The legal library gives you easy access to the FTC’s case information and other official legal, policy, and guidance documents.
Google, Inc.: Analysis of Proposed Consent Order Aid Public Comment; Proposed Consent Agreement
20110703: Cephalon, Inc.; Gemin X Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
20110690: Mr. Yitshak Sharon (Tshuva); Ergon, Inc.
20110689: International Petroleum Investment Company; Compania Espanola de Petroleos, S.A.
20110681: Sidney B. DeBoer; Gregory S. Rasmussen
20110678: EMC Corporation; NetWitness Corporation
20110676: Epiq Systems, Inc.; Frontenac VIII Limited Partnership
20110618: General Electric Company; John Wood Group PLC
20110627: Hercules Offshore, Inc.; Seahawk Drilling, Inc.
20110610: Ensco plc; Pride International, Inc.
20110652: Clariant AG; J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.
20110649: Teradata Corporation; Aster Data Systems, Inc.
20110673: New Mountain Partners III, L.P.; Quad-C Partners VI, L.P.
20110668: Blackstone Capital Partners V, L.P.; Rikco International, LLC
20110606: Verizon Communications Inc.; Terremark Worldwide, Inc.
ProMedica Health System, Inc., FTC and State of Ohio v.
Toys R Us, Inc.
In May 1996, the Commission filed an administrative complaint charging Toys "R" Us with using its dominant position as a toy distributor to obtain agreements from toy manufacturers to stop selling to warehouse clubs the same toys that they sold to Toys "R" Us. After an administrative trial, the ALJ issued an initial decision finding that Toys "R' Us' policy to stop carrying toys made by a manufacturer that sold the same toys to discount club stores had induced manufacturers to agree to stop supplying some toys to club stores in violation of the antitrust laws. In October 1998, the Commission issued its decision that Toys "R Us had orchestrated horizontal and vertical agreements with and among toy manufacturers to restrict the availability of popular toys to warehouse clubs, and ordered the company to stop pressuring manufacturers to limit supply or otherwise refuse to sell to discount club stores. Toys "R" Us appealed to the Seventh Circuit, and in August 2000, the appellate court upheld the Commission's order.
In April 2014, on a petition from Toys "R" Us, the Commission modified its order to set aside certain provisions that restricted the company's ability to enter into certain conditional supply relationships, finding that Toys "R" Us is no longer the largest toy retailer.