The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.
The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.
The FTC required casino operators Penn National Gaming, Inc. and Pinnacle Entertainment, Inc. to divest casino-related assets in three Midwestern cities to resolves charges that Penn’s $2.8 billion agreement to acquire Pinnacle likely would be anticompetitive. The complaint alleges that the proposed acquisition would harm competition for casino services in metropolitan St. Louis, Missouri; Kansas City, Missouri; and Cincinnati, Ohio. Casino services include gaming services such as slots and table games, as well as related lodging, entertainment, and food and beverage services, according to the complaint. Typically, casino operators generate the vast majority of their revenues from gaming. Casinos are highly regulated, with a limited number of licenses granted in any given state, as well as age restrictions on who can gamble. According to the complaint, the acquisition, if consummated, likely would eliminate direct competition between Penn and Pinnacle, increasing the likelihood that Penn would unilaterally exercise market power, and lead to higher prices and reduced quality for consumers of casino services.
Following a public comment period, the FTC has approved a final order settling charges against a Texas-based marketer and seller of intravenously injected therapy products (IV Cocktails) who allegedly made a range of deceptive and unsupported health claims about their ability to treat serious diseases such as cancer, multiple sclerosis, and congestive heart failure.
On 2/13/2008, the Commission filed a complaint in federal district court charging Cephalon, Inc. with preventing competition to its branded drug Provigil. The conduct under challenge includes paying four firms to refrain from selling generic versions of Provigil until 2012. Cephalon’s anticompetitive scheme, according to the Commission, denies patients access to lower-cost, generic versions of Provigil and forces consumers and other purchasers to pay hundreds of millions of dollars a year more for Provigil. According to the complaint, Cephalon entered into agreements with four generic drug manufacturers that each planned to sell a generic version of Provigil. Each of these companies had challenged the only remaining patent covering Provigil, one relating to the size of particles used in the product. The complaint charges that Cephalon was able to induce each of the generic companies to abandon its patent challenge and agree to refrain from selling a generic version of Provigil until 2012 by agreeing to pay the companies a total amount in excess of $200 million. In so doing, Cephalon achieved a result that assertion of its patent rights alone could not. In 2008, this case was transferred from the District Court of District of Columbia to the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.