Amicus Briefs

When a court considers a case whose outcome may affect consumers or competition, the FTC may file a “friend of the court” brief to provide information that can help the court make its decision in a way that protects consumers or promotes competition. To find a specific FTC brief, use the filters on this page.

Displaying 21 - 40 of 118

Pages

Lotes Co., Ltd. v. Hon Hai Precision Industry Co., Ltd., et al.

Citation Number: 13-2280
Federal Court: U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Date:

Brief of the United States Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit addressing the proper application of the provisions of the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act of 1982, 15 U.S.C. § 6a, which parallel those of Section 5(a)(3) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a)(3). The brief takes the position that (a) the district court decision dismissing plaintiff’s antitrust complaint may be affirmed on the ground that the plaintiff’s claim does not arise from anticompetitive effects on U.S. commerce, and (b) the analysis of the effects of defendants’ alleged conduct failed to follow the proper “proximate cause” standard.

Moran v. The Screening Pros LLC

Citation Number: 12-57246
Federal Court: U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Date:

Brief of Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Federal Trade Commission as amici curiae before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, addressing the question of how long, under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), a consumer reporting agency can report certain negative information about an individual.  The FCRA generally prohibits the reporting of adverse information for more than seven years. The brief takes the position that the seven-year period for a dismissed criminal charge begins on the date of the charge, not the date of dismissal.

Wellbutrin XL Antitrust Litigation, In re

Citation Number: 2:08-cv-2431
Federal Court: Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Date:
Brief of the Federal Trade Commission as Amicus Curiae before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, addressing whether a branded company's commitment not to launch an authorized generic in competition with a generic company can constitute a reverse payment under the Supreme Court’s ruling in FTC v. Actavis, 133 S. Ct. 2223 (2013), and describing the Commission’s review of pharmaceutical patent settlement agreements under the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003.

Deborah Jackson v. Payday Financial, LLC

Citation Number: 12-2617
Federal Court: U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Date:

Brief of the Federal Trade Commission in response to an invitation from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit to present the Commission’s views.  The brief explains that, although the FTC’s separate litigation challenging defendants’ practices inducing consumers into Tribal Court presents distinct issues, aspects of the defendants’ conduct that make it unfair and deceptive under the FTC Act are relevant to whether the clause in the loan contracts requiring tribal arbitration of consumer claims is unconscionable.

Nwabueze v. AT&T, Inc.

Citation Number: 3:09-cv-01529-SI
Federal Court: Northern District of California
Date:

Federal Trade Commission’s Memorandum of Law as Amicus Curiae, presenting the Commission’s opposition to the proposed settlement of a class-action challenging unauthorized charges from third-party merchants placed on consumers’ telephone bills through a practice known as “cramming.” The memorandum explains that the proposed settlement is not fair, reasonable, or adequate because it imposes an unduly burdensome claims process, contains inadequate injunctive relief, imposes an unfair and overbroad release, and improperly rewards plaintiff’s counsel.

In re Effexor XR Antitrust Litigation

Citation Number: 3:11-cv-05479
Federal Court: District of New Jersey
Date:

Brief of the Federal Trade Commission as amicus curiae before the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, addressing the question of whether a branded company's commitment not to launch an authorized generic in competition with a generic company can be a reverse payment under the Supreme Court’s ruling in FTC v. Actavis, 133 S. Ct. 2223 (2013)

Juanita Delgado v. Capital Management Services, LP

Citation Number: 13-2030
Federal Court: U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Date:

Brief of the Federal Trade Commission and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in response to an invitation from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit to present the Commission’s views on the application of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act to the collection of debts barred by the statute of limitations.

Anita White, et al., v. EDebitPay, L.L.C., et al.,

Citation Number: 2:11-cv-06738-CBM-FFM
Federal Court: Central District of California
Date:
Brief of the Federal Trade Commission as amicus curiae before the United States District Court for the Central District of California opposing the proposed settlement of a class-action suit alleging defendants misrepresented the nature of their shopping clubs and charged consumers membership fees without authorization. The brief challenges the settlement as not fair, adequate, or reasonable, because it provides little compensation to the class after deducting the cost of the claims administration and attorneys’ fees, and provides insufficient notice of its terms to the putative class members.

Lewis Brothers Bakeries Inc. and Chicago Baking Co. v. Interstate Brands Corp.

Citation Number: 11-1850
Federal Court: U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Date:

Brief of the United States and the Federal Trade Commission in response to the invitation of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit to present the government’s views on the proper application of the executory contract doctrine in 11 U.S.C. Section 365 to contracts that implement antitrust divestiture decrees.

Actelion Pharmaceuticals Ltd., et al. v. Apotex Inc.

Citation Number: 1:12-cv-05743-NLH-AMD
Federal Court: District of New Jersey
Date:

Brief of the Federal Trade Commission as amicus curiae before the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, addressing the question of whether a branded pharmaceutical company’s refusal to sell product samples to potential generic competitors may violate the antitrust laws.

