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.
Práxedes E. Alvarez Santiago, M.D., et al. (“PR Nephrologists”), In the Matter of
Eight independent nephrologists in Puerto Rico settled Federal Trade Commission charges that they illegally collectively bargained with insurers and refused to treat health plan patients when their price demands were rebuffed. Under a proposed order settling the FTC’s charges, the doctors are barred from jointly negotiating prices, jointly refusing to deal with any insurer, and jointly refusing to treat patients. According to the FTC’s complaint, the eight doctors have violated federal antitrust laws since late 2011 by 1) collectively negotiating and fixing the prices upon which they would contract with Humana to extract higher reimbursement rates, and 2) collectively terminating their contracts with Humana and refusing to treat Humana patients enrolled in the Mi Salud program when Humana would not meet their price demands.
CBR Systems, Inc., In the Matter of
DR Phone Communications, Inc., et al.
AEA Investors 2006 Fund L.P., et al.
Houghton International, Inc., the leading North American provider of hot rolling oil used to process aluminum, agreed to sell some of the assets it acquired in 2008 through its purchase of D.A. Stuart GmbH, a transaction that included multiple product markets. The FTC’s investigation found that Houghton’s acquisition of D.A. Stuart GmbH combined the two largest suppliers of aluminum hot rolling oil (AHRO) in North America, giving the combined firm control of almost 75 percent of the North American market. The FTC’s complaint alleges that, through its purchase of Stuart, Houghton could unilaterally raise AHRO prices to U.S. consumers. The complaint also alleges that the acquisition could decrease innovation for this vital input into aluminum manufacturing. Under the order settling the FTC’s charges, Houghton will sell Stuart’s AHRO business to Quaker Chemical Corporation.
Filiquarian Publishing, LLC; Choice Level, LLC; and Joshua Linsk, In the Matter of
NHS Systems, Inc. also d/b/a National Healthcare Solutions and National Health Net Online, Physician Health Service, LLC also d/b/a American Health Benefits On Line, et al.
Graco Inc., In the Matter of
Graco, Inc. settled FTC charges that it violated the antitrust laws by buying Gusmer Corp. (Gusmer) in 2005 and GlasCraft, Inc. (GCI) in 2008, its two closest competitors in the North American market for fast set equipment (FSE) used by contractors to apply polyurethane foams and polyurea coatings. The consent order settling the FTC’s charges is designed to restore competition to the FSE market that was lost as a result of Graco’s acquisitions. It incorporates a private litigation settlement between Graco and Polyurethane Machinery Corp. (Gama/PMC) that requires Graco to license certain technology to Gama/PMC. The consent order also contains provisions that provide Gama/PMC and other competitors easier access to distributors, so they can distribute competing FSE products effectively in the North American market.
Bosch (Robert Bosch GmbH)
The FTC approved an order settling charges that Robert Bosch GmbH’s acquisition of the SPX Service Solutions business of SPX Corporation would have given it a virtual monopoly in the market for air conditioning recycling, recovery, and recharge devices for vehicles. Under a settlement with the FTC, Bosch agreed to sell its automotive air conditioner repair equipment business, including RTI Technologies, Inc., to automotive equipment manufacturer, Mahle Clevite, Inc. Bosch also agreed to resolve allegations that, before its acquisition by Bosch, SPX harmed competition in the market for this equipment by reneging on a commitment to license key, standard-essential patents (SEPs) on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms. The FTC alleged that SPX reneged on its obligation to license on FRAND terms by seeking injunctions against willing licensees of those patents. Bosch has agreed to abandon these claims for injunctive relief.