Tag: Eastern District of Pennsylvania

In May 2020, the FTC sued the operators of a Pennsylvania-based telemarketing scheme, alleging that they charged organizations such as businesses, schools, fire and police departments, and non-profits for books and newsletter subscriptions they never ordered. The agency’s complaint also names the defendants behind a New York-based debt collection operation, alleging that they illegally threatened the organizations if they failed to pay for the unordered merchandise.

In April 2023, International Credit Recovery, Inc. (ICR), officer Richard Diorio, Jr., and manager Cynthia Powell, have agreed to a permanent ban from the debt collection industry after being charged with engaging in bogus debt collection efforts against businesses and non-profits.

In March 2024, the district court ruled against the FTC on its claims. In June 2024, the district court denied the FTC's post-trial motion to alter or amend judgment.

The FTC has charged a business opportunity scheme with falsely claiming to help consumers build an “AI-powered Ecommerce Empire” by participating in its training programs that can cost almost $2,000 or by buying a “done for you” online storefront for tens of thousands of dollars. The scheme, known as Ecommerce Empire Builders (EEB), claims consumers can potentially make millions of dollars, but the FTC’s complaint alleges that those profits fail to materialize.

As a result of the FTC’s complaint, a federal court issued an order temporarily halting the scheme and putting it under the control of a receiver. The FTC’s case against the scheme is ongoing and will be decided by a federal court. 

At the FTC’s request, a federal court has temporarily halted the operation of a sprawling business opportunity scheme that has taken in millions of dollars from consumers with bogus promises of huge returns. The scheme has operated since at least 2018 under a number of names, including “Blueprint to Wealth,” according to the FTC’s complaint. Three individuals -- Samuel James Smith, Robert William Shafer and Charles Joseph Garis, Jr. -- and a company owned by one of them -- Business Revolution Group -- are charged in the complaint with operating the scheme.

The defendants in the case agreed to settlements with the FTC that include monetary judgements, industry bans, and prohibitions on certain conduct.

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 proposed 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.

The FTC filed a complaint in federal district court in September 2014 charging that AbbVie Inc. and its partner Besins Healthcare Inc. illegally blocking American consumers’ access to lower-cost alternatives to Androgel by filing baseless patent infringement lawsuits against potential generic competitors. In a June 2018 decision, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ruled that AbbVie used sham litigation to illegally maintain its monopoly over the testosterone replacement drug Androgel, and ordered $448 million in monetary relief to consumers who were overcharged for Androgel as a result of AbbVie’s conduct.

In September 2020, the Third Circuit affirmed the district court’s finding of liability on the FTC’s sham litigation claim, and reinstated the reverse payment claim, two important legal victories that protect competition in pharmaceutical markets.

While handing the Commission important legal victories, the Third Circuit reversed the district court’s nearly half-billion dollar monetary judgment for consumers, holding that the FTC is not entitled to disgorgement under 13(b) of the FTC Act. This determination was effectively affirmed by the Supreme Court’s decision in AMG Capital Management v. FTC.

Since the initial filing of the lawsuit, generic AndroGel products have entered the market, so that patients now benefit from competition among multiple suppliers. AbbVie and Teva are also now subject to Commission orders preventing them from entering into certain reverse-payment settlements. On July 30, 2021, the Commission announced that it has withdrawn its reverse-payment claim from federal district court, ending its litigation against AbbVie.

The Federal Trade Commission has issued an administrative complaint and authorized a federal court action to block the proposed merger of Jefferson Health and Albert Einstein Healthcare Network, two leading providers of inpatient general acute care hospital services and inpatient acute rehabilitation services in both Philadelphia County and Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. The proposed merger would eliminate the robust competition between Jefferson and Einstein for inclusion in health insurance companies’ hospital networks to the detriment of patients. The Commission vote to issue the administrative complaint and to authorize staff to seek a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction was 4-0-1, with Chairman Joseph J. Simons recused. The administrative trial is scheduled to begin on Sept. 1, 2020.

A federal court has granted a request by the Federal Trade Commission to shut down a tech support scam that allegedly bilked consumers out of more than $17 million by pretending to represent Microsoft, Apple and other major tech companies.

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.

The FTC filed a complaint in federal district court alleging that Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. and several other drug companies violated antitrust laws by using pay-for-delay settlements to block consumers’ access to lower-cost generic versions of Opana ER and Lidoderm with an agreement not to market an authorized generic – often called a “no-AG commitment” – as a form of reverse payment. The complaint, filed in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleges that Endo paid the first generic companies that filed for FDA approval – Impax Laboratories, Inc. and Watson Laboratories, Inc. – to eliminate the risk of competition for Opana ER and Lidoderm, in violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act. Opana ER is an extendedrelease opioid used to relieve moderate to severe pain. Lidoderm is a topical patch used to relieve pain associated with post-herpetic neuralgia, a complication of shingles. The FTC is seeking a court judgment declaring that the defendants’ conduct violates the antitrust laws, ordering the companies to disgorge their ill-gotten gains, and permanently barring them from engaging in similar anticompetitive behavior in the future.  Teikoko Pharma USA and Teikoku Seiyaku Co., Ltd. agreed to a stipulated order resolving FTC charges.

In November 2016, the FTC voluntarily dismissed the complaint in this action.  On January 23, 2017, the FTC refiled charges related to the Lidoderm agreements in federal court in California (Federal Trade Commission vs. Allergan plc; Watson Laboratories, Inc., et al) and refiled charges related to the Opana ER agreement in a Part 3 administrative proceeding.  (In re Impax Laboratories, Inc.)