The legal library gives you easy access to the FTC’s case information and other official legal, policy, and guidance documents.
2210004 Informal Interpretation
JAB Consumer Partners/VIPW/Ethos Veterinary Health, In the Matter of
The FTC imposed strict limits on JAB Consumer Partners’ future acquisitions of specialty and emergency veterinary clinics as a condition of JAB’s proposed $1.65 billion acquisition of VIPW, LLC, the parent of Ethos, an owner and operator of specialty and emergency veterinary clinics. The Commission alleged that the acquisition was likely to be anticompetitive in four geographic markets, ordering divestitures for various types of veterinary care in and around Richmond, Virginia, in and around the Washington DC Metro Area, particularly for customers to the southeast in Virginia and Maryland, in and around Denver, Colorado, and in and around downtown San Francisco, California. The Commission finalized the order in October 2022.
F & G International Group Holdings, LLC
The FTC sued F & G International Group Holdings, LLC, FG International, LLC, and their principal J. Glenn Davis, alleging they make false or unsubstantiated R-value claims about their architectural coatings products. In July 2020, the FTC sued four companies that sell paint products used to coat buildings and homes, alleging that they deceived consumers about their products’ insulation and energy-savings capabilities. In complaints filed in federal court, the FTC charged that the companies falsely overstated the R-value ratings of the coatings, making deceptive statements about heat flow and insulating power. In October 2022, the FTC announced a summary judgment prohibiting the FGI defendants from the allegedly illegal conduct.
Apex Capital Group, LLC
In October 2022, a Latvian payment processor and its former CEO agreed to settle the FTC’s complaint against them. The complaint alleged that they engaged in unlawful conduct that enabled a deceptive “free trial” offer scheme by U.S.-based defendants. In September 2024, the FTC returned more than $2.8 million to consumer deceived by the scheme.
Meta Platforms, Inc./Mark Zuckerberg/Within Unlimited, FTC v.
The Federal Trade Commission authorized a lawsuit in federal court to block the proposed merger between virtual reality (VR) giant Meta and Within Unlimited, the VR studio that markets Supernatural, a leading VR fitness app. Formerly known as Facebook Inc., Meta sells the most widely used VR headset, operates a widely used VR app store, and already owns many popular VR apps, including Beat Saber, reportedly one of the best-selling VR apps of all time, which it markets for fitness use. The agency alleges that Meta’s proposed acquisition of Within would stifle competition and dampen innovation in the dynamic, rapidly growing U.S. markets for fitness and dedicated-fitness VR apps. A federal court complaint and request for preliminary relief was filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to halt the transaction.
Biglari Holdings Inc.
Restaurant chain owner and investment fund operator Biglari Holdings Inc. will pay a $1.4 million civil penalty to settle charges that two acquisitions it made on March 26, 2020 of shares of restaurant operator Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc. violated the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act. According to the complaint, these two acquisitions, together with Biglari’s prior holdings of Cracker Barrel, caused it to exceed an HSR filing threshold, triggering its obligation to file an HSR Form and wait before completing the acquisition. Failing to do so violated the HSR Act.
2210003 Informal Interpretation
Procedures for Review of Final Civil Sanctions Imposed Under the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act
Leadership Calendar: Rebecca Kelly Slaughter - October 2022
Concurring Statement of Commissioners Noah Joshua Phillips and Christine S. Wilson regarding San Juan IPA, Inc.
San Juan IPA, Inc.
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.
2209003 Informal Interpretation
San Juan, IPA, In the Matter of
San Juan IPA, Inc., a physicians’ independent practice association operating in northwestern New Mexico, agreed to settle Commission charges that it orchestrated and carried out agreements among its member doctors to set the price that they would accept from health plans, to bargain collectively to obtain the group’s desired price terms, and to refuse to deal with health plans except on collectively determined price terms. According to the complaint, the effect of this conduct was higher prices for medical services for the area’s consumers. The consent order prohibits the association from collectively negotiating with health plans on behalf of its physicians and from setting their terms of dealing with such purchasers. This consent involves 120 physicians who make up about 80 percent of the doctors practicing independently in the area of Farmington, New Mexico.
QYK Brands LLC d/b/a Glowwy
The Federal Trade Commission filed suit against the operators of the online store Glowyy for failing to deliver on promises that they could quickly ship products like face masks, sanitizer, and other personal protective equipment (PPE) related to the coronavirus pandemic.
The lawsuit alleges that the company violated the FTC’s Mail, Internet and Telephone Order Rule (Mail Order Rule), which requires that companies notify consumers of shipping delays in a timely manner and give consumers the chance to cancel orders and receive prompt refunds.