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.
Ramey Motors, Inc., In the Matter of
Hold Billing Services, Ltd.; Avery Communications, Inc.; Veterans of America Association, Ltd.; et al.
Cardinal Health, Inc, In the Matter of
The Commission required Cardinal Health, Inc. to reconstitute and sell nuclear pharmacies in Las Vegas, Nevada; Albuquerque, New Mexico, and El Paso, Texas under a settlement order resolving the agency’s charges that Cardinal’s purchase of nuclear pharmacies from Biotech reduced competition for low-energy radiopharmaceuticals in the three cities.
Carpenter Technology Corp. and Latrobe Specialty Metals, Inc.
The FTC required specialty metals manufacturer Carpenter Technology Corporation to sell assets involved in producing two metal alloys used in the aerospace industry, under a settlement resolving charges that Carpenter's proposed $410 million acquisition of Latrobe Specialty Metals, Inc. would harm competition in the U.S. markets for these alloys.The FTC's complaint alleges that the deal – a merger to monopoly – likely would lead to higher prices for consumers of the two alloys. The order requires Carpenter to divest assets necessary for manufacturing the two alloys – MP159 and Aerospace MP35N – to another metals manufacturer, Eramet S.A.
U.S. Homeowners Relief, Inc., et al.
Timeshare Mega Media and Marketing Group, Inc.
The Proposed Acquisition of Medco Health Solutions, Inc., by Express Scripts, Inc.
Asia Pacific Telecom, Inc. d/b/a Asia Pacific Networks, et al.
Dow Chemical Company, The
The Commission challenged Dow Chemical’s $18.8 billion proposed acquisition of Rohm & Haas Company as anticompetitive in the markets for various acrylics and other industrial chemicals used to make coated paper products, paints, and adhesives. According to the Commission’s complaint, the product markets in question include acrylic monomers, used in goods ranging from hygiene products to paints and industrial coatings, hollow sphere particles, used in paper products, and acrylic latex polymers, used in traffic paints. Given the high concentration in each of the product markets, the proposed acquisition would have represented a merger to monopoly. To remedy its anticompetitive concerns, the Commission required Dow to divest assets to Hager Pacific Acquisitions LLC.
Healthcare Technology Holdings, Inc., In the Matter of
The FTC reached a settlement with Healthcare Technology Holdings, Inc., the parent company of market research firm IMS Health Inc., according to which IMS has agreed to sell two product lines of rival SDI Health LLC, as a condition of allowing it to proceed with its acquisition of SDI. The proposed settlement order requires the sale of SDI's promotional audit and medical audit businesses to an FTC-approved buyer to resolve the agency's charges that IMS's acquisition of SDI, as originally proposed, is anticompetitive and likely would increase prices for market research products in the health care industry. On1/10/2012, the FTC approved a modified final order settling the charges.
Sigma Corporation, In the Matter of
The FTC filed separate complaints against the three largest U.S. suppliers of ductile iron pipe fittings, which are used in municipal water systems around the United States. The FTC charged that the three companies, McWane, Inc., Star Pipe Products, Ltd., and Sigma Corporation, illegally conspired to set and maintain prices for pipe fittings, and that McWane illegally maintained its monopoly power in the market for U.S.-made pipe fittings by implementing an exclusive dealing policy. Sigma settled the FTC's charges prior to litigation (final order dated Feb. 27, 2012); Star settled soon after (final order dated May 8, 2012). The complaint against McWane was heard before an administrative law judge and later appealed to the Commission; see Docket No. 9351.