Legal Library: Cases and Proceedings

In September 2016, nutritional supplement marketer NutraClick agreed to settle FTC charges that it lured consumers with “free” samples of supplements and beauty products and then violated the law by charging them a recurring monthly fee without their consent. Four years later, in September 2020, the FTC filed a complaint alleging the company and its two principals were continuing to deceptively market their products, in violation of the FTC order. The settlement order, announced simultaneously with the complaint, bans the defendants from negative option marketing and requires them to pay more than $1 million for consumer redress. 

Reckitt Benckiser Group plc has agreed to pay $50 million to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that it violated the antitrust laws through a deceptive scheme to thwart lower-priced generic competition to its branded drug Suboxone. According to the complaint, before the generic versions of Suboxone tablets became available, Reckitt and its former subsidiary Reckitt Benckiser Pharmaceuticals, now known as Indivior, Inc., developed a dissolvable oral film version of Suboxone and worked to shift prescriptions to this patent-protected film. Worried that doctors and patients would not want to switch to Suboxone Film, Reckitt allegedly employed a “product hopping” scheme where the company misrepresented that the film version of Suboxone was safer than Suboxone tablets because children are less likely to be accidentally exposed to the film product. Invidior has agreed to pay an additional $10 million to settle FTC charges.

In May 2020, the Commission accepted for public comment a proposed consent agreement to resolve allegations that Miniclip S.A. violated Section 5 of the FTC Act by misrepresenting its status in a Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (“COPPA”) safe harbor program.

In June 2018, the final two defendants among a group of California-based marketers were permanently barred from the deceptive marketing and billing tactics used in connection with selling skincare products offered to consumers with supposedly “risk-free” trials. The court order settled the charges against them, which the FTC announced in mid-2015. In all, 32 defendants who sold AuraVie, Dellure, LéOR Skincare, and Miracle Face Kit branded skincare products agreed to court orders with the FTC or had default orders entered against them. In November 2019, the FTC announced it was returning over $1.8 million to consumers who bought the deceptively marketed products.

The Federal Trade Commission sued Lights of America Inc. and related defendants for violating federal law by misrepresenting the light output and life expectancy of their LED bulbs, and falsely comparing the brightness of their LED bulbs with that of other light bulbs. A federal court ordered the defendants to pay $21 million to the FTC to provide refunds and banned the defendants from misrepresenting material facts about lighting products. Millions of people bought these LED bulbs at Costco, Sam’s Club, Walmart, hardware stores, grocery stores, and on Amazon.com. The FTC has already returned more than $12 million to people who bought these light bulbs. The claims process is still open.

The FTC today announced its first case challenging a marketer’s use of fake paid reviews on an independent retail website. In settling the agency’s complaint, Cure Encapsulations, Inc. and its owner, Naftula Jacobowitz, resolved allegations that they made false and unsubstantiated claims for their garcinia cambogia weight-loss supplement and that they paid a third-party website to write and post fake reviews on Amazon.com.

Thomas Wells and his payment processing company, Priority Payout Corp. (formerly known as InterBill, Ltd), have agreed to settle FTC charges that they repeatedly violated a 2009 court order issued against them. The settlement permanently bans Wells and Priority Payout Corp, from engaging in, and assisting others with, payment processing, and includes a $1.8 million contempt judgment against them.

The FTC's complaint alleges that Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. and several other drug companies violated antitrust laws by using pay-for-delay settlements to block consumers’ access to lower-cost generic versions of Lidoderm.  The agreement not to market an authorized generic – often called a “no-AG commitment” – is the form of reverse payment.  The FTC’s complaint alleges that Endo paid the first generic companies that filed for FDA approval – Watson Laboratories, Inc. – to eliminate the risk of competition for Lidoderm, in violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act.  Lidoderm is a topical patch used to relieve pain associated with post-herpetic neuralgia, a complication of shingles.  Under federal law, the first generic applicant to challenge a branded pharmaceutical’s patent, referred to as the first filer, may be entitled to 180 days of exclusivity as against any other generic applicant upon final FDA approval. But a branded drug manufacturer is permitted to market an authorized generic version of its own brand product at any time, including during the 180 days after the first generic competitor enters the market. According to the FTC, a no-AG commitment can be extremely valuable to the first-filer generic, because it ensures that this company will capture all generic sales and be able to charge higher prices during the exclusivity period.  The FTC is seeking a court judgment declaring that the defendants’ conduct violates the antitrust laws, ordering the companies to disgorge their ill-gotten gains, and permanently barring them from engaging in similar anticompetitive behavior in the future.

Endo agreed to settle the charges in a proposed stipulated order to be entered by the court.

In June 2018, the operators of a Los Angeles-based student loan debt relief scam agreed to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that they falsely claimed to be affiliated with the Department of Education, charged consumers illegal upfront fees, and collected monthly fees they claimed would be credited toward consumers’ student loans. In February 2021, the FTC sent refunds totaling to people who lost money as a result of the scam.

Red Ventures and Bankrate agreed to divest Bankrate’s Caring.com business unit to settle FTC charges that their $1.4 billion merger would likely harm competition in the market for third-party paid referral service for senior living facilities. According to a complaint filed by the FTC, Red Ventures and Bankrate supply proprietary internet content and customer leads for a variety of industries. Caring.com is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bankrate, while two of Red Ventures’ largest shareholders jointly own A Place for Mom.com, the largest provider of such services. According to FTC’s complaint, Caring.com and A Place for Mom.com are each other’s closest competitors, competing for national and local business. The complaint alleges that the two Red Venture shareholders have the collective ability to significantly influence management of Red Venture and Caring.com. Thus, if consummated, the transaction may increase the chance for Red Ventures to unilaterally exercise market power and the potential for coordinated interaction between Caring.com and A Place for Mom. Under the terms of the proposed settlement, the parties will divest Caring.com no later than six months after the acquisition and provide transition services to an FTC-approved buyer.

Three Utah-based firms and their owner, which a federal court jury in 2016 found deceptively and illegally called more than 117 million consumers pitching their movies, have agreed to a proposed court order settling the FTC’s charges against them. The DOJ (DOJ) secured the defendants’ agreement to the proposed order imposing civil penalties and prohibiting telemarketing abuses, and filed it with the court on the behalf of the FTC.

The FTC issued an administrative complaint and authorized staff to file a preliminary injunction to block Penn State Hershey Medical Center's proposed merger with PinnacleHealth System. The complaint alleged that combining the two health care providers would substantially reduce competition for general acute care inpatient hospital services sold to commercial health plans iin four south-central Pennsylvania counties, leading to reduced quality and higher prices for employers and residents. 

The National Association of Animal Breeders (NAAB) agreed to remove provisions in its Code of Ethics that the FTC charged limit competition among its members. The consent order settling the FTC’s allegations requires NAAB to end certain advertising restrictions, remove references to the restrictions from its website and official documents, publish and distribute an announcement regarding the consent agreement and the resulting changes to the Code of Ethics, and implement an antitrust compliance program.

An association representing electricians agreed to eliminate provisions in its bylaws that the FTC charged limit competition among each association’s members. The FTC alleged that the purpose and effect of the association's bylaws has been to restrain competition by discouraging and restricting competition among PLASMA members. The consent order settling the FTC’s charges requires PLASMA to revise its bylaws, publicize its settlement with the FTC, and implement an antitrust compliance program.