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 101 - 120 of 141

Pages

Rausch v. The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc.

Citation Number: 03-35695
Federal Court: U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Date:
The Commission argued that the district court erred in holding that an insurance company does not take “adverse action” against a consumer, as that term is defined in the Fair Credit Reporting Act, when, based on information in a consumer report, the insurance company sets a price for insurance that is higher than the price it would have charged if the information had been more favorable. The brief explains that the district court misinterpreted both the wording of the Act and its legislative history when it held that there can be no “increase” in the price that an insurance company charges to a new customer regardless of the price that other customers are charged.
application/pdf icon Rausch v. The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. (147.13 KB)

Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Ass’n

Citation Number: 03-5245
Federal Court: U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Date:
In this amicus brief, the FTC argues that a district court erred in holding that, because a private association of secondary schools had been deemed a state actor for constitutional purposes, it was protected by the antitrust state action doctrine. The brief explains that, in the antitrust context, “state action” narrowly refers only to actions undertaken in conformity with a policy clearly articulated by the sovereign state itself. The brief further explains that the alleged anticompetitive conduct here is not protected by the state action doctrine, because the state has not clearly articulated any such policy to displace competition.
application/pdf icon Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Ass’n (57.47 KB)

Pruitt v. Kaufman and Broad Home Corp. et al.

Citation Number: 5:03-CV-021
Federal Court: Southern District of Texas
Date:
Amicus brief, requested by the Court, addressing whether a private party has standing as a third party beneficiary to enforce a consent decree between the Federal Trade Commission and the defendant. The amicus brief explains that Supreme Court precedent, and subsequent cases interpreting it, have either foreclosed the possibility of third-party enforcement of government consent decrees or have at least limited third party enforcement to circumstances that are not present in this case. The brief also describes the Federal Trade Commission’s continuing efforts to address the matters pending between the Commission and the defendant.
application/pdf icon Pruitt v. Kaufman and Broad Home Corp. et al. (136.88 KB)

On Review of UPL Advisory Opinion

Citation Number: 2003-2, No. S03U1451
Date:
Joint amicus brief of the United States and the Federal Trade Commission, urging the Georgia Supreme Court to reject a ruling by the Georgia State Bar Standing Committee on the Unlicensed Practice of Law, which had determined that real estate closings must be conducted by licensed attorneys. The brief points out that allowing non-lawyers to conduct closings is likely to lower prices and increase consumer choice, and that there is no indication that such lay closings will harm consumers in any way.
application/pdf icon On Review of UPL Advisory Opinion (61.94 KB)

Haese v. H & R Block, Inc.,

Citation Number: CV-96-423
Date:
Amicus brief addressing proposed class action settlement, advising the court of the Commission's views on the difficulty of assessing the value of class relief based on coupons, and the need to evaluate the high level of attorney's fees requested here ($49 million) in light of the actual benefit to consumers and the likely strength of the consumers' claims.
application/pdf icon Haese v. H & R Block, Inc., (70.58 KB)

Dee-K Enterprises, Inc. v. Heveafil Sdn. Bhd.

Citation Number: 02-649
Federal Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Date:
Joint amicus brief of the United States and the Federal Trade Commission, urging the Court to deny the petition for certiorari. The brief explains that, although the court of appeals applied the wrong test in concluding that the Sherman Act did not apply to a global price-fixing conspiracy, the case is not appropriate for plenary review in light of the insufficient development of the record below and the absence of any conflict in the circuits on the questions presented.
application/pdf icon Dee-K Enterprises, Inc. v. Heveafil Sdn. Bhd. (61.04 KB)

Verizon Communications Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP

Citation Number: 02-682
Federal Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Date:
Joint amicus brief of the United States and the Federal Trade Commission, urging reversal of the court of appeals' ruling, which had permitted a case to go forward under Section 2 of the Sherman Act, based on "essential facilities" and "monopoly leveraging" theories, despite the failure of plaintiff to allege exclusionary conduct under general Section 2 principles.
application/pdf icon Verizon Communications Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP (152.75 KB)

Empagran S.A. v. F. Hoffmann-LaRoche, Ltd.

Citation Number: 01-7115
Federal Court: U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
Date:
Joint brief of the United States and the Federal Trade Commission, as amici curiae, addressing the proper application of the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act where a foreign plaintiff's claimed injury from an alleged antitrust conspiracy does not arise from the effects of that conspiracy on U.S. commerce.
application/pdf icon Empagran S.A. v. F. Hoffmann-LaRoche, Ltd. (112.18 KB)

SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp.

Citation Number: 99-CV-4304
Federal Court: Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Date:

Memorandum of the Federal Trade Commission, as amicus curiae, addressing the propriety of de-listing a patent from FDA's "Orange Book," as a remedy for patent invalidity. The brief explains that improperly-maintained Orange Book listings may serve as a barrier to competition, and that there may be substantial consumer benefits to a de-listing remedy.

application/pdf icon SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp. (58.63 KB)

Powers v. Harris

Citation Number: CIV-01-445-F
Date:
Memorandum of the Federal Trade Commission, as amicus curiae, submitted to the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, in a case challenging Oklahoma state restrictions on the sale of caskets. The memorandum does not take a position on the constitutionality of those restrictions, but explains why the policies of the Commission's Funeral Rule do not lend support to restrictions of this sort.
application/pdf icon Powers v. Harris (38.02 KB)

George Carter, et al. v. ICR Services, Inc., d/b/a National Credit Repair

Federal Court: Northern District of Alabama
Date:

Amicus brief objecting to the proposed settlement’s claims process and the size of the proposed counsel fee in a case involving the allegedly deceptive marketing of credit repair services. The Commission argued that the claims process was unfair to certain class members and that the proposed legal fee for class counsel was excessive and would deplete the defendants’ resources and affect the FTC’s ability to obtain redress in its own broader case.

application/pdf icon George Carter, et al. v. ICR Services, Inc., d/b/a National Credit Repair (25.65 KB)

American Bioscience v. Bristol-Myers

Citation Number: CV-00-08577 WMB
Date:
Amicus brief before the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California regarding a proposed settlement between American Bioscience, Inc. (ABI) and Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. regarding the listing of a patent purportedly covering the cancer drug Taxol on the Food and Drug Administration’s Orange Book. The brief advises the court that, because the Commission had just initiated an investigation of the conduct of ABI and Bristol, the Commission was not taking a position with regard to appropriateness of listing the patent. The brief further explains the potential consequences of the proposed settlement on generic entry and the potential harm to consumers of delaying such entry. The brief expresses concern that the judicial finding that the settlement contemplates — that the patent meets the statutory requirements for listing in the Orange Book — will prejudice parties who may later challenge the listing. The brief requests the court to consider the ramifications for generic entry and the pendency of the Commission’s investigation before entering the order proposed by the parties.
application/pdf icon American Bioscience v. Bristol-Myers (56.54 KB)

Pages