American Express Company, et al., Petitioners, v. Italian Colors Restaurant, et al., Respondents

Citation Number: No. 12-133
Federal Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Date:

Brief of the United States as amicus curiae supporting respondents before the Supreme Court of the United States, addressing whether a court should enforce an arbitration agreement under the Federal Arbitration Act when the plaintiff demonstrates that its non-recoverable costs of arbitration will greatly exceed its potential recovery on a federal statutory claim.

Apple Inc. and NeXT Software, Inc. v. Motorola, Inc. and Motorola Mobility, Inc.

Citation Number: 2012-1548 and 2012-1549
Date:
Brief of the Federal Trade Commission as amicus curiae supporting neither party before the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit District Court, addressing the competitive effects of injunctive relief for the infringement of patented technologies essential to implementing consensus industry standards.

Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. v. Warner Chilcott Public Limited Company, et al.

Citation Number: 12-3824
Federal Court: Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Date:
Brief of the Federal Trade Commission as amicus curiae before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, addressing the question of whether reformulations of a branded company’s products that offer patients little or no therapeutic advantages – also known as “product-switching” or “product-hopping” – obstructs meaningful competition by generic drug companies and thus, constitutes exclusionary conduct.

In re Lamictal Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation

Citation Number: 2:12-CV-00995-WHW-MCA
Federal Court: District of New Jersey
Date:
Brief of the Federal Trade Commission as amicus curiae before the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, addressing the question of whether an exclusive license that effectively prevents a branded company from launching an authorized generic constitutes a payment-for-delay in restraint of trade, pursuant to the Third Circuit’s ruling in In re K-Dur Antitrust Litigation, No. 10-2077, 2012 WL 2877662 (3d Cir. July 16, 2012).

Moore v. Verizon Communications, Inc., et al

Citation Number: No. CV 09-1823
Federal Court: Northern District of California
Date:

Brief of the Federal Trade Commission as amicus curiae before the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, expressing concerns that the proposed class action settlement agreement is flawed and should be rejected.The proposed settlement fails to provide adequate compensation to consumers that were victims of unauthorized billing, does not provide adequate information to class members about their rights or the settlement's impact, is unlikely to deter future fraudulent conduct, and may impair the Commission's ability to provide restitution in its enforcement actions.

In re Effexor XR Antitrust Litigation

Citation Number: 3:11-cv-05479
Federal Court: District of New Jersey
Date:

Brief of the Federal Trade Commission as amicus curiae before the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, addressing the question of whether a branded company's commitment not to launch an authorized generic in competition with a generic company constitutes a payment-for-delay in restraint of trade, pursuant to the Third Circuit's ruling in In re K-Dur Antitrust Litigation, No. 10-2077, 2012 WL 2877662 (3d Cir. July 16, 2012).

Olivea Marx v. General Revenue Corporation

Citation Number: 11-1175
Federal Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Date:

Joint brief of the United States, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and the Federal Trade Commission, as amici curiae in support of the petitioner, urging the Supreme Court to rule that private plaintiffs who, in good faith, sue debt collectors for alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act are not required to pay prevailing defendants' litigation costs.

Ritz Camera & Image, LLC v. Sandisk Corporation

Citation Number: 12-1183
Federal Court: U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Date:

Joint brief of the United States, in which the FTC joined, as amicus curiae before the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in support of the appellee, Ritz Camera & Image, LLC, urging the Federal Circuit to affirm the district court's holding that appellee, a direct purchaser of appellant SanDisk Corporation's products, has standing under the antitrust laws to seek damages for overcharges resulting from a monopoly obtained through enforcement of patents procured by fraud (a "Walker Process" antitrust claim).

Shamara T. King v. General Information Services, Inc.

Citation Number: 2:10-cv-06850
Federal Court: Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Date:
Memorandum brief of the United States, in which both the FTC and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau joined, supporting the constitutionality of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) provision that bars consumer reporting agencies, in most cases, from disclosing an individual’s arrest record or other adverse information that is more than seven years old. The brief argues that the court should not invalidate this FCRA provision as unconstitutional because it “directly advances the substantial government interest in protecting individuals’ privacy and is no more extensive than necessary to serve that interest.”

Auraria Student Housing at the Regency, LLC v. Campus Village Apartments

Citation Number: 11-1569
Federal Court: U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Date:
Joint brief of the United States and the Federal Trade Commission, as amici curiae before the United State Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, in support of the appellee, urging the court to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction the interlocutory appeal of a district court order denying a defendant's motion to dismiss an antitrust claim under the "state action" doctrine of Parker v. Brown, 317 U.S. 341 (1943). The brief, which does not address the merits of defendant's state action claim, argues that the court lacks appellate jurisdiction as there has been no final judgment in the underlying litigation, and the district court's order is not immediately appealable under the collateral order rule, which permits immediate appellate review in very limited circumstances to protect a right to avoid trial.

Pages