Every year the FTC brings hundreds of cases against individuals and companies for violating consumer protection and competition laws that the agency enforces. These cases can involve fraud, scams, identity theft, false advertising, privacy violations, anti-competitive behavior and more. The Legal Library has detailed information about cases we have brought in federal court or through our internal administrative process, called an adjudicative proceeding.
Reverb Communications, Inc.
In Deep Services, Inc., a California corporation, also d/b/a Grants For You Now, et al.
Pilot Corporation, Propeller Corp., and Flying J Inc., In the Matter of
The FTC required Pilot Corporation, owner of the largest travel center network in the United States, to sell 26 locations as part of a settlement that will replace the competition lost because of Pilot’s proposed $1.8 billion acquisition of Flying J Inc.’s travel center network. Pilot has agreed to sell the travel centers, which provide diesel, food, parking, and other amenities for truckers, to Love’s Travel Stops and Country Stores, the smallest national travel center operator, currently concentrated in the South. According to the FTC’s complaint, the deal would have reduced competition for certain long-haul trucking fleets for which Pilot and Flying J were the first and second best choices for diesel.
Rite Aid Corporation, In the Matter of
Rite Aid is prohibited from using facial recognition technology for security or surveillance purposes for five years to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that the retailer failed to implement reasonable procedures and prevent harm to consumers in its use of facial recognition technology in hundreds of stores.
The order requires Rite Aid to implement comprehensive safeguards to prevent these types of harm to consumers when deploying automated systems that use biometric information to track them or flag them as security risks. It also requires Rite Aid to discontinue using any such technology if it cannot control potential risks to consumers. To settle charges it violated a 2010 Commission data security order by failing to adequately oversee its service providers, Rite Aid is also required to implement a robust information security program, which must be overseen by the company’s top executives.
Response Makers, LLC
Federal Housing Modification Department, Inc., also d/b/a Nations Housing Modification Center and Loan Modification Reform Association, et al.
National Foreclosure Relief, Inc., a corporation, et al., FTC
US Foreclosure Relief Corp., d/b/a U.S. Foreclosure Relief, Inc., et al.
Fidelity National Financial, Inc, In the Matter of (LandAmerica Financial)
To settle charges that its 2008 acquisition of three LandAmerica Financial, Inc. subsidiaries was anticompetitive, Fidelity National Financial, Inc. agree to sell several title plants and related assets in six geographic areas: 1) the Portland, Oregon, metropolitan area, consisting of Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington counties; 2) Benton County, Oregon; 3) Jackson County, Oregon; 4) Marion County, Oregon; 5) Linn County, Oregon; and 6) the Detroit, Michigan, metropolitan area consisting of Oakland, Macomb, and Wayne counties.
Mark Dreher, Ph.D., In the Matter of
Your Money Access, LLC, et al., FTC, State of Illinois, State of Iowa, State of Nevada, State of North Carolina, State of North Dakota, State of Ohio, and State of Vermont
XACTA 3000, Inc., et al.
Intel Corporation, In the Matter of
The Commission filed an administrative complaint against Intel Corp., the world’s leading computer chip maker, charging that the company had illegally used its dominant market position for a decade to stifle competition and strengthen its monopoly. The complaint alleged that Intel engaged in a course of conduct to shut out rivals’ competing microchips by cutting off their access to the marketplace. In particular, the complaint alleged that Intel unlawfully maintained its monopoly in relevant central processing unit, or CPU, markets, and sought to acquire a second monopoly in the relevant graphics markets, using a variety of unfair methods of competition. In August of 2010, Intel agreed to a settlement containing provisions that would undo the effects of Intel's past conduct, and prohibiting Intel from suppressing competition in the future.