Skip to main content

Displaying 21 - 25 of 25

Alabama Trucking Association, Inc., In the Matter of

An association of household goods movers agreed to settle FTC charges that it violated the antitrust laws by engaging in the collective filing of tariffs on behalf of its members who compete in the provision of moving services in the state of Alabama. The conduct is not protected by the state action doctrine because it was not actively supervised by the state. Under terms of a final consent order, Alabama Trucking Association, Inc. agreed to stop filing tariffs containing collective intrastate rates and to void collectively filed tariffs currently in effect in Alabama.

Type of Action
Administrative
Last Updated
FTC Matter/File Number
0210115b
Docket Number
9307

Minnesota Transport Services Association

A consent order settled charges that the household goods movers association filed collectively established rate tariffs for its members in Minnesota, conduct that was not protected by the state action doctrine because the conduct was not actively supervised by the state. According to the complaint, the MTSA filed collectively set rates on behalf of its 89 members, which had the effect of fixing prices of household goods moves, and restricting price competition to the detriment of consumers.

Type of Action
Administrative
Last Updated
FTC Matter/File Number
0210115c
Docket Number
C-4097

Iowa Movers and Warehousemen's Association, In the Matter of

The Iowa Movers and Warehousemen’s Association agreed to stop certain conduct to settle allegations that it filed collectively established tariffs for intrastate moving rates in Iowa - a practice which did not meet the requirements of the state action doctrine because the conduct was not actively supervised by the state.

Type of Action
Administrative
Last Updated
FTC Matter/File Number
0210115d
Docket Number
C-4096

Indiana Household Movers and Warehousemen, Inc., In the Matter of

The corporation that represents household goods movers in Indiana settled charges that it filed collective intrastate rate tariffs with the State’s Department of Revenue on behalf of its members. According to the complaint issued with the consent order, these collective filings reduced competition for household goods moving services within the state, and the conduct was not protected by the state action doctrine because it was not actively supervised by the state.

Type of Action
Administrative
Last Updated
FTC Matter/File Number
0210115a
Docket Number
C-4077
Competition Matters

The when and what of active supervision

Date
Earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners violated the federal antitrust laws by preventing non-dentists from providing teeth whitening...