Skip to main content

Displaying 441 - 460 of 589

Valassis Communications, Inc., In the Matter of

Valassis, a leading producer of free-standing newspaper inserts in the United States, has settled charges that it violated Section 5 of the FTC Act by attempting to collude with News America Marketing, its only rival, to eliminate competition between the two companies. During a conference call with industry analysts, a Valassis executive invited NewsAmerica to join in a scheme to allocate customers and fix prices in order to end an ongoing price war between the two companies. Under the consent order settling the FTC’s complaint, Valassis is barred from engaging in or inviting collusive agreements with other publishers or attempting to collude with its competitors.

Type of Action
Administrative
Last Updated
FTC Matter/File Number
0510008
Docket Number
C-4160

Health Care Alliance of Laredo, L.C., In the Matter of

A physicians’ independent practice association in Texas agreed to settle charges that it engaged in unlawful collective bargaining to set fees its members would accept from health insurance plans and advised its members against dealing individually with plans. The Commission charged that both practices resulted in higher medical costs for consumers. The consent order settling the FTC’s charges will prohibit the IPA from engaging in such anticompetitive conduct in the future.
Type of Action
Administrative
Last Updated
FTC Matter/File Number
0410097

Kentucky Household Goods Carriers Association, Inc., In the Matter of

After an administrative trial, the administrative law judge found that a group of affiliated intrastate movers had engaged in horizontal price-fixing by filing collective rates on behalf of its member motor common carriers for the intrastate transportation of property within the Commonwealth of Kentucky. The judge also ruled that the association’s conduct was not protected by the state action doctrine because the State of Kentucky did not supervise the rate-making practices of the group. On July 12, 2004, the Kentucky Household Goods Carriers Association, Inc. filed an appeal of the initial decision with the Commission. On June 22, 2005, the Commission issued a unanimous opinion finding that the Kentucky Household Goods Carriers Association, Inc. engaged in illegal price-fixing by jointly filing tariffs containing collective rates on behalf of its members, and that the state action doctrine does not immunize that activity from antitrust liability. On August 22, 2006, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the opinion of the Commission.

Type of Action
Administrative
Last Updated
FTC Matter/File Number
0210115g
Docket Number
9309

Partners Health Network, Inc., In the Matter of

A physician-hospital organization operating in northwestern South Carolina, agreed to settle charges that it orchestrated and carried out agreements among its physician members to set the prices they would accept from health plans, and to refuse to deal with health plans that did not agree to its collectively determined prices. The consent order settling the FTC’s charges prohibits the PHO from collectively negotiating with health plans on behalf of its physicians and from setting terms of dealing with purchasers.
Type of Action
Administrative
Last Updated
FTC Matter/File Number
0410100

White Sands Health Care System, L.L.C.; et al., In the Matter of

A consent order settled charges that the White Sands Health Care System refused to deal with health care insurers that resisted the collectively negotiated prices set by its member physicians and nurse anesthetists. The complaint alleged that these practices increased costs for health care for consumers in the Alamogordo, New Mexico area. White Sands, a physician-hospital organization, consists of Alamogordo Physicians, an independent practice association; Gerald Champion Regional Medical Center, and 31 nonphysician health care providers, including all five nurse anesthetists in the area.
Type of Action
Administrative
Last Updated
FTC Matter/File Number
0310135

