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.
Johnson & Johnson / Synthes, Inc.
The FTC required Johnson & Johnson (J&J) to sell its system for surgically treating serious wrist fractures, resolving charges that J&J's proposed $21.3 billion acquisition of Synthes, Inc. would illegally reduce competition for these systems. J&J intends to sell its system, known as DVR, along with the rest of its product line for treating traumatic injuries, to Biomet, Inc. According to the FTC's complaint, J&J's proposed acquisition of Synthes would harm competition in the U.S. market for volar distal radius plating systems, internal devices that are surgically implanted on the underside of the wrist to achieve proper alignment of the radius bone following a fracture.
Andrew Torregrossa & Sons, Inc., Andrew L. Torregrossa, and John L. Torregrossa, U.S.
Perrigo Company and Paddock Laboratories, Inc., In the Matter of
On 7/26/2011, the Commission required generic drug manufacturers Perrigo Company and Paddock Laboratories, Inc. to sell six generic drugs under a proposed settlement resolving charges that Perrigo’s proposed $540 million acquisition of Paddock would be anticompetitive. The proposed settlement also contains provisions to ensure future competition in the market for generic testosterone gel product. On 6/26/2012, the FTC issued a modified final order that required the companies to sell six generic drugs to Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
AmeriGas Propane, L.P.; AmeriGas Propane, Inc.
The FTC required AmeriGas L.P. and Energy Transfer Partners L.P. (ETP), two of the nation's largest propane distributors, to amend AmeriGas's proposed acquisition of ETP's Heritage Propane business as part of a settlement with the FTC. The settlement resolves FTC charges that the deal, as originally proposed, would have reduced competition and raised prices in the market for propane exchange cylinders that consumers use to fuel barbeque grills and patio heaters. The FTC's settlement requires AmeriGas to exclude ETP's cylinder exchange business, Heritage Propane Express, from the sale.
Temple-Inland Inc. and Scientific Certifications Systems, Inc.
JGRD, Inc., also d/b/a Voiceblaze.com and VoiceBlaze, et al.
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (Sanofi), In the Matter of
On 12/12/2011, the FTC approved orders requiring Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. to divest three drugs used to treat different skin ailments, as conditions of acquiring Ortho Dermatologics, Inc. from Johnson & Johnson, and Dermik Laboratories, Inc. from Sanofi. Under the settlements, Valeant will sell the manufacturing and marketing rights to drug products that treat acne and actinic keratosis, a pre-cancerous skin lesion, to Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. Valeant also will sell the marketing rights to a drug that treats fine line wrinkles to Spear Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Both settlements preserve competition and prevent higher prices that likely would have resulted from the acquisitions. (also see 1110216).
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (Johnson & Johnson), In the Matter of
On 12/12/2011, the FTC approved orders requiring Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. to divest three drugs used to treat different skin ailments, as conditions of acquiring Ortho Dermatologics, Inc. from Johnson & Johnson, and Dermik Laboratories, Inc. from Sanofi. Under the settlements, Valeant will sell the manufacturing and marketing rights to drug products that treat acne and actinic keratosis, a pre-cancerous skin lesion, to Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. Valeant also will sell the marketing rights to a drug that treats fine line wrinkles to Spear Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Both settlements preserve competition and prevent higher prices that likely would have resulted from the acquisitions. (also see 1110215).
Acquisition by HCA, Inc. of Cardiology Practices in the Austin, Texas Area
BuyExclusive.Net (Gene Kim), U.S.
DaVita Inc.
The Commission required dialysis services company DaVita, Inc. to sell 29 outpatient dialysis clinics around the United States, under a settlement that resolves FTC charges that DaVita’s proposed $689 million acquisition of rival CDSI I Holding Company, Inc., also known as DSI, would be anticompetitive. The settlement preserves competition in 22 geographic markets where the FTC alleges that consumers would be harmed by DaVita’s acquisition of DSI. The settlement requires DaVita to sell the clinics to Dialysis Newco, Inc., a corporation formed by venture capital firms Frazier Healthcare and New Enterprise Associates.
