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.
Toys Unlimited International, Inc., et al., U.S.
Leon Saja, Donald Ritta, and Southwest Publishing
Fastline Publications, Inc., and Mid-America Equipment Retailers Association
The FTC charged that Fastline Publications, Inc., a Kentucky publisher, and Mid-America Equipment Retailers Association, an Indiana trade association representing farm equipment dealers harmed competition when the publisher entered into agreements with the dealers to ban price advertising for new equipment in an attempt not to disclose those dealers who offered discounted prices. According to the FTC, the agreements reduced competition among farm equipment dealers and deprived consumers of truthful and nondeceptive price information. The agreement to settle the charges prohibited Fastline and Mid-America from restricting the advertising of prices for farm equipment in the future.
Saffer, Michael A., and Daniel L. Coutinho
McKesson Corp. and AmeriSource Health Corp
The Commission authorized staff to file separate motions in federal district court to block the mergers of the nation's four largest drug wholesalers into two wholesale distributors of pharmaceutical products. The Commission charged that Cardinal 's proposed acquisition of Bergen Brunswig Corporation and McKesson Corporation's proposed acquisition of AmeriSource Health Corp. would substantially reduce competition in the market for prescription drug wholesaling and lead to higher prices and a reduction in services to the companies' customers --hospitals, nursing homes and drugstores --and eventually to consumers. Two separate motions for preliminary injunctions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia March 6, 1998. On July 31, 1998, the District Court granted the Commission's motions enjoining both proposed mergers. The parties abandoned their respective merger plans soon after the decision.
Frattaroli, Jr., Henry J.; d/b/a Credit Repair Network., FTC and Massachusetts
Phillips Hall, Inc., d/b/a Allied Credit Services, Inc. et al., FTC and Massachusetts
Second Federal Credit, Inc., and Frank Demaio., FTC and Massachusetts
Caluori, Raymend J., d/b/a New England Financial., FTC and Massachusetts
Statement
Lundgren & Associates, P.C., and Alvin R. Lundgren., U.S.
PacifiCorp, In the Matter of
The Commission withdrew a proposed consent agreement that settled allegations that PacifiCorp's proposed acquisition of The Energy Group PLC would lead to increases in wholesale and retail electricity prices in the United States. During the comment period PacificCorp withdrew its bid after the Texas Utilities Company announced a competing tender offer for The Energy Group.
Degussa Aktiengesellschaft, and Degussa Corporation
Degussa agreed to restructure a proposed transaction to acquire only one hydrogen peroxide production plant from E. I. Dupont de Numbers & Co., to obtain prior Commission approval before acquiring certain other Dupont production plants and to notify the Commission of its attempts to acquire hydrogen peroxide facilities in specific areas. Originally, Degussa had planned to acquire all of Dupont's hydrogen peroxide facilities in North America.
Image Sales and Michael Dague
Stone Container Corporation
The FTC charged that Stone Container Corporation, the world's leading manufacturer of linerboard, violated the antitrust laws by attempting to orchestrate an industry-wide price increase. According to the FTC, in both private conversations and public statements the executives of Stone Container signaled their intention to take mill downtime and reduce industry-wide inventories and their belief that doing so would build support for a price increase. According to the FTC complaint, the actions and statements constituted an invitation by Stone to its competitors to join a coordinated price increase. If accepted, the invitation would result in higher prices, reduced output and consumer injury, the complaint alleges.The FTC alleged that, following a failed attempt to increase the price it charged for linerboard in 1993, Stone Container temporarily shut down production at its own mills and bought up competitors' excess inventory as part of an intentional effort to build industry support for a price increase. The agreement to settle the FTC charges bars Stone Container from urging any competitor to raise or fix the price charged for linerboard.