Tag: Nonmerger

Pool Corporation, the largest distributor of swimming pool products in the United States, agreed to stop anticompetitive tactics that it allegedly used to keep out new competitors in local markets around the nation, as part of a settlement that resolves charges that the conduct maintained PoolCorp's monopoly over distribution of pool products. PoolCorp distributes products used in the construction, renovation, repair, service, and maintenance of residential and commercial swimming pools. The FTC charged that for the past eight years, PoolCorp, based in Covington, Louisiana, threatened not to sell the pool products of any manufacturer who sold products to a new distributor, effectively thwarting entry by new competitors by blocking them from buying pool products directly from manufacturers. The strategy significantly raised the costs incurred by its rivals, thereby lowering sales, increasing prices, and reducing the number of choices available to consumers, the agency alleged.

An association representing 900 physicians in the Amarillo, Texas, area agreed to a Commission order barring it from jointly negotiating the prices it charges insurance providers. The FTC alleged in a complaint filed with the order that the association, Southwest Health Alliances, Inc., d/b/a BSA Provider Network, has violated federal law since 2000 by fixing the prices its member doctors would charge insurers. The Commission's order requires the association to cease and desist.

In May 1996, the Commission filed an administrative complaint charging Toys "R" Us with using its dominant position as a toy distributor to obtain agreements from toy manufacturers to stop selling to warehouse clubs the same toys that they sold to Toys "R" Us.  After an administrative trial, the ALJ issued an initial decision finding that Toys "R' Us' policy to stop carrying toys made by a manufacturer that sold the same toys to discount club stores had induced manufacturers to agree to stop supplying some toys to club stores in violation of the antitrust laws.  In October 1998, the Commission issued its decision that Toys "R Us had orchestrated horizontal and vertical agreements with and among toy manufacturers to restrict the availability of popular toys to warehouse clubs, and ordered the company to stop pressuring manufacturers to limit supply or otherwise refuse to sell to discount club stores. Toys "R" Us appealed to the Seventh Circuit, and in August 2000, the appellate court upheld the Commission's order.

In April 2014, on a petition from Toys "R" Us, the Commission modified its order to set aside certain provisions that restricted the company's ability to enter into certain conditional supply relationships, finding that Toys "R" Us is no longer the largest toy retailer.

The Minnesota Rural Health Cooperative (MRHC), comprised by a group of doctors and hospitals in southwestern Minnesota, agreed to a settlement with the Federal Trade Commission that prohibits anticompetitive tactics the group allegedly used to increase health insurance reimbursement rates. The MRHC is made up of approximately 25 hospitals and 70 doctors, representing most of the hospitals and half of the primary care physicians in southwestern Minnesota. According to the FTC’s complaint, when members join the MRHC, they agree that the group’s board of directors will negotiate and contract with health insurers on their behalf and that they will abide by the MRHC contracts. The settlement order bars the MRHC from using coercive tactics to extract favorable contract terms from health plans. In addition, the order requires the MRHC to offer to renegotiate all current contracts with health plans and to submit any revised contracts for state approval.

The Commission filed an administrative complaint against Intel Corp., the world’s leading computer chip maker, charging that the company had illegally used its dominant market position for a decade to stifle competition and strengthen its monopoly. The complaint alleged that Intel engaged in a course of conduct to shut out rivals’ competing microchips by cutting off their access to the marketplace. In particular, the complaint alleged that Intel unlawfully maintained its monopoly in relevant central processing unit, or CPU, markets, and sought to acquire a second monopoly in the relevant graphics markets, using a variety of unfair methods of competition. In August of 2010, Intel agreed to a settlement containing provisions that would undo the effects of Intel's past conduct, and prohibiting Intel from suppressing competition in the future.

U-Haul International, Inc. and its parent company settled FTC charges that they violated Section 5 of the FTC Act by inviting U-Haul’s closest competitor, Avis Budget Group, Inc., to collude on prices for truck rentals. U-Haul and Budget control more than 70 percent of the “do-it-yourself” one-way truck rental business in the United States. The FTC’s complaint alleges that on several occasions between 2006 and 2008, U-Haul tried to increase rates for one-way truck rentals by privately and publicly communicating with Budget, the second-largest truck rental company in the United States. The proposed settlement order against U-Haul and its parent company AMERCO bars them from inviting a competitor to divide markets, allocate customers, or fix prices, as well as participating in, maintaining, organizing, implementing, enforcing, offering, or soliciting any other company to engage in such conduct.