Union Oil Company of California, In the Matter of

An administrative law judge dismissed a complaint in its entirety against Union Oil of California that charged the company with committing fraud in connection with regulatory proceedings before the California Air Resources Board regarding the development of reformulated gasoline. The judge ruled much of Unocal’s conduct was permissible activity under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine and that the resolution of the issues outlined in the complaint would require an in depth analysis of patent law which he believed were not with the jurisdiction of the Commission. In July 2004, the Commission reversed the judge’s ruling and reinstated charges that Unocal illegally acquired monopoly power in the technology market for producing a “summer-time” low-emissions gasoline mandated for sale and use by the CARB for use in the state for up to eight months of the year. While the case was pending before the administrative law judge, Unocal agreed to settle the claims and cease and desist enforcing Unocal’s patents covering reformulated gasoline that complies with California Air resources Board Standard, will not undertake any new enforcement efforts related to the particular patents, and will cease all attempts to collect damages, royalties, or other payments related to the use of any of the patents.  The settlement in this case was related to the settlement of FTC charges that Chevron's acquisition of Unocal would substantially lessen competition in the refining and marketing of CARB reformulated gasoline, as Chevron would acquire the relevant Unocal patents through the acquisition and would be able to use its position to coordinate with its downstream competitors, to the detriment of consumers.  See In the Matter of Chevron Corporation and Unocal Corporation.

Type of Action
Administrative
Last Updated
FTC Matter/File Number
0110214
Docket Number
9305

New Millennium Orthopaedics, LLC; et al., In the Matter of

The Commission settled charges with two small groups of orthopedic physicians in the Cincinnati area that had formed an independent practice association that jointly negotiated contracts regarding the rates its physician members would charge health plans and other payors for their services. In addition to the usual prohibitions on joint negotiations, the Commission’s order disbanded the IPA and prohibited future collective bargaining.

Type of Action
Administrative
Last Updated
FTC Matter/File Number
0310087

Preferred Health Services, Inc., In the Matter of

The order prohibits Preferred Health Services from orchestrating collective agreements and other terms for physician services when negotiating with health insurance plans and other third party payers. According to the complaint these agreements among the physician-hospital organization of doctors and the Oconee Memorial Hospital in northwestern South Carolina to collectively negotiate fees and terms of services could lead to higher health care costs and limited physician access.

Type of Action
Administrative
Last Updated
FTC Matter/File Number
0410099

California Pacific Medical Group, Inc., In the Matter of

With an administrative complaint issued on July 8, 2003 the Commission charged a San Francisco, California physicians’ organization with engaging in an agreement under which its competing members agreed collectively on the price and other terms on which they would enter into contracts with health plans or other third party payers. The complaint also alleged that Brown and Toland directed its physicians to end their preexisting contracts with payers and required its physician members to charge specified prices in all Preferred Provider Organization contracts. A final consent order prohibits Brown and Toland from negotiating with payers on behalf of physicians, refusing to deal with payers, and setting terms for physicians to deal with payers, unless the physicians are clinically or financially integrated.

Type of Action
Administrative
Last Updated
FTC Matter/File Number
0210143
Docket Number
9306
Feb18

Town Meetings on Patent System Reform

The FTC, the National Academies' Board on Science, Technology, and Economic Policy (STEP), and the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) co-sponsored a nationwide series of Town...

Virginia Board of Funeral Directors and Embalmers

The Virginia Board of Funeral Directors and Embalmers settled charges that it prohibited Virginia funeral directors and service providers from engaging in truthful advertising that would inform consumers of prices and discounts for funeral products and services. Under terms of the consent order, the Board is prohibited from engaging in such practices in the future and is required to amend its regulation prohibiting Board licensees from advertising funeral services including those services that can be contracted prior to the death of the person whose funeral is being planned.

Type of Action
Administrative
Last Updated
FTC Matter/File Number
0410014

Piedmont Health Alliance, Inc., et al., In the Matter of

With an administrative complaint issued on December 22, 2003 the Commission charged Piedmont Health Alliance, Inc. with collectively setting prices it demanded for physician services with third party payers. According to the complaint, the physician-hospital organization entered into signed agreements on behalf of its member physicians to participate in all contracts negotiated and to accept the negotiated physician fees. The complaint further alleges that these practices eliminated price competition among physicians in the North Carolina counties of Alexander, Burke, Caldwell and Catawba. The complaint also names ten individual physicians who participated in the alleged price fixing services. On August 10, 2004, the organization and physicians agreed to settle charges. Also refer to settlement entered with Tenet Healthcare Corporation (Frye Regional Medical Center, Inc.).

Type of Action
Administrative
Last Updated
FTC Matter/File Number
0210119i
Docket Number
9314