Skip to main content

Displaying 121 - 140 of 142

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.

Type of Action
Administrative
Last Updated
FTC Matter/File Number
072 3121
C-4308

Inverness Medical Innovations, Inc., In the Matter of

In order to restore competition in the U.S. market for consumer pregnancy tests, the Commission effectively reversed a consummated transaction in which Inverness Medical Innovations, a 70% market share holder, purchased the assets related to the development of a water-soluble dye based pregnancy test from ACON Laboratories in order to protect its monopoly power in the market. According to the Commission’s complaint, Inverness restrained competition in two ways. First, Inverness issued covenants not to compete to ACON, took profits from ACON’s joint venture with Church & Dwight, and purchased intellectual property rights which would restrict ACON from developing competing products. Second, Inverness limited product innovation by purchasing, but not using, the water-soluble dye test technology purchased from ACON, one of the only companies utilizing that technology. The Commission’s consent order ended any restrictions Inverness had over the joint venture between ACON and Church & Dwight, and required that Inverness divest its assets relating to the water-soluble dye technology, and its related pregnancy test product.

Type of Action
Administrative
Last Updated
FTC Matter/File Number
061 0123

Johnson & Johnson and Pfizer Inc., In the Matter of

The consent order settles charges that Johnson & Johnson’s (J&J) proposed $16.6 billion acquisition of Pfizer Inc.’s (Pfizer) Consumer Healthcare business would likely reduce competition in the U.S. markets for over-the-counter (OTC) H-2 blockers used to prevent and relieve heartburn, OTC hydrocortisone anti-itch products, OTC night-time sleep aids, and OTC diaper rash treatments. In settling the Commission’s charges, the companies have agreed to sell Pfizer’s Zantac H-2 blocker business to Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals Inc. (Boehringer), and Pfizer’s Cortizone hydrocortisone anti-itch business, Pfizer’s Unisom night-time sleep aid business, and J&J’s Balmex diaper rash treatment business to Chattem, Inc.

Type of Action
Administrative
Last Updated
FTC Matter/File Number
0610220
Docket Number
C-4180

Perrigo Company and Alpharma Inc., F.T.C.

The Commission authorized staff to file a complaint in federal district court charging that Alpharma, Inc. and Perrigo Company drove up the prices for over-the-counter store-brand children’s liquid ibuprofen through an agreement eliminating competition between the two firms and allowing Perrigo to raise its prices creating higher profits to then be shared between the firms. According to the complaint, while both Alpharma and Perrigo filed for U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval to sell a generic version of children’s liquid Motrin, Alpharma was eligible to sell its product at least six months before approval would be granted to Perrigo. The two companies entered into an agreement not to compete whereby Perrigo would sell the children’s liquid ibuprofen for seven years and Alpharma, while would not marketing a competing product, would receive an up-front payment and a royalty on Perrigo’s sales of the product. To settle the charges, Alpharma and Perrigo paid a total of $6.25 million in illegal profits and agreed not to enter into agreements not to compete when one party to the agreement is a first filer of an abbreviated new drug application.
Type of Action
Federal
Last Updated
FTC Matter/File Number
0210197

Generic Drug Marketers Settle FTC Charges

Date
Generic drug manufacturers Alpharma, Inc. and Perrigo Company will give up $6.25 million in illegal profits to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that their agreement to limit competition for...

Wesley-Jessen Corporation, In the Matter of

Final order preserves competition in the production and sale of opaque contact lenses. The order permits the acquisition of Pilkington Barnes Hind International, Inc. but requires the divestiture of the opaque contact lens business within four months to a Commission approved acquirer.

Type of Action
Administrative
Last Updated
FTC Matter/File Number
9610060
Docket Number
C-3700