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.
Banner Health / Sun Health, Inc.
Nine West Group Inc.
Nine West Group Inc. settled charges that it entered into agreements with retailers; coerced other retailers into fixing the retail prices for their shoes; and restricted periods when retailers could promote sales at reduced prices. The order, which lasts 20 years, prohibits Nine West from fixing the price at which dealers may advertise, promote or sell any product. Nine West is one of the country’s largest suppliers of women’s shoes. In 2008, Nine West petitioned to have the order modified in light of the 2007 Supreme Court decision, Leegin v. PSKS, Inc., which eliminated the per se rule for minimum resale pricing agreements. The Commission modified the order in part to allow Nine West to enter into resale price maintenance agreements that do not unreasonably restrict competition, and requiring Nine West to provide periodic reports of any RPM agreements with retailers.
Service Corporation International and Alderwoods Group, Inc., In the Matter of
The consent order settled charges that Service Corporation International’s (SCI) proposed acquisition of Alderwoods Group Inc. would likely lessen competition in 47 markets for funeral or cemetery services, leaving consumers with fewer choices and the prospect of higher prices or reduced levels of service. Under the settlement, SCI must sell funeral homes in 29 markets and cemeteries in 12 markets across the United States. In six other markets, SCI must sell certain funeral homes that it plans to acquire or end its licensing agreements with third-party funeral homes affiliated with SCI.
ATM Global Systems, Inc., et al.
Venkataraman, Srikanth, d/b/a Scorpio Systems, Ltd.
Oks, Oleg; 1530605 Ontario Inc., also d/b/a Pacific Liberty, et al.
Evanston Northwestern Healthcare Corporation and ENH Medical Group, Inc.
On February 10, 2004 the Commission issued an administrative complaint alleging that following Evanston Northwestern Healthcare Corporation's acquisition of Highland Park Hospital prices charged to health insurers for medical services increased and, therefore, higher costs for health insurance were passed on to consumers of hospital services in the Cook and Lake counties of Illinois. The complaint also alleged that a physicians group affiliated with both hospitals, Highland Park Independent Physician Group, negotiated prices for physicians on staff at Evanston as well as for several hundred independent physicians not affiliated with either hospital. According to the complaint, these actions constitute illegal price fixing among competing physicians or physician groups and deny consumers the benefits of competition in physician services. In an initial Decision, the Administrative law judge found that the acquisition resulted in higher prices and substantially lessened competition for acute care inpatient services in parts of Chicago’s northwestern suburbs. The ALJ entered an order that would require the divestiture of the acquired hospital. On appeal, the Commission ruled that the acquisition was anticompetitive, but concluded that in this “highly unusual case,” divestiture, the remedy imposed by the administrative law judge, would be too costly and potentially risky and instead imposed a conduct remedy. The Commission’s order requires Evanston to set up two separate and independent contract negotiation teams to bargain with managed care organizations to revive competition between Evanston’s two hospitals and the Highland Park hospital.
Debt-Set, Resolve Credit Counseling, Inc., et al.
Life is good, Inc. and Life is good Retail, Inc., In the Matter of
Lifestyle Vending, Inc., a New York corporation; Michael Eisenberg, individually and as an officer of the corporation; and Mary Ann McCulloh, individually and as an officer of the corporation, Defendants, United States of America (for the Federal Trade
Nationwide Connections, Inc., Access One Communications, Inc., Network One Services, Inc. et al.
Exquisite Caterers, LLC, et al., v. Popular Leasing USA, Inc., et al., and Doe Corps 1-40, Defendant
ValueClick, Inc., Hi-Speed Media, Inc., and E-Babylon, Inc., U.S. (for the FTC)
Multiple Listing Service, Inc., In the Matter of
Multiple Listing Service, Inc. (MLS), a group of real estate professionals based in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, settled charges that its rules unreasonably restrained competition among real estate brokers in Milwaukee. The complaint alleges that MLS acted anticompetitively by adopting rules and policies that limit the publication and marketing of certain sellers’ properties, but not others, based solely on the terms of their respective listing contracts. The Commission alleged that the rules were collusive and exclusionary and served to withhold valuable benefits of the MLS from brokers who did not use traditional listing contracts with their customers. Under the terms of the December 2007 consent, MLS is barred from adopting or enforcing any rule that treats one type of real estate listing agreement more advantageously than any other, and from interfering with the ability of its members to enter into any kind of lawful listing agreement with home sellers.