Tag: Competition

The Commission charged that Transitions Optical, Inc., the nation’s leading manufacturer of photochromic treatments that darken corrective lenses used in eyeglasses, used anticompetitive practices to maintain its monopoly and increase prices. Photochromic treatments are applied to eyeglass lenses and treated lenses darken when exposed to UV light. The FTC charges that the company illegally maintained its monopoly by engaging in exclusive dealing at nearly every level of the photochromic lens distribution chain.  The FTC alleged that Transitions’ exclusionary tactics locked out rivals from approximately 85 percent of the lens caster market, and partially or completely locked out rivals from up to 40 percent or more of the retailer and wholesale lab market.  Under FTC consent order, Transitions agreed to stop all exclusive dealing practices that pose a threat to competition, making it easier for competitors to enter.

Following an appeal by RealComp, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit upheld the FTC order. On August 15, 2011 Realcomp appealed to the Supreme Court. On October 11, 2011 the Supreme Court denied Realcomp's petition for a writ of certiorari.

Roaring Fork Valley Physicians, IPA, Inc., a Colorado physicians’ group, settled Commission charges of price-fixing by agreeing to halt its use of allegedly anticompetitive negotiating tactics against health insurers. The Commission charged Roaring Fork Valley Physicians I.P.A., Inc., which represents about 80 percent of the doctors in Garfield County, Colorado, with violating the FTC Act by orchestrating agreements among its members to set higher prices for medical services and to refuse to deal with insurers that did not meet its demands for higher rates.

The Commission settled charges that the executive director of a Colorado physicians’ association actively tried to evade the terms of a 2008 FTC order by telling insurers that because she was not named individually in the order, she could simply negotiate on behalf of competing physicians on the “outside” and “not with my [association] hat, but as an individual.” The Commission complaint and consent order settling the FTC’s charges name the executive director individually, and will prevent her from orchestrating or implementing price-fixing agreements among the group’s competing physicians.

The Commission challenged the conduct of Boulder Valley Individual Practice Association for refusing to deal, or threatening to refuse to deal with insurance providers that failed to increase fees paid to group doctors, and also prevented members from contracting with payers, except through Boulder Valley. During the period between 2001 and 2006 Boulder Valley IPA threatened to terminate contracts with payers unless the payers agreed to pay increased fees-for-service set by Boulder Valley, effectively engaging in illegal price fixing, and harming Boulder country area consumers by charging higher prices for the various physician’s services offered. The settlement prohibits Boulder Valley from entering into agreements between or among physicians: 1) to negotiate on behalf of any physician with any payer; 2) to refuse to deal, or threaten to refuse to deal, with any payer; 3) to designate the terms, conditions, or requirements upon which any physician deals, or is willing to deal, with any payer, including, but not limited to price terms; 4) not to deal individually with any payer, or not to deal with any payer through any arrangement other than one involving Boulder Valley.