Displaying 161 - 180 of 608
1-800 Contacts, Inc, In the Matter of
The FTC filed an administrative complaint charging that 1-800 Contacts, the largest online retailer of contact lenses in the United States, unlawfully orchestrated a web of anticompetitive agreements with rival online contact lens sellers that suppress competition in certain online search advertising auctions and that restrict truthful and non-misleading internet advertising to consumers. According to the administrative complaint, 1-800 Contacts entered into bidding agreements with at least 14 competing online contact lens retailers that eliminate competition in auctions to place advertisements on the search results page generated by online search engines such as Google and Bing. The complaint alleges that these bidding agreements unreasonably restrain price competition in internet search auctions, and restrict truthful and non-misleading advertising to consumers, constituting an unfair method of competition in violation of federal law.
Federal Trade Commission Withdraws Remaining Case against AbbVie after Supreme Court Decision Strips Consumers of Relief
AbbVie Inc., et al.
The FTC filed a complaint in federal district court in September 2014 charging that AbbVie Inc. and its partner Besins Healthcare Inc. illegally blocking American consumers’ access to lower-cost alternatives to Androgel by filing baseless patent infringement lawsuits against potential generic competitors. In a June 2018 decision, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ruled that AbbVie used sham litigation to illegally maintain its monopoly over the testosterone replacement drug Androgel, and ordered $448 million in monetary relief to consumers who were overcharged for Androgel as a result of AbbVie’s conduct.
In September 2020, the Third Circuit affirmed the district court’s finding of liability on the FTC’s sham litigation claim, and reinstated the reverse payment claim, two important legal victories that protect competition in pharmaceutical markets.
While handing the Commission important legal victories, the Third Circuit reversed the district court’s nearly half-billion dollar monetary judgment for consumers, holding that the FTC is not entitled to disgorgement under 13(b) of the FTC Act. This determination was effectively affirmed by the Supreme Court’s decision in AMG Capital Management v. FTC.
Since the initial filing of the lawsuit, generic AndroGel products have entered the market, so that patients now benefit from competition among multiple suppliers. AbbVie and Teva are also now subject to Commission orders preventing them from entering into certain reverse-payment settlements. On July 30, 2021, the Commission announced that it has withdrawn its reverse-payment claim from federal district court, ending its litigation against AbbVie.
FTC Charges Broadcom with Illegal Monopolization and Orders the Semiconductor Supplier to Cease its Anticompetitive Conduct
Dissenting Statement of Commissioner Christine S. Wilson
Dissenting Remarks of Commissioner Noah Joshua Phillips Regarding the Commission's Issuance of Seven Omnibus Resolution
Open Commission Meeting – July 1, 2021
Louisiana Real Estate Appraisers Board; Analysis of Agreement Containing Consent Order To Aid Public Comment
Louisiana Real Estate Appraisers Board Agrees to Settle FTC Charges that It Fixed Prices for Appraisal Services in Louisiana
Statement of Commissioners Christine S. Wilson and Noah Joshua Phillips Regarding the Federal Trade Commission's Report to Congress on Rebate Walls
Statement of Acting Chairwoman Rebecca Kelly Slaughter Regarding the Federal Trade Commission’s Report to Congress on Rebate Walls
Statement of Commissioner Rohit Chopra Regarding the Commission's Report on Pharmacy Benefit Manager Rebate Walls
Federal Trade Commission Sends Report to Congress on Rebate Walls
FTC Returns Nearly $60 Million to Those Suffering from Opioid Addiction Who Were Allegedly Overcharged in Suboxone Film Scheme
Impax Laboratories, Inc., In the Matter of
The FTC's administrative complaint against Impax charges that in 2010, Impax and Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. illegally agreed that Impax would not compete by marketing a generic version of Endo’s Opana ER until January 2013. In exchange, Endo paid Impax more than $112 million.
Endo agreed to settle these charges in a stipulated order entered in federal court. See FTC v. Allergan plc, and Watson Laboratories, Inc. et al.
The Commission’s 2019 opinion held that the FTC staff had proven that the agreement between Impax and Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. violated Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act. The Commission’s opinion reversed Chief Administrative Law Judge D. Michael Chappell’s initial decision.
In April 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld the Commission’s opinion.
Statement by Acting Chairwoman Rebecca Kelly Slaughter on Agency’s Decision not to Petition Supreme Court for Review of Qualcomm Case
Prepared Statement of Federal Trade Commission Acting Chair Rebecca Kelly Slaughter Concerning "Reviving Competition Part 3: Strengthening the Laws to Address Monopoly Power"
Displaying 161 - 180 of 608