Legal Library: Cases and Proceedings

The FTC’s December 2016 complaint alleged that between 2011 and 2016 the defendants called timeshare property owners falsely claiming that they had a buyer or renter ready to buy or rent their properties for a specified price, or making false promises to sell the timeshares quickly. A May 2018 settlement order permanently banned the defendants from timeshare resale services and telemarketing and required them to surrender approximately $3.4 million worth of assets to the Commission. On October 10, 2019, the FTC mailed 8,088 refund checks totaling nearly $2.7 million to consumers defrauded by the scheme.

The operator of a job placement company that deceived consumers with false promises of access to high-paying finance jobs and resume repair services for non-existent jobs will be permanently banned from providing employment services under the terms of a settlement with the Federal Trade Commission.

The Federal Trade Commission filed a complaint against medical testing laboratory LabMD, Inc. alleging that the company failed to reasonably protect the security of consumers’ personal data, including medical information.

In February 2017, the FTC and the Maine AG’s office announced a complaint and three settlements with dietary supplement marketers who allegedly used radio infomercials deceptively formatted as talk shows and print ads featuring fictitious endorsers to advertise supplements purporting to improve memory and to reduce back and joint pain. The settlement orders resolving charges against the named in the complaint bar them from making similar deceptive claims, and prohibit them from engaging in a wide range of marketing practices that have caused serious financial injury to consumers. In April 2015, the FTC sent refunds to consumers who bought one of the company deceptively marketed supplements, CogniPrin. In August 2019, the FTC send refunds to consumers who bought FlexiPrin, another supplement the company sold.

In October 2016, a federal judge granted the FTC’s request for a preliminary injunction against two people and their companies for allegedly tricking small commercial trucking businesses into paying them for federal and state motor carrier registrations by impersonating government transportation agencies, such as the U.S. Department of Transportation. The FTC alleged DOTAuthority.com Inc., DOTFilings.com Inc., Excelsior Enterprises International Inc. and JPL Enterprises International Inc. violated the FTC Act and the Restore Online Shoppers Confidence Act. Under a 2018 settlement order, the DOT Authority defendants are banned from misrepresenting affiliation with any government entity and from using consumers’ billing information to obtain payments without consumers’ express consent. They must also adequately disclose that they are a private third-party service provider and any fees associated with their services. The order imposes a $900,000 judgment to provide refunds to defrauded consumers. In October 2018, the FTC sent $90,000 back to defrauded consumers. In August 2019, the FTC sent an additional $757,946 back to defrauded consumers.

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.

The FTC filed a lawsuit in federal court to stop a dietary supplement marketer from making misleading claims that its product can help treat and even cure people who are addicted to opiates, including prescription pain medications and illegal drugs such as heroin.

The defendants in an alleged work-from-home business opportunity scam are banned from selling any business coaching service or business opportunity under a settlement with the Federal Trade Commission.

The FTC is mailing 227,995 checks totaling more than $6 million to consumers who purchased health products from three individuals and the 19 companies they controlled—collectively known as Tarr, Inc. Affected consumers will receive their refund checks, which average $26.57, soon.

The FTC filed a complaint in federal district court charging Shire ViroPharma Inc. with violating the antitrust laws by abusing government processes to delay generic competition to its branded prescription drug, Vancocin HCl Capsules. The complaint alleges that to maintain its monopoly, ViroPharma waged a campaign of serial, repetitive, and unsupported filings with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and courts to delay the FDA’s approval of generic Vancocin Capsules, and exclude competition. According to the FTC, ViroPharma submitted 43 filings with the FDA and filed three lawsuits against the FDA between 2006 and 2012. According to the FTC, ViroPharma knew that it was the FDA’s practice to refrain from approving any generic applications until it resolved any pending relevant citizen petition filings. Viropharma intended for its serial filings to delay the approval of generics, and thus competition and lower prices. The FTC seeks a court order permanently prohibiting ViroPharma from submitting repetitive and baseless filings with the FDA and the courts, and from similar and related conduct as well as any other necessary equitable relief, including restitution and disgorgement.

