila Garcia, O.D., and Carlos Rivera Alonso, O.D., In the Matter of
The Commission charged a group of optometrists in Puerto Rico with violating the FTC Act by orchestrating agreements among members of the Colegio de Optometras to refuse, or threaten to refuse, to accept vision and health care contracts except on collectively agreed-upon terms. Two leaders of the group were also charged with facilitating the agreement by urging members not to participate in the vision network. The Commission’s consent order settling these charges bars the group and the two leaders from engaging in such conduct, while allowing them to undertake certain kinds of joint contracting arrangements by which physician participants control costs and improve quality by managing the provision of services. FTC staff worked with the Office of Monopolistic Affairs of Puerto Rico’s Department of Justice on this case.
King Roach Enterprises, Inc.
American Petroleum Company, Inc.
The Commission charged that a motor oil lubricant importer illegally conspired with its competitors to restrict the importation and sale of these products in Puerto Rico, which resulted in higher prices paid by consumers. According to the FTC’s complaint, during 2005 and 2006, American Petroleum joined with numerous others in the Puerto Rico lubricants industry to lobby for the delay, modification, or repeal of Puerto Rico Law 278, which imposes an environmental recovery fee of 50 cents per quart. With the effective date of the law approaching, the importers adopted a strategy of refusing to import lubricants as a means of forcing a change. The consent order settling the charges bars American Petroleum from conspiring with its competitors to restrict output, refuse to deal, or boycott any lubricant buyer or potential buyer.
Sprint Nextel Corporation.
Roche Holding Ltd./Genentech, Inc.'s Proposed Acquisition of Tanox Inc.
Resolution Directing Use of Compulsory Process to Collect Information for Use in Preparing a Report to Congress Regarding the Marketing of Food and Beverages to Children and Adolescents
Koninklijke Ahold N.V. and Bruno's Supermarkets, Inc., In the Matter of
Ahold would be permitted to acquire Bruno's Supermarkets, Inc. under terms of a consent order, but would be required to divest two BI-LO supermarkets in Georgia -one Milledgeville, and one in Sandersville. The Commission's complaint charged that the acquisition as originally proposed would reduce competition in the retail sale of food and grocery items in supermarkets in the area and would eliminate direct competition between supermarkets owned and controlled by Ahold and those owned or controlled by Bruno's.
“Developing A Plan for Action in the Fight Against Malicious Spam”
Premiere Radio Networks, Inc.
Solaia Technology LLC.
Dollar Tree Stores, Inc.
Insight Pharmaceuticals Corporation/Sucrets Defense
Prestige Brands, Inc./Chloraseptic Defense Daily Health Strips
Bebo, Inc.
Actavis Group hf. and Abrika Pharmaceuticals, Inc., In the Matter of
Netfran Development Corp. d/b/a Netspace, et al.
Lockheed Martin Corporation, The Boeing Company, and United Launch Alliance, LLC., In the Matter of
The Commission intervened in the formation of United Launch Alliance (ULA), a proposed joint venture between the Boeing Corp. and Lockheed Martin Corp. The FTC’s complaint alleged that the formation of ULA as originally structured would have reduced competition in the markets for U.S. government medium to heavy launch services and space vehicles. In settling the Commissions’ charges, the parties agreed to take certain actions (such as nondiscrimination requirements and firewalls) to address ancillary competitive harms not inextricably tied to the national security benefits of ULA.