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.
Elation Therapy, Inc. and Robert Rutledge., In the Matter of
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.
Verity International, Ltd., et al.,Defendants
Integrity Security & Investigation Services, Inc.
Nations Title Agency, Inc., Nations Holding Company, and Christopher M. Likens., In the Matter of
NBTY, Inc. (formerly known as Nature's Bounty, Inc.), U.S. (for the FTC)
Sacane, Scott R., U.S. (for the FTC)
The complaint alleged that Scott R. Sacane, a Connecticut hedge fund manager, failed to comply with notification and waiting period requirements before making acquisitions of two companies through an investment fund that he controlled. Sacane eventually held more than 50 percent of the voting securities of Aksys Ltd. and more than $100 million of voting securities of Esperion Therapeutics, Inc., without complying with the HSR Act. Under the terms of a consent decree filed simultaneously with the suit, Sacane agreed to pay a civil penalty of $350,000 to settle the charges.
Telephone Protection Agency, Inc., a North Carolina Corporation; et al.
Unicyber Technology, Inc., et al.
Applying Commission Policy To Determine On A Case-By-Case Basis Whether Particular Advertising Formats Such As Product Placements Are Deceptive
Genzyme Corporation and Ilex Oncology, Inc., In the Matter of
A consent order allowed Genzyme’s acquisition of ILEX Oncology, Inc., but requires the companies to divest certain assets in the market for solid organ transplant acute therapy drugs. Specifically, Genzyme is required to divest all contractual rights related to ILEX’s Campath®, an immunosuppressant antibody used in solid organ transplants to Schering AG.
Itron, Inc., and Schlumberger Electricity, Inc., In the Matter of
The consent order, designed to preserve competition in the market for the manufacture and sale of mobile radio frequency automatic meter reading technologies for electric utilities in the United States, permitted Itron's $255 million acquisition of Schlumberger Electricity, Inc. The consent order requires Itron to grant a royalty-free, perpetual, and irrevocable license to Hunt Technologies, Inc., creating an effective competitor in this market that allows utility companies and others to gather electric consumption data automatically and remotely from electricity meters.
Southeastern New Mexico Physicians IPA, Inc., a corporation, and Barbara Gomez and Lonnie Ray, individually
A Roswell, New Mexico physicians’ association, Southeastern New Mexico Physicians IPA, settled charges that it and two of its employees entered into collective agreements among physician members on fees and refused to deal with health plans that did not accept the collective agreed-upon terms. According to the complaint, these practices increased the price of health care in the Roswell area. The consent order prohibits the IPA and its employees named in the consent from orchestrating agreements between physicians to negotiate with health insurance plans on behalf of any physician and deal or refuse to deal individually with any third party payer.