Tag: exclusionary conduct

In 2022, the FTC and twelve state partners filed a lawsuit against pesticide manufacturers Syngenta and Corteva, alleging that each defendant implemented a post-patent loyalty program that paid distributors to forgo buying competing generic products. 

Motions to Dismiss

Syngenta and Corteva each moved to dismiss the lawsuit. On January 12, 2024, the Court issued an opinion and order denying defendants’ motions to dismiss.

Corteva Settlement

On September 25, 2026, the FTC and state plaintiffs, together with Corteva, filed with the Court an agreed stipulated order settling the Corteva case. The stipulated order requires Corteva to dismantle its existing active-ingredient-based post-patent loyalty programs. For a period of ten years, Corteva is prohibited from conditioning payments or other benefits to a customer on that customer purchasing a high share of its requirements for a given pesticide active ingredient from Corteva or on limiting its purchases of generic equivalents, ending Corteva’s exclusionary conduct that has raised pesticide prices for farmers.

The stipulated order applies to all of Corteva’s post-patent active ingredients, and it applies to existing programs and future programs for the term of the stipulated order (10 years). 

If you have concerns about whether Corteva is complying with its obligations under the stipulated order, please contact Paul Frangie at (202) 326-2697 and pfrangie@ftc.gov, Kenneth Libby at 202-326-2694 and klibby@ftc.gov, or bccompliance@ftc.gov.

On July 8, 2026, the FTC, along with five states, secured an important settlement in an antitrust lawsuit against farm equipment manufacturer Deere & Company that will ensure farmers can enjoy the right to repair their own John Deere tractors and farm equipment.

San Juan IPA, Inc., an independent physician association in Farmington, New Mexico, has agreed to pay a $263,000 civil penalty to the FTC to settle allegations that it violated a 2005 order. The 2005 case alleged that San Juan IPA orchestrated agreements among competing member physicians to coordinate joint pricing, collectively negotiated contracts with payors on behalf of members, and refused to deal with payors except on collectively determined price terms.

To remedy these allegations, the 2005 order prohibited San Juan from, among other things, entering into, maintaining, enforcing, or facilitating any agreement or understanding among any physicians (1) to negotiate on behalf of any physician with any payor, (2) to deal, refuse to deal, or threaten to refuse to deal with any payor, (3) regarding any term upon which any physician deals with a payor, including price terms, and (4) not to deal individually with any payor or not to deal with a payor except through the IPA. The order also prohibited San Juan from attempting to engage in, or encouraging any person to engage in, any prohibited action.

The Federal Trade Commission filed an administrative complaint against the Louisiana Real Estate Appraisers Board, alleging that the group is unreasonably restraining price competition for appraisal services in Louisiana, contrary to federal antitrust law. The complaint alleged that the appraisal board’s regulations exceeded the scope of the mandate outlined in the Dodd-Frank Act that required appraisal management companies to pay “a rate that is customary and reasonable for appraisal services performed in the market area of the property being appraised.” Specifically, the board required appraisal fees to equal or exceed the median fees identified in survey reports commissioned and published by the board. The board then investigated and sanctioned companies that paid fees below the specified levels. 

Shortly before the administrative trial was set to begin, the FTC and the board reached a proposed settlement agreement.

On April 5, 2022, the Commission announced the final consent agreement in this matter.

To settle FTC charges that its actions violated the antitrust laws, the Board of Dental Examiners of Alabama agreed to stop requiring on-site supervision by licensed dentists of alignment scans of prospective patients’ mouths seeking to address misaligned teeth or gaps between teeth. According to the complaint, the board amended a rule to prohibit dental hygienists and other non-dentist practitioners from performing scans inside a patient’s mouth without on-site dentist supervision. The complaint alleges that the Board unreasonably excluded from competition providers of teledentistry-based teeth alignment products and services, and that it did this without adequate active supervision from neutral state officials, in violation of the FTC Act.