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.
Post Holdings, Inc.; In the Matter of
The Federal Trade Commission authorized an action to block Post Holdings, Inc.’s proposed acquisition of the private label ready-to-eat ("RTE") cereal business of TreeHouse Foods, Inc. In an administrative complaint issued on December 19, 2019, the Commission alleges that the proposed acquisition would harm retailers and end consumers by eliminating head-to-head competition between the Respondents in the United States market for private label RTE cereal. The Commission vote to issue the administrative complaint and to authorize staff to seek a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction was 5-0. The administrative trial is scheduled to begin on May 27, 2020. The parties announced they had abandoned the transaction on Jan. 13, 2020.
US Foods and SGA, In the Matter of
Food distributor US Foods, Inc. has agreed to divest assets to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that US Foods, Inc.’s proposed $1.8 billion acquisition of Services Group of America, Inc. would violate federal antitrust law. The complaint alleges that, in Eastern Idaho, Western North Dakota, Eastern North Dakota, and the Seattle area, the transaction would eliminate a key broadline distributor and limit customers’ ability to switch between distributors to obtain better pricing and service. Under the proposed consent agreement, within 30 days of the acquisition closing, US Foods must divest three FSA distribution centers: one in Boise, Idaho; another in Fargo, North Dakota (FSA competes in both Eastern and Western North Dakota out of this facility); and a third in the greater Seattle area. On Nov. 19, 2019, the FTC announced that it has approved a final order settling the charges.
Sysco/USF Holding/US Foods, In the Matter of
On 2/19/15, the FTC filed an administrative complaint charging that the proposed merger of Sysco and US Foods would violate the antitrust laws by significantly reducing competition nationwide and in 32 local markets for broadline foodservice distribution services. The FTC alleged that if the merger goes forward as proposed, foodservice customers, including restaurants, hospitals, hotels, and schools, would likely face higher prices and lower levels of service than would be the case but for the merger. The FTC also authorized staff to seek in federal court a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction to prevent the parties from consummating the merger, and to maintain the status quo pending the administrative proceeding. The PI action was filed on 2/20/15. According to the FTC complaint, a combined Sysco/US Foods would account for 75% of the national market for broadline distribution services. In addition, the parties would also hold high shares in a number of local markets. The Commission also charged that the proposed sale of 11 US Foods distribution centers to Performance Food Group would neither enable PFG to replace US Foods as a competitor nor counteract the significant competitive harm caused by the merger. The following state attorneys general have joined the FTC’s complaint for a preliminary injunction to be filed in federal district court: California, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, Nebraska, Ohio, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and the District of Columbia. Following a June 23, 2015 ruling by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granting the Federal Trade Commission request for a preliminary injunction, Sysco and US Foods abandoned their proposed merger, and the Commission dismissed its administrative complaint.
Sysco, USF Holding Corp., and US Foods, Inc.
On February 19, 2015, the FTC filed an administrative complaint charging that the proposed merger of Sysco and US Foods would violate the antitrust laws by significantly reducing competition nationwide and in 32 local markets for broadline foodservice distribution services. The FTC alleged that if the merger goes forward as proposed, foodservice customers, including restaurants, hospitals, hotels, and schools, would likely face higher prices and lower levels of service than would be the case but for the merger. The FTC also authorized staff to seek in federal court a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction to prevent the parties from consummating the merger, and to maintain the status quo pending the administrative proceeding. The PI action was filed on February 20, 2015. According to the FTC complaint, a combined Sysco/US Foods would account for 75% of the national market for broadline distribution services. In addition, the parties would also hold high shares in a number of local markets. The Commission also charged that the proposed sale of 11 US Foods distribution centers to Performance Food Group would neither enable PFG to replace US Foods as a competitor nor counteract the significant competitive harm caused by the merger. The following state attorneys general have joined the FTC’s complaint for a preliminary injunction to be filed in federal district court: California, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, Nebraska, Ohio, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and the District of Columbia. Following a June 23, 2015 ruling by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granting the Federal Trade Commission request for a preliminary injunction, Sysco and US Foods abandoned their proposed merger, and the Commission dismissed its administrative complaint.
Air Products and Chemicals, Inc.
Industrial gas supplier Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. reached an agreement with the Commission requiring the company to sell certain liquid gas assets to resolves FTC charges that Air Products’ proposed acquisition of Airgas would harm competition in five regional markets for bulk liquid oxygen and bulk liquid nitrogen, which are used in a range of applications from hospital patient care to the manufacture of frozen foods.
Whole Foods Market, Inc., and Wild Oats Markets, Inc., In the Matter of
There is a related federal proceeding.
Whole Foods Market, Inc., and Wild Oats Markets, Inc.
The Commission sought a federal court temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, and issued an administrative complaint, against Whole Food Market, Inc.’s proposed acquisition of Wild Oats Markets, Inc. According to the complaint, the approximately $670 million deal raised competition problems in 21 local markets where Whole Foods and Wild Oats both operated stores and were each other’s closest competitors among premium national and organic supermarkets. The district court granted the TRO, but subsequently denied the preliminary injunction, concluding that the merger’s likely effect would not be substantially to reduce competition in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act. The Commission appealed the district court’s ruling on grounds that the lower court failed to apply the proper legal standard that governs preliminary injunction applications by the Commission in Section 7 cases. The appellate court remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings to determine if the proposed $670 million deal raised competition problems in numerous local markets where Whole Foods and Wild Oats both operated premium natural and organic supermarkets. In a settlement on March 6, 2009, Whole Foods agreed to sell the name brand of Wild Oats, along with 32 of the company’s stores.
There is a related administrative proceeding.
Dissenting Statement of Commissioner Rosch, In the Matter of Whole Foods Market, Inc., and Wild Oats Markets, Inc.
Kraft Foods Inc. (Altria Group) - Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company
Hicks, Muse, Tate & Furst; Pinnacle Foods Corporation; Philip Morris Companies, Inc.; and Kraft Foods North America, Inc., FTC
The Commission authorized staff to seek a preliminary injunction to block the proposed acquisition of Claussen Pickle Company by Hicks, Muse, Tate & Furst Equity Fund V L.P., the owner of Vlasic Pickle Company on grounds that the transaction would combine the dominant firm in the market for refrigerated pickles (Claussen) with its most significant competitor in refrigerated pickles (Vlasic). Six days after the complaint was filed in federal district court, the parties abandoned the transaction.
H.J. Heinz Company/Vlasic Foods International, In the Matter of
Philip Morris Companies, Inc., and Nabisco Holdings Corp
The consent order permits the merger of Philip Monis and Nabisco Holdings Corporation while settling charges that the merger of the two food companies would reduce competition in the already highly-concentrated food product markets. Under terms of the order, the parties are required to divest Nabisco's dry- mix gelatin, dry-mix pudding, no-bake dessert, and baking powder assets to The Jet Sea Company and Nabisco's intense mints assets to Hershey Foods Corporation.