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.
Mortgages Para Hispanos.com Corporation and Daniel Moises Goldberg
Boston Scientific Corporation and Guidant Corporation, In the Matter of
The consent order settles charges that the $27 billion acquisition of Guidant Corporation by Boston Scientific Corporation would harm competition and consumers in several significant medical device markets. Guidant Corporation by Boston Scientific Corporation are the largest market shareholders in several coronary medical device markets in the U.S., together accounting for 90% of the U.S. PTCA balloon catheter market and 85% of the U.S. coronary guidewire market.
Integrated Capital Inc., and Alan Wilson, Defendants, United States District Court, District of Nevad
Johnson & Johnson, In the Matter of
The consent order protects competition in three medical device product markets affected by Johnson & Johnson’s proposed $25.4 billion acquisition of Guidant Corporation. Under the terms of the order, J&J is required to 1) grant to a third party a 6 fully paid-up, non-exclusive, irrevocable license, enabling that third party to make and sell drug eluting stents with the Rapid Exchange delivery system, 2) divest to a third party J&J’s endoscopic vessel harvesting product line, and 3) end its agreement to distribute Novare Surgical System, Inc.’s proximal anastomotic assist device. On May 31st, 2006 the Commission granted a petition filed by Johnson and Johnson Corporation, requesting that the FTC reopen and set aside the entire decision and order concerning the proposed acquisition of Guidant Corporation.
Trustsoft, Inc. d/b/a Swanksoft and Spykiller, and Danilo Ladendorf, individually and as an officer of Trustsoft, Inc.
FiberThin, LLC, Obesity Research Institute, LLC, Henny Den Uijl, Bryan Corlett James Ayres, and Dr. Jonathan M. Kelley, Defendants
Enterprise Products Partners L.P., and Dan L. Duncan, In the Matter of
Sobonito Investments Ltd, Defendant
Lewis, Robert, James Sowder, Gerald Wear, and Joel R. Yoseph, individually., In the Matter of
Private attorneys in Clark County, Washington who provide criminal legal services for indigent defendants under a county contract settled charges that they illegally entered into an agreement known as the “Indigent Defense Bar Consortium Contract” to collectively demand higher fees for certain types of cases and refuse to accept specific additional cases unless the Clark County complied with their demands. The county was forced to substantially increase the reimbursement rate for each of the case categories specified in the Consortium Contract. According to the Commission, the conduct of the attorneys was identical to the boycott staged by criminal defense attorneys in Washington, DC which was ruled to be price fixing by the U.S. Supreme Court in the matter of Superior Court Trial Lawyers Association. Robert Lewis, James Sowder, Gerald Wear, and Joel R. Yoseph, the four attorneys who led the activities and served as the representatives of the 43 attorneys who signed the Consortium Contract, were named in the complaint and in the consent order.