Tag: Retail

Tri Star Energy, LLC, Hollingsworth Oil Company, Inc., C & H Properties, and Ronald L. Hollingsworth, which operate fuel outlets and convenience stores, agreed to settle FTC charges that Tri Star’s acquisition of retail outlets and related interests of Hollingsworth would violate antitrust law. The complaint alleges that the proposed acquisition would harm competition for both retail gasoline sales and retail diesel fuel sales in the two local markets of Whites Creek, Tennessee and Greenbrier, Tennessee. Under the proposed consent agreement, Tri Star would be required to divest to Cox Oil Company, Inc. retail fuel assets in Whites Creek and Greenbrier within 10 days after Tri Star completes the acquisition. On August 14, 2020, the Commission announced it had approved the final consent order in this matter.

Rent-to-own operators Aaron’s Inc., Buddy’s Newco, LLC, and Rent-A-Center, Inc. agreed to settle FTC charges that they negotiated and executed reciprocal purchase agreements in violation of federal antitrust law. The complaints allege that from June 2015 to May 2018, Aaron’s, Buddy’s, and Rent-A-Center each entered into anticompetitive reciprocal agreements with each other and other competitors. The three proposed consent agreements prohibited the rent-to-own companies and their franchisees from entering into any reciprocal purchase agreement or inviting others to do so, and from enforcing the non-compete clauses still in effect from the past reciprocal purchase agreements. After a public comment period, the Commission announced the final consent agreements.

Progressive Leasing, a company that markets rent-to-own payment plans in tens of thousands of retail stores nationwide, will pay $175 million to settle Federal Trade Commission charges it misled consumers about the true price of items purchased through its plans.

In September 2017, a group of online marketers agreed to pay more than $2.5 million to settle FTC charges that it deceived consumers with “free” and “risk-free” trials for cooking and golfing products. According to a complaint filed in March 2017, the defendants offered “free” products, without clearly disclosing that by accepting the “free” product consumers were agreeing to be charged each month for a subscription if they did not cancel. They also allegedly misrepresented their return, refund and cancellation policies. The order setting the FTC’s complaint barred the defendants from misrepresenting the cost of any good or service, that consumers will not be charged, that consumers can get something for a processing or shipping fee with no further obligation, and that a product or service is free. In April 2020, the FTC announced it was sending refund checks totaling $488,629 to defrauded consumers.