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.
Zimmer Holdings, Inc. / Biomet, Inc., In the Matter of
Medical device company Zimmer Holdings, Inc. agreed to divest U.S. rights and assets related to unicondylar knee implants, total elbow implants, and bone cement in order to settle FTC charges that its proposed $13.35 billion acquisition of Biomet Inc. is anticompetitive. According to the complaint, Zimmer and Biomet are two of the only three substantial competitors in the U.S. markets for unicondylar knee implants and total elbow implants, and two of only four significant competitors in the U.S. market for bone cement. The order requires Zimmer to divest to Smith & Nephew the U.S. intellectual property, manufacturing technology, and existing inventory relating to its unicondylar knee implant, and to provide transitional services to help them establish manufacturing capabilities and secure necessary FDA approvals. The order also requires Biomet to divest to DJO the U.S. intellectual property, manufacturing technology, and existing inventory relating to its total elbow implant and bone cement products, and it facilitates DJO’s hiring of the Biomet sales representatives and other staff who work with these products.
Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC
Novartis AG, In the Matter of (GlaxoSmithKline)
Global pharmaceutical company Novartis AG agreed to divest Habitrol, its nicotine replacement therapy patch, to settle FTC charges that its consumer health care products joint venture with GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) would likely be anticompetitive. Under the terms of the proposed joint venture agreement, GSK will control the joint venture and contribute, among other products, its nicotine patch business. Novartis will have a 36.5 percent interest in the joint venture, and without the divestitures required by the proposed order, would continue to own the Habitrol business. According to the complaint, without the divestiture contained in the proposed settlement, Novartis’s ownership of both Habitrol and a substantial interest in the joint venture that sells GSK’s nicotine patches would substantially reduce competition and lead to higher prices for Habitrol and Novartis’s private-label patches. (C-4498)
Separately, Novartis AG also agreed to divest all assets related to its BRAF and MEK inhibitor drugs, products in development, to Boulder, Colorado-based Array BioPharma to settle FTC charges that Novartis’s $16 billion acquisition of GlaxoSmithKline’s portfolio of cancer-treatment drugs would likely be anticompetitive. According to the complaint, the Switzerland-based Novartis and the London-based GSK are two of a small number of companies with either a BRAF or MEK inhibitor currently on the market or in development, and two of only three companies marketing or developing a BRAF/MEK combination product to treat melanoma. If the acquisition goes forward as proposed, Novartis would likely delay or terminate development of both its BRAF and MEK inhibitors, as well as the combination product. Under the terms of the consent agreement, Novartis is required to provide transitional services to Array BioPharma to ensure that development of the BRAF and MEK inhibitors continues uninterrupted and that competition in BRAF and MEK inhibitor markets is not reduced. (C-4510)
Working Chemical Solutions, Inc. and Robert C. Smith, FTC
MAP Policies and Musical Instrument Manufacturers
Arch Coal, Inc./Rio Tinto PLC.
Sanofi-Synthelabo and Aventis, In the Matter of
The consent order settled antitrust concerns that Sanofi's proposed $64 billion acquisition of Aventis would create significant overlaps in several markets for pharmaceutical products while creating the world's third largest pharmaceutical company. Under terms of the consent order, Sanofi must: 1) divest its Arixtra factor Xa inhibitor to GlaxoSmithKline, plc; 2) divest its key clinical studies for the Campto® cytotoxic colorectal cancer treatment to Pfizer, Inc. and 3) divest Aventis' contractual rights to the Estorra insomnia drug either to Sepracor, Inc. or to another Commission-approved buyer.
Creative Health Institute, Inc., and Kyl L. Smith, In the Matter of
Schering-Plough Corporation, Upsher-Smith Laboratories, and American Home Products Corporation, In the Matter of
In the complaint dated March 30, 2001 the Commission alleged that Schering - Plough, the manufacturer of K-Dur 20 - a prescribed potassium chloride, used to treat patients with low blood potassium levels - entered into anticompetitive agreements with Upsher-Smith Laboratories and American Home Products Corporation to delay their generic versions of the K-Dur 20 drug from entering the market. According to the charges, Schering-Plough paid Upsher- Smith $60 million and paid American Home Products $15 million to keep the low-cost generic version of the drug off the market. The charges against American Home Products were settled by a consent agreement. An initial decision filed July 2, 2002 dismissed all charges against Schering - Plough and Upsher-Smith Laboratories. On December 8, 2003 the Commission reversed the administrative law judge’s initial decision and found that Schering-Plough Corporation entered into agreements with Upsher-Smith Laboratories, Inc. and American Home Products to delay the entry of generic versions of Schering’s branded K-Dur 20. According to the opinion, the parties settled patent litigation with terms that included unconditional payments by Schering in return for agreements to defer introduction of the generic products. The Commission entered an order that would bar similar conduct in the future. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit set aside and vacated the Commission decision finding that the agreements were immune from antitrust review if their anticompetitive effects were within the scope of the exclusionary potential of the patent. The Commission filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court in August 2005, which the Court denied.
Smith, Charles, Damien Smith, and Kymberli Smith, individually and d/b/a Salesco
Gill, Keith; et al.
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.
WFS Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a The Cash Nursery, and Rabb Sabin and Arthur Smith
Kroger Co., The, and Fred Meyer, Inc., In the Matter of
Final order requires Kroger and Fred Meyer Stores, Inc. to divest eight supermarkets to settle charges that the acquisition of Fred Meyer would increase concentration and decrease competition in seven cities in Arizona, Wyoming, and Utah. Under terms of the order, two Smith's Food & Drug Centers will be sold to Nash-Finch Company; one "City Market" will be sold to Albertson's Inc.; and five supermarkets (two "City Markets"; two Fry's, and one Smith's) will be sold to Fleming Companies, Inc.
Albertson's, Inc., Locomotive Acquisition Corporation, Buttrey Food and Drug Store Company, and FS Equity Partners II, L.P
A consent order requires Albertson's to divest eight supermarkets in Montana and seven in Wyoming in order to settle FTC charges and maintain competitive grocery pricing in 11 communities following its acquisition of the Buttrey Food and Drug Store Company. Under the consent agreement, 13 of the supermarkets would be sold to Smith's Food and Drug Centers, Inc. and two supermarkets would be sold to Supervalu Holdings, Inc.