Legal Library: Search

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.

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.

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.

A group of auto dealerships in Arizona and New Mexico must cease business operations as part of a court-approved settlement resolving Federal Trade Commission charges that the dealerships deceived consumers and falsified information on vehicle financing applications.

In a case filed in 2018, the FTC alleged that Tate’s Auto Center of Winslow, Inc.; Tate’s Automotive, Inc.; Tate Ford-Lincoln-Mercury, Inc. (doing business as Tate’s Auto Center);  Tate’s Auto Center of Gallup, Inc.; and Richard Berry, an officer of the dealerships, falsified consumers’ income and down payment information on vehicle financing applications and misrepresented important financial terms in vehicle advertisements. The case continues against Berry and relief defendant Linda Tate.  

The Federal Trade Commission is sending payments totaling more than $415,000 to 3,508 consumers who financed a car or truck at a Tate’s Auto dealership after January 1, 2013, and later had the vehicle repossessed. Tate’s Auto, which operated dealerships in Arizona and New Mexico, allegedly deceived consumers about payment information and falsified information on consumers’ financing applications.