Emerson Electric Co. agreed to sell the switchbox business of Pentair plc to Stamford, Conn.-based Crane Co. in order to settle charges that Emerson’s proposed $3.15 billion acquisition of Pentair would violate federal antitrust law. Emerson and Pentair are manufacturers of industrial valves and control products, including switchboxes, which are widely used in the oil and gas, chemical, petrochemical, power, and other industries. Switchboxes perform a critical safety function, so brand reputation and product reliability are very important to customers. Emerson’s TopWorx and Pentair’s Westlock switchboxes are the most widely-used brands nationwide and, for many customers, the only acceptable brands of switchboxes. Under the FTC order, Emerson must divest Westlock Controls Corporation, the Pentair subsidiary that designs, manufactures, and sells switchboxes, to Crane Co. The order requires Emerson to provide Crane all of Westlock’s production facilities, intellectual property, confidential business information, and the opportunity to hire Westlock employees.

iSpring Water Systems, LLC, a Georgia-based distributor of water filtration systems, agreed to stop making misleading unqualified claims that its products are made in the United States, under a settlement with the Federal Trade Commission. In its complaint against the company, the FTC alleged that it deceived consumers with false, misleading, or unsupported claims that its water filtration systems and parts are made in the USA. The order prohibits iSpring from making unqualified “Made in USA” claims for any product unless it can show that the product’s final assembly or processing – and all significant processing – take place in the United States, and that all or virtually all ingredients or components of the product are made and sourced in the United States. iSpring also is prohibited from making any country-of-origin representation about its products unless it possesses and relies upon a reasonable basis for that representation. On April 18, 2017, the Commission announced that the proposed order had been made final.

Entrepreneur Mitchell P. Rales agreed to pay $720,000 in civil penalties to resolve charges that he violated the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act by failing to report his purchases of shares in two industrial companies, Colfax Corporation and Danaher Corporation.  The FTC alleged that Rales violated the HSR Act by failing to file as required when his wife purchased shares in Colfax in 2011. The shares, which are attributed to Rales under the applicable HSR Rules, were above the filing threshold. According to the complaint, Rales was in violation of the HSR Act from 2011, when the shares were purchased, to 2016, when he made a corrective filing and observed the waiting period. The complaint also alleged that in 2008, Rales violated the HSR Act by buying shares of Danaher that exceeded the filing threshold and failing to file. Rales was in violation of the HSR Act between 2008, when he bought the shares, and 2016, when he made a corrective filing and observed the waiting period. Although Rales contended that the violations were inadvertent, the Commission determined to seek penalties because, as noted in the complaint, Rales had paid civil penalties to settle an earlier HSR enforcement action brought by the Department of Justice in 1991.

OFTACOOP, a Puerto Rico ophthalmologist cooperative, has agreed to settle FTC charges that its actions harmed competition.  The complaint charges that  OFTACOOP – also known as Cooperativa de Médico Oftalmólogos de Puerto Rico –  unlawfully orchestrated an agreement among competing ophthalmologists to refuse to deal with a health plan, MCS Advantage, Inc., and its network administrator, Eye Management of Puerto Rico, LLC.  OFTACOOP’s concerted refusal to deal forced MCS to abandon its plan to engage Eye Management to create a lower-cost network of ophthalmologists. MCS was also forced to maintain its then-current reimbursement rates paid to ophthalmologists. According to the complaint, OFTACOOP restrained competition without any justification, in violation of federal antitrust law.  The proposed consent order prohibits OFTACOOP from entering into or facilitating agreements between or among ophthalmologists (1) to refuse to deal, or threaten to refuse to deal, with any payor regarding any term, including price terms, or (2) not to deal individually with any payor, or not to deal with any payor other than through OFTACOOP. The order also prohibits information exchanges to facilitate any prohibited conduct, and it bars any attempts to engage in any prohibited conduct. OFTACOOP is also barred from encouraging, suggesting, advising, pressuring, inducing, or trying to induce anyone to engage in any prohibited conduct.