The legal library gives you easy access to the FTC’s case information and other official legal, policy, and guidance documents.
IV Drips (IV Hydration Therapy)
Altria-Juul, Docket No. 9393, Prehearing Conference
Benco/Schein/Patterson, In the Matter of
The Federal Trade Commission issued an administrative complaint alleging that Benco, Henry Schein and Patterson, the nation's three largest dental supply companies, violated U.S. antitrust laws by conspiring to refuse to provide discounts to or otherwise serve buying groups representing dental practitioners. These buying groups sought lower prices for dental supplies and equipment on behalf of solo and small-group dental practices seeking to gain discounts by aggregating and leveraging the collective purchasing power and bargaining skills of the individual practices. The complaint also alleges an FTC Act Section 5 violation against Benco for inviting a fourth competing distributor to join the conspiracy.
SUPERTHERM, Inc.
The Federal Trade Commission sued SuperTherm, Inc., and its principals Roberto Guerra, and Susana Guerra, 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.
F & G International Group Holdings, LLC
The Federal Trade Commission 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.
20201249: Eppendorf AG; Promega Corporation
Granting of Requests for Early Termination of the Waiting Period Under the Premerger Notification Rules (June 2020)
Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request (Business Opportunity Rule)
20201234: Temasek Holdings (Private) Limited; LegalApp Holdings, Inc.
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.
Indivior Inc.
Reckitt Benckiser Group plc has agreed to pay $50 million to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that it violated the antitrust laws through a deceptive scheme to thwart lower-priced generic competition to its branded drug Suboxone. According to the complaint, before the generic versions of Suboxone tablets became available, Reckitt and its former subsidiary Reckitt Benckiser Pharmaceuticals, now known as Indivior, Inc., developed a dissolvable oral film version of Suboxone and worked to shift prescriptions to this patent-protected film. Worried that doctors and patients would not want to switch to Suboxone Film, Reckitt allegedly employed a “product hopping” scheme where the company misrepresented that the film version of Suboxone was safer than Suboxone tablets because children are less likely to be accidentally exposed to the film product. Invidior has agreed to pay an additional $10 million to settle FTC charges.
First Choice Horizon LLC
Announced in June 2019 as part of a crackdown on illegal robocalls against operations around the country responsible for more than one billion calls, the FTC’s complaint against six corporate and three individual defendants jointly doing business as Second Choice Horizon and CSG Solutions, alleges Raymond Gonzalez, Carlos S. Guerrero, and Joshua Hernandez ran a maze of interrelated operations that used illegal robocalls to contact financially distressed consumers with offers of bogus credit card interest rate reduction services. The FTC contends many of the consumers targeted were seniors. In July 2020, the FTC announced the defendants had settled the Commission’s complaint, and are banned from telemarketing and selling debt relief services.