The Commission charged that Transitions Optical, Inc., the nation’s leading manufacturer of photochromic treatments that darken corrective lenses used in eyeglasses, used anticompetitive practices to maintain its monopoly and increase prices. Photochromic treatments are applied to eyeglass lenses and treated lenses darken when exposed to UV light. The FTC charges that the company illegally maintained its monopoly by engaging in exclusive dealing at nearly every level of the photochromic lens distribution chain.  The FTC alleged that Transitions’ exclusionary tactics locked out rivals from approximately 85 percent of the lens caster market, and partially or completely locked out rivals from up to 40 percent or more of the retailer and wholesale lab market.  Under FTC consent order, Transitions agreed to stop all exclusive dealing practices that pose a threat to competition, making it easier for competitors to enter.

Following an appeal by RealComp, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit upheld the FTC order. On August 15, 2011 Realcomp appealed to the Supreme Court. On October 11, 2011 the Supreme Court denied Realcomp's petition for a writ of certiorari.

Roaring Fork Valley Physicians, IPA, Inc., a Colorado physicians’ group, settled Commission charges of price-fixing by agreeing to halt its use of allegedly anticompetitive negotiating tactics against health insurers. The Commission charged Roaring Fork Valley Physicians I.P.A., Inc., which represents about 80 percent of the doctors in Garfield County, Colorado, with violating the FTC Act by orchestrating agreements among its members to set higher prices for medical services and to refuse to deal with insurers that did not meet its demands for higher rates.

The Commission settled charges that the executive director of a Colorado physicians’ association actively tried to evade the terms of a 2008 FTC order by telling insurers that because she was not named individually in the order, she could simply negotiate on behalf of competing physicians on the “outside” and “not with my [association] hat, but as an individual.” The Commission complaint and consent order settling the FTC’s charges name the executive director individually, and will prevent her from orchestrating or implementing price-fixing agreements among the group’s competing physicians.

The Commission challenged the conduct of Boulder Valley Individual Practice Association for refusing to deal, or threatening to refuse to deal with insurance providers that failed to increase fees paid to group doctors, and also prevented members from contracting with payers, except through Boulder Valley. During the period between 2001 and 2006 Boulder Valley IPA threatened to terminate contracts with payers unless the payers agreed to pay increased fees-for-service set by Boulder Valley, effectively engaging in illegal price fixing, and harming Boulder country area consumers by charging higher prices for the various physician’s services offered. The settlement prohibits Boulder Valley from entering into agreements between or among physicians: 1) to negotiate on behalf of any physician with any payer; 2) to refuse to deal, or threaten to refuse to deal, with any payer; 3) to designate the terms, conditions, or requirements upon which any physician deals, or is willing to deal, with any payer, including, but not limited to price terms; 4) not to deal individually with any payer, or not to deal with any payer through any arrangement other than one involving Boulder Valley.

The Commission issued an administrative complaint charging Realcomp with violating Section 5 of the FTC Act by prohibiting information on Exclusive Agency (EA) Listings and other forms of nontraditional listings from being transmitted from the multiple listing service (MLS) it maintains to public real estate web sites. The complaint further alleged that the conduct was collusive and exclusionary, because the brokers enacting the rules were essentially agreeing among themselves how to compete with one another, and were withholding the valuable benefits of the MLS from nontraditional real estate brokers. After the ALJ dismissed the complaint, Commission staff appealed the initial decision, and on November 2, 2009 the Commission issued an Opinion finding that Realcomp II had violated federal law by restricting the ability of member real estate agents to offer consumers lower-priced alternatives to traditional real estate services. Realcomp refused to transmit discount real estate listings to its own and other publicly available Web sites and excluded such listings from the default searches within its own database. The Commission found that these policies restricted access to these listings and harmed competition. The FTC’s Final Order requires Realcomp to provide its members non-discriminatory access to non-traditional and lower-price listings on its Multiple Listing Service (MLS) and to stop preventing such listings from being sent to its public real estate sites. Following an appeal by RealComp, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit upheld the FTC order. On August 15, 2011 Realcomp appealed to the Supreme Court. On October 11, 2011 the Supreme Court denied Realcomp's petition for a writ of certiorari.

Alta Bates Medical Group, Inc., a 600-physician independent practice association serving the Berkeley and Oakland, California, area, settleed Commission charges that it violated federal antitrust law by fixing prices charged to health care insurers. The consent order prohibits Alta Bates from collectively negotiating fee-for-service reimbursements and engaging in related anticompetitive conduct. In addition to price-fixing of fee-for-service reimbursements, the FTC’s complaint alleges an unlawful concerted refusal to deal.