Skip to main content

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. 

Refine your results

Filters
Search
Include spaces in matter number if applicable. Ex.: 182 3125
Date
Displaying 1341 - 1360 of 1626
Cases and Proceedings

RHI AG, in the Matter of

The complaint alleged that RHI violated various provisions of an FTC order issued in 2001. According to the complaint, the 2001 order was issued pursuant to a 1999 consent agreement with RHI that followed the FTC’s investigation of RHI’s acquisition of Global Industrial Technologies, Inc., and resolved concerns that the acquisition would decrease competition in North American markets for refractory bricks used to line steel-making equipment. The order, as drafted in 1999, required RHI to divest to Resco Products, Inc. two refractories plants and other assets in Canada and the United States in a manner set out in contracts between Resco and NARCO, an RHI subsidiary. However, before the order became final, the FTC determined, in 2000, that NARCO failed to divest all of the requisite assets to Resco. The complaint also charged that NARCO manufactured refractory bricks in violation of a patent license that was part of the order, and in violation of specific order language. Finally, the complaint asserted that NARCO modified the settlement agreement with Resco without FTC approval. Under the terms of the final judgment, RHI agreed to pay a civil penalty of at least $650,000 for the violations and to conduct asbestos remediation at a divested plant.
Type of Action
Administrative
Last Updated
FTC Matter/File Number
0210105
Docket Number
C-4005
Cases and Proceedings

Memorial Hermann Health Network Providers

… Memorial Hermann Health Network Providers Memorial Hermann Health Network Providers … price fixing practices increased costs for consumer, employers, and health plans. … Memorial Hermann Health Network …
Memorial Hermann Health Network Providers settled charges that it negotiated fees and other services for medical care provided by its member physicians in the Houston, Texas area in an effort to obtain higher fees and more advantageous terms. According to the complaint these alleged price fixing practices increased costs for consumer, employers, and health plans.
Type of Action
Administrative
Last Updated
FTC Matter/File Number
0310001
Cases and Proceedings
Adjudicative Proceedings

Schering-Plough Corporation, Upsher-Smith Laboratories, and American Home Products Corporation, In the Matter of

… Schering-Plough Corporation, Upsher-Smith Laboratories, and American Home Products Corporation, In the Matter of Schering-Plough Corporation, Upsher-Smith Laboratories, and American …

In the complaint dated March 30, 2001 the Commission alleged that Schering - Plough, the manufacturer of K-Dur 20 - a prescribed potassium chloride, used to treat patients with low blood potassium levels - entered into anticompetitive agreements with Upsher-Smith Laboratories and American Home Products Corporation to delay their generic versions of the K-Dur 20 drug from entering the market. According to the charges, Schering-Plough paid Upsher- Smith $60 million and paid American Home Products $15 million to keep the low-cost generic version of the drug off the market. The charges against American Home Products were settled by a consent agreement. An initial decision filed July 2, 2002 dismissed all charges against Schering - Plough and Upsher-Smith Laboratories. On December 8, 2003 the Commission reversed the administrative law judge’s initial decision and found that Schering-Plough Corporation entered into agreements with Upsher-Smith Laboratories, Inc. and American Home Products to delay the entry of generic versions of Schering’s branded K-Dur 20. According to the opinion, the parties settled patent litigation with terms that included unconditional payments by Schering in return for agreements to defer introduction of the generic products. The Commission entered an order that would bar similar conduct in the future. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit set aside and vacated the Commission decision finding that the agreements were immune from antitrust review if their anticompetitive effects were within the scope of the exclusionary potential of the patent. The Commission filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court in August 2005, which the Court denied.

Type of Action
Administrative
Last Updated
FTC Matter/File Number
9910256
Docket Number
9297
Displaying 1341 - 1360 of 1626
Return to top