Hikma Pharmaceuticals PLC, In the Matter of (Baxter)
The Commission required Hikma Pharmaceuticals PLC (Hikma) to divest two generic injectable pharmaceuticals – phenytoin and promethazine – as part of a settlement allowing it to acquire certain assets from Baxter Healthcare Corporation, Inc. (Baxter). Hikma proposes to acquire Baxter’s entire generic injectable pharmaceutical business for $111.5 million, including Baxter’s Cherry Hill, New Jersey, manufacturing facility and a warehouse and distribution center in Memphis, Tennessee. Phenytoin is an anti-convulsant drug used to control and prevent seizures during or after surgery and Promethazine is used to prevent some types of allergies or allergic reactions, to prevent or control motion sickness, nausea, vomiting, and dizziness, and to help patients go to sleep and control their pain or anxiety before or after surgery.
Bezeredi, John R. S., d/b/a Dominion Investments, Eurobond Fidelity Ltd., and Imperial Investments
Aloha Petroleum, LLC/Shell Oil Company
Intel Corporation, In the Matter of
The Commission filed an administrative complaint against Intel Corp., the world’s leading computer chip maker, charging that the company had illegally used its dominant market position for a decade to stifle competition and strengthen its monopoly. The complaint alleged that Intel engaged in a course of conduct to shut out rivals’ competing microchips by cutting off their access to the marketplace. In particular, the complaint alleged that Intel unlawfully maintained its monopoly in relevant central processing unit, or CPU, markets, and sought to acquire a second monopoly in the relevant graphics markets, using a variety of unfair methods of competition. In August of 2010, Intel agreed to a settlement containing provisions that would undo the effects of Intel's past conduct, and prohibiting Intel from suppressing competition in the future.
El Paso Energy Corporation and The Coastal Corporation
The FTC allowed the $16 billion merger of El Paso Energy Corporation and the Coastal Corporation after requiring the companies to divest their interests in 11 natural gas pipeline systems totaling more than 2,500 miles of pipe. The agreement provides for the divestiture of the proposed Gulfstream pipeline in Florida to a new purchaser - restoring competition to pre-merger levels and assuring future competition for natural gas transportation into the state. The agreement also provides for divestiture of El Paso and Coastal interests in existing natural gas pipelines serving customers in New York State and the Midwest. In addition, it would restore competition in the Gulf of Mexico by requiring the divestiture of seven pipelines and establishing a development fund for the purchaser of El Paso's Green Canyon and Tarpon pipelines to cover the costs of extending these pipelines to specified areas in the Gulf where El Paso and Coastal pipelines are significant competitors. Under the FTC’s Order, El Paso Energy divested certain pipelines in the Gulf of Mexico to Williams Field Services and established a $40 million development fund for Williams to use to build a pipeline or related facility. The Commission later modified its order to remove the requirement that El Paso maintain the development fund.
Nufarm Limited, In the Matter of
Australian chemical company Nufarm Limited agreed to sell certain assets and modify some of its business agreements to settle charges that its 2008 acquisition of rival A.H. Marks Holding Limited hurt competition in the U.S. market for three herbicides that are relied upon by farmers, landscapers, and consumers. Under the settlement, Nufarm will sell rights and assets associated with two of the herbicides to competitors and will modify agreements with two other companies to allow them to fully compete in the market for the other herbicide. Nufarm’s acquisition of United Kingdom-based A.H. Marks gave Nufarm monopolies in the U.S. markets for two herbicides called MCPA and MCPP-P, which also are known as phenoxy herbicides. The transaction also left only two competitors in the market for a third phenoxy herbicide, called 2,4DB. The three herbicides are widely used in the turf, lawn care, and agriculture industries to eliminate certain weeds safely and cheaply.
Dun & Bradstreet Corporation, The, In the Matter of
The FTC issued an administrative complaint on 5/7/2010 challenging The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation February 2009 acquisition of Quality Education Data (QED) and alleging that the deal hurt consumers by eliminating nearly all competition in the market for kindergarten through twelfth-grade educational marketing databases. The data sold by these companies is used to sell books, education materials, and other products to teachers and other educators nationwide. The combination of the two companies gave Dun & Bradstreet, through its subsidiary Market Data Retrieval (MDR), more than 90 percent of the market for K-12 educational marketing data. Dun & Bradstreet acquired QED from Scholastic, Inc. for about $29 million, which was below the threshold amount that would have required the companies to notify U.S. antitrust authorities before finalizing the deal.