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.
Essilor International, S.A. / Shamir Optical Industry Ltd.
Statement of Commissioners Leibowitz, Kovacic, and Ramirez, In the Matter of Laboratory Corporation of America and Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings
Keystone Holdings, LLC and Compagnie St. Gobain, In the Matter of
The FTC preserved competition in the North American market for alumina wear tile by imposing conditions on Keystone Holdings, LLC and Compagnie de Saint-Gobain in a settlement involving Keystone’s planned acquisition of Saint-Gobain’s Advanced Ceramics Business. According to the FTC’s complaint, the deal as originally structured would have reduced competition in the relevant markets by eliminating direct competition between CoorsTek – the Keystone subsidiary that manufactures its tiles – and Saint-Gobain. In addition, the deal would increase CoorsTek’s market share substantially, eliminate CoorsTek’s most significant alumina wear tile competitor in North America, allow the combined company to raise prices for alumina wear tile, and increase the likelihood that the remaining firms could act together to raise prices for alumina wear tile.
Fidelity National Financial, Inc, In the Matter of (LandAmerica Financial)
To settle charges that its 2008 acquisition of three LandAmerica Financial, Inc. subsidiaries was anticompetitive, Fidelity National Financial, Inc. agree to sell several title plants and related assets in six geographic areas: 1) the Portland, Oregon, metropolitan area, consisting of Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington counties; 2) Benton County, Oregon; 3) Jackson County, Oregon; 4) Marion County, Oregon; 5) Linn County, Oregon; and 6) the Detroit, Michigan, metropolitan area consisting of Oakland, Macomb, and Wayne counties.
API Trade, LLC; ARA Auto Parts Trading LLC; Bend Transfer Services, LLC; B-Texas European, LLC; CBTC, LLC; CMG Global, LLC; Confident Inc.orporation; HDPL Trade LLC; Hometown Homebuyers, LLC; IAS Group LLC; IHC Trade LLC; MZ Services, LLC; New World
M Group, The, Inc., d/b/a Bamboosa, and Mindy Johnson, Michael Moore, and Morris Saintsing, In the Matter of
Universal Premium Services, Inc. (also known as Premier Benefits Inc.), et al.
Sami Designs, LLC, also d/b/a Jonäno, and Bonnie Siefers, individually and as owner of the limited liability company, In the Matter of
6554962 Canada Inc. also d/b/a Union Consumer Benefits and Naeem Alvi
Infinity Group Services, also d/b/a IGS et al., and Kahrami Zamani, individually and as an officer of Infinity Group Services
Scientific Games Corporation/Oberthur Gaming Technology Corporation
New Hanover Regional Medical Center/Cape Fear Memorial Hospital
Dinamica Financiera LLC
Virtual Family Kingdom
Integrity Marketing Team, Inc. d/b/a Home Business System, et al.
Kyphon, Inc., Disc-O-Tech Medical Technologies Ltd. et al., In the Matter of
The Commission challenged Kyphon Inc.’s $220 million proposed acquisition of the spinal assets of Disc-O-Tech Medical Technologies, Ltd. and Discotech Orthopedic Technologies (collectively Disc-O-Tech) as anticompetitive in the market for minimally invasive vertebral compression fracture treatment products in the U.S. Disc-O-Tech’s Confidence products promised real benefits to patients in treating these painful fractures in a minimally invasive way, and threatened Kyphon’s near-monopoly on treatment options. The Commission’s consent order required that Kyphon divest all assets, intellectual property and development rights related to the Confidence brand to an FTC-approved buyer
Centurion Financial Benefits, et al.
South Carolina State Board of Dentistry, In the Matter of
The Commission settled a September 15 2003 administrative complaint charging the South Carolina State Board of Dentistry with unlawfully restraining competition by enacting a rule that required a dentist to examine every child before a dental hygienist could provide preventive dental care – such as cleanings – in schools. The Board, which is a state regulatory agency composed primarily of practicing dentists, claimed that its actions were immune from antitrust challenge under the state action doctrine, but that argument was rejected in a 2004 Commission opinion holding that the Board’s conduct was directly contrary to state law. In 2006, the court of appeals dismissed the Board’s interlocutory petition for review for lack of jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court denied certiorari in January 2007. The FTC’s 2007 consent requires the Board to publicly support the current state public health program that allows hygienists to provide preventive dental care to schoolchildren, especially those from low-income families.