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.
Bosley, Inc., Aderans America Holdings, Inc., and Aderans Co., Ltd.
On 4/8/2013, Bosley, Inc., the nation’s largest manager of medical/surgical hair restoration procedures, settled Federal Trade Commission charges that it illegally exchanged competitively sensitive, nonpublic information about its business practices with one of its competitors, HC (USA), Inc., commonly known as Hair Club, in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act. In settling the FTC’s charges, Bosley has agreed not to communicate such information in the future, and will institute an antitrust compliance program. The FTC alleged that for at least the past four years, Bosley exchanged competitively sensitive, nonpublic information about its business operations with Hair Club. The information exchanged by the companies’ CEOs included details about future product offerings, surgical hair transplantation price floors and discounts, plans for business expansion and contraction, and current business operations and performance.
Tesoro Corporation/BP p.l.c.
Práxedes E. Alvarez Santiago, M.D., et al. (“PR Nephrologists”), In the Matter of
Eight independent nephrologists in Puerto Rico settled Federal Trade Commission charges that they illegally collectively bargained with insurers and refused to treat health plan patients when their price demands were rebuffed. Under a proposed order settling the FTC’s charges, the doctors are barred from jointly negotiating prices, jointly refusing to deal with any insurer, and jointly refusing to treat patients. According to the FTC’s complaint, the eight doctors have violated federal antitrust laws since late 2011 by 1) collectively negotiating and fixing the prices upon which they would contract with Humana to extract higher reimbursement rates, and 2) collectively terminating their contracts with Humana and refusing to treat Humana patients enrolled in the Mi Salud program when Humana would not meet their price demands.
C.A.L.M. Ventures, Inc., In the Matter of
Hilcorp Alaska, LLC / Marathon Oil Co.
Google, Inc.
In the Matter of M. Catherine Higgins, an individual.
Higgins, M. Catherine, In the Matter of
The Commission settled charges that the executive director of a Colorado physicians’ association actively tried to evade the terms of a 2008 FTC order by telling insurers that because she was not named individually in the order, she could simply negotiate on behalf of competing physicians on the “outside” and “not with my [association] hat, but as an individual.” The Commission complaint and consent order settling the FTC’s charges name the executive director individually, and will prevent her from orchestrating or implementing price-fixing agreements among the group’s competing physicians.
CVS Caremark, FTC
CashPro, d/b/a MakePaydayToday.com., In the Matter of
Herbs Nutrition Corporation and Syed M. Jafry, In the Matter of
LensesByMail
Thermo Electron Corporation, In the Matter of
The consent order settled charges that Thermo Electron Corporation’s proposed $12.8 billion acquisition of Fisher Scientific International, Inc. would harm competition in the U.S. market for high-performance centrifugal vacuum evaporators (CVEs). Thermo and Fisher are the only two significant suppliers of high-performance CVEs in the United States and the proposed transaction would eliminate the direct price, service, and innovation competition that exists between them. To settle the Commission’s charges, Thermo is required to divest Fisher’s Genevac division, which includes Fisher’s entire CVE business, within five months of the date the consent agreement was signed.
Consumerinfo.com., Inc., d/b/a Experian Consumer Direct, Qspace, Inc., and Iplace Inc.
Nations Title Agency, Inc., Nations Holding Company, and Christopher M. Likens., In the Matter of
Nestle Holdings, Inc.; Dreyer's Grand Ice Cream Holdings, Inc.; and Dreyer's Grand Ice Cream, Inc.
The Commission authorized staff to seek a preliminary injunction to block the merger of Nestlé and Dreyer’s Grand Ice Cream, Inc. on grounds that the merger would reduce competition in the highly concentrated market for super-premium ice cream. Nestlé markets super-premium ice cream under the Häagen Dazs brand; Dreyer’s super-premium brands include Dreamery, Godiva and Starbucks. Before the complaint was filed in a federal district court, the parties agreed to enter into a consent agreement to settle the charges. The final order requires the divestiture of super-premium ice cream brands Dreamery and Godiva, the Whole Fruit sorbet brand, and Nestlé’s distribution assets to CoolBrands International, Inc.