Tag: Northern District of California

The FTC sued the operators of a mobile banking app, alleging that they falsely promised users high interest rates on their accounts and “24/7” access to their funds.

HyperBeard, a developer of apps that are popular with children has agreed to pay $150,000 and to delete personal information it illegally collected from children under 13 to settle Federal Trade Commission allegations. In a complaint filed by the Department of Justice on behalf of the FTC, the Commission alleges that HyperBeard, Inc. violated the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act Rule (COPPA Rule) by allowing third-party ad networks to collect personal information in the form of persistent identifiers to track users of the company’s child-directed apps, without notifying parents or obtaining verifiable parental consent. The ad networks used the identifiers to target ads to children using HyperBeard’s apps.

In October 2018, the FTC filed a complaint against defendants Forms Direct, Inc., also known as American Immigration Center, and owner Cesare Alessandrini, alleging that they falsely implied that their websites were affiliated with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).The defendants allegedly used such deception since 2010 to sell immigration form preparation services to consumers. The FTC’s settlement bars the defendants from continuing their misleading business practices and requires them to pay $2.2 million to compensate consumers. In early March 2020, the Commission announced it was sending checks totaling over $2 million to consumer defrauded through the scheme.

Mortgage Solutions FCS, doing business as Mount Diablo Lending, and Ramon Walker agreed to pay $120,000 to settle Federal Trade Commission allegations that it violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act and other laws by revealing personal information about consumers in response to negative reviews posted on the review website Yelp. 

The FTC filed a complaint in federal district court charging Qualcomm Inc. with using anticompetitive tactics to maintain its monopoly in the supply of a key semiconductor device used in cell phones and other consumer products.

D-Link Systems, Inc., agreed to implement a comprehensive software security program in order to settle Federal Trade Commission allegations over misrepresentations that the company took reasonable steps to secure its wireless routers and Internet-connected cameras. 

Unixiz, Inc., doing business as i-Dressup.com, and the individually named defendants CEO Zhijun Liu and Secretary Xichen Zhang, reached a settlement over allegations they violated the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA).

The FTC's complaint alleges that Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. and several other drug companies violated antitrust laws by using pay-for-delay settlements to block consumers’ access to lower-cost generic versions of Lidoderm.  The agreement not to market an authorized generic – often called a “no-AG commitment” – is the form of reverse payment.  The FTC’s complaint alleges that Endo paid the first generic companies that filed for FDA approval – Watson Laboratories, Inc. – to eliminate the risk of competition for Lidoderm, in violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act.  Lidoderm is a topical patch used to relieve pain associated with post-herpetic neuralgia, a complication of shingles.  Under federal law, the first generic applicant to challenge a branded pharmaceutical’s patent, referred to as the first filer, may be entitled to 180 days of exclusivity as against any other generic applicant upon final FDA approval. But a branded drug manufacturer is permitted to market an authorized generic version of its own brand product at any time, including during the 180 days after the first generic competitor enters the market. According to the FTC, a no-AG commitment can be extremely valuable to the first-filer generic, because it ensures that this company will capture all generic sales and be able to charge higher prices during the exclusivity period.  The FTC is seeking a court judgment declaring that the defendants’ conduct violates the antitrust laws, ordering the companies to disgorge their ill-gotten gains, and permanently barring them from engaging in similar anticompetitive behavior in the future.

Endo agreed to settle the charges in a proposed stipulated order to be entered by the court.