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.
Dynamic Health Of Florida, LLC; Chhabra Group, LLC, et al., In the Matter of
Nestle Holdings, Inc., and Ralston Purina Company
Nestle settled antitrust charges that its $10.3 billion proposed acquisition of Ralston Purina Company would substantially lessen competition in the United States market for dry cat food through the elimination of direct competition between the two firms and increase the likelihood that the combined firm could unilaterally exercise market power. The order requires the divestiture of Ralston's Meow Mix and Alley Cat brands to J.W. Childs Equity Partners II,L.P.
DaVita, Inc.
Ice.com, LLC., U.S. (for the FTC)
Kodak Imaging Network, Inc., formerly Ofoto, Inc., U.S. (for the FTC)
77 Investigations, Inc. and Reginald Kimbro
Integrated Credit Solutions, Inc., Flagship Capital Services Corp., Lighthouse Credit Foundation, Inc., et al.
Valassis Communications, Inc., In the Matter of
Valassis, a leading producer of free-standing newspaper inserts in the United States, has settled charges that it violated Section 5 of the FTC Act by attempting to collude with News America Marketing, its only rival, to eliminate competition between the two companies. During a conference call with industry analysts, a Valassis executive invited NewsAmerica to join in a scheme to allocate customers and fix prices in order to end an ongoing price war between the two companies. Under the consent order settling the FTC’s complaint, Valassis is barred from engaging in or inviting collusive agreements with other publishers or attempting to collude with its competitors.
Procter & Gamble Company and The Gillette Company, In the Matter of
Allergan, Inc., and Inamed Corporation, In the Matter of
The consent order requires that Allergan and Inamed divest the rights to develop and distribute Reloxin, a potential Botox rival, to settle charges that Allergan’s $3.2 billion purchase of Inamed would reduce competition and force consumers to pay higher prices for botulinum toxin type A products. Under the terms of the FTC settlement, the companies will return the development and distribution rights to Reloxin to Ipsen Ltd., its U.K.- based manufacturer.