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.
VISX, Inc.orporated
On June 4, 1999 an administrative law judge dismissed charges against VISX, a key developer of laser eye surgery equipment and technology, known as photorefractive keratectomy (PRK). According to the 1998 administrative complaint., VISX and Summit Technology, the only two firms legally able to market equipment for PRK, placed their competing patents in a patent pool and shared the proceeds each and every time a Summit or VISX laser was used. The administrative law judge also dismissed charges that VISX acquired a key patent by inequitable conduct and fraud on the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, ruling that complaint counsel failed to present evidence that an act of fraud was committed since information was not willfully withheld from the patent office. A final order settled the price fixing allegations in the 1998 complaint. On February 7, 2001, the Commission dismissed its complaint after the U.S. patent and Trademark Office issued a Reexamination Certificate of U.S. Patent No. 5,108,388.
FTC v. Global Network Enterprises, Inc., Republic Enterprises, Inc., Cecilia M. Castillo, and Ian Anthony Suite
El Paso Energy Corporation and PG&E Corporation
Glaxo Wellcome plc, and SmithKline Beecham plc, In the Matter of
Under terms of a final consent order settling charges stemming from the merger of SmithKline and Glaxo Wellcome plc, the parties agreed to divest pharmaceutical products in six markets: antiemetics; the antibiotic, ceftazidime; oral and intravenous antiviral drugs for the treatment of herpes; topical antiviral drugs for the treatment of genital herpes; and over-the-counter H-2 blocker acid relief products.
Swedish Match North America Inc., and National Tobacco Company, L.P
The Commission authorized staff to seek a preliminary injunction to block the proposed acquisition of National Tobacco Company, L.P. on grounds that the $165 million acquisition would lessen competition in the market for loose leaf chewing tobacco and that Swedish Match’s market share would increase to 60 percent. On December 14, 2000, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued a 42-page opinion granting the Commission’s motion for the injunction. On December 22, 2000, the parties abandoned the transaction.
Novartis AG, AStraZeneca, PLC, and Syngenta AG, In the Matter of
The consent order permits the merger of Novartis and AstraZeneca PLC into a new Swiss company, Syngenta AG. The order requires Novartis to divest its worldwide foliar fungicide business (based on the strobilurin chemical class) to Bayer Ag; and requires AstraZeneca to divest its worldwide com herbicide business (based on the active ingredient acetochlor) to Dow AgroSciences LLC.
Mylan Laboratories, Inc., Cambrex Corporation, Profarmaco S.R.I., and Gyma Laboratories of America, Inc.
Complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia charged Mylan with restraint of trade, monopolization and conspiracy to monopolize the market for two generic drugs used to treat anxiety, lorazepam and clorazepate, through exclusive dealing arrangements. The Commission alleged that Mylan, Gyma Laboratories of America, Inc., Cambrex Corporation and Profarmaco S.R.L. conspired to deny Mylan’s competitors ingredients necessary to manufacture lorazepam and 40 clorazepate. The complaint sought consumer redress of at least $120 million and to enjoin the alleged illegal exclusive licensing agreements. The district court upheld the Commission’s authority to seek restitution in antitrust injunction actions under Section 13(b). The Commission approved a $100 million settlement. The opinion settled Commission concerns that Mylan, Gyma Laboratories of America, Inc., Cambrex Corporation and Profarmaco S.R.L. conspired to deny Mylan’s competitors ingredients necessary to manufacture lorazepam and 40 clorazepate. On February 1, 2002, the court granted approval to a plan of distribution to injured consumers who paid the increased prices and state agencies, including Medicaid programs, that purchased the drugs while the illegal agreements were in effect. The funds were distributed by the states.