Statement of FTC Bureau of Competition Director Richard A. Feinstein on the Temporary Restraining Order Issued in the Phoebe Putney/Palmyra Park Hospital Case

For Release

The Director of the Federal Trade Commission’s Bureau of Competition, Richard A. Feinstein, issued the following statement regarding today’s ruling by the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, which granted the FTC’s motion for a temporary restraining order in the case Federal Trade Commission et al v. Phoebe Putney Health System, Inc. et al.

“We are pleased that the Court has issued a Temporary Restraining Order prohibiting any further steps to consolidate the two hospitals in Albany, and prohibiting any price changes to existing health-plan contracts, pending our Motion for Preliminary Injunction.  A hearing on that motion has been scheduled for June 14.”

Contact Information

MEDIA CONTACT:
Office of Public Affairs
202-326-2180

FTC Settlement Requires California Company to Halt Illegal Robocalls

A California company that provides voice-over-Internet “voice broadcasting” services has agreed to stop transmitting illegal robocalls to consumers to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that it violated the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR). The company also will pay a $75,000 civil penalty as part of the settlement. A voice broadcaster is a company that uses computers to broadcast pre-recorded messages to many recipients at one time.

The FTC charged that Skyy Consulting, Inc., which does business as CallFire, assisted and facilitated its clients in placing outbound pre-recorded telemarketing calls to consumers without their written consent. Such telemarketing robocalls have been illegal since September 1, 2009. The FTC charged that the defendants either knew, or consciously avoided knowing, that their clients were violating the TSR. CallFire is headquartered in Santa Monica, Calif.

The proposed order settling the FTC’s charges bars the company from initiating illegal robocalls or otherwise violating the TSR. It requires CallFire to review all pre-recorded messages it delivers and terminate its contracts with any clients who are found to be delivering illegal pre-recorded telemarketing calls. In addition, within 120 days, CallFire must review all existing pre-recorded messages hosted on its platform to ensure they are complying with the TSR.

The Commission vote to authorize the staff to refer the complaint to the Department of Justice (DOJ), and to approve the proposed consent decree, was 4-0, with Commissioner Maureen K. Ohlhausen issuing a separate concurring statement. The DOJ filed the complaint and proposed consent decree in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on May 13, 2013. The proposed consent decree is subject to court approval. 

NOTE: The Commission authorizes the filing of a complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the law has been or is being violated, and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. Consent decrees have the force of law when signed by the District Court judge.

The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, visit the FTC’s online Complaint Assistant or call 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357). The FTC enters complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 2,000 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The FTC’s website provides free information on a variety of consumer topics.  Like the FTC on Facebook, follow us on Twitter, and subscribe to press releases for the latest FTC news and resources.

FTC Issues Annual Financial Acts Enforcement Letter to CFPB

The Federal Trade Commission has issued its annual letter to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) on FTC enforcement and related activities regarding the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), Consumer Leasing Act (CLA), Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA), and Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA).

This year’s letter also discusses the Dodd-Frank Act, and the Commission’s and CFPB’s memorandum of understanding that set forth a framework for coordinating certain law enforcement, rulemaking, and other activities. The letter notes that the FTC retains its authority to enforce the TILA, CLA, EFTA, and ECOA, among other things. The letter also addresses certain FTC initiatives regarding automobile financing advertising, payday lending, mortgage lending advertising, mobile payments, and separate FTC staff comments filed with the CFPB on integrating TILA and Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act disclosures and on general purpose reloadable cards.

The letter is available now on the FTC’s website and as a link to this press release. The Commission vote approving the letter was 4-0. A copy of the letter also has been provided to the Federal Reserve Board. (FTC File No. P064808; the staff contact is Carole L. Reynolds, Bureau of Consumer Protection, 202-326-3230.)

The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, visit the FTC’s online Complaint Assistant or call 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357). The FTC enters complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 2,000 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The FTC’s website provides free information on a variety of consumer topics.  Like the FTC on Facebook, follow us on Twitter, and subscribe to press releases for the latest FTC news and resources.

FTC Issues Modified Final Order Settling Charges that Western Digital’s Acquisition of Hitachi Global Storage Technologies Was Anticompetitive in Market for Desktop Hard Disk Drives

Following a public comment period, the Federal Trade Commission has approved and issued a modified final Decision and Order settling charges that Western Digital Corporation’s proposed acquisition of rival Hitachi Global Technologies Ltd. would have been anticompetitive in the market for hard disk drives used in desktop personal computers.  The proposed order settling the FTC’s charges, first announced on March 5, 2012, required Western Digital to sell assets used to manufacture and sell desktop computer hard disk drives to Toshiba Corporation to resolve the agency’s competition concerns.

In finalizing the consent Decision and Order, the FTC has approved several modifications to the proposed order to incorporate adjustments that Western Digital and Toshiba Corporation, the buyer of the divested assets, made in the transaction documents. The final order provides for the additional time Western Digital required to complete the divestiture in order to obtain the necessary approvals from other relevant competition authorities. The Decision and Order also includes revised production and asset transfer schedules, and extended time in which Western Digital will have access to certain employees. The FTC has also approved changes to the Divestiture Agreement and Contract Manufacturing Agreement incorporated in the Decision and Order to reflect the changes to the remedial agreements made by Western Digital and Toshiba Corporation.

In addition, the FTC has approved modifications to the Interim Monitor Agreement to reflect modifications made by Western Digital and ING Financial Markets (ING America), the U.S. corporate entity for ING, to allow ING America to share information with its European colleagues who are monitoring the divestiture for the EC.  

The Commission vote approving the modified Decision and Order, and a response to the member of the public who commented on it was 2-0, with Commissioner Maureen K. Ohlhausen not participating and Commissioner Joshua D. Wright recused.  (FTC File No. 111-0122, Docket No. C-4350; the staff contact is Roberta S. Baruch, Bureau of Competition, 202-326-2861.)

The FTC’s Bureau of Competition works with the Bureau of Economics to investigate alleged anticompetitive business practices and, when appropriate, recommends that the Commission take law enforcement action.  To inform the Bureau about particular business practices, call 202-326-3300, send an e-mail to antitrust{at}ftc{dot}gov, or write to the Office of Policy and Coordination, Bureau of Competition, Federal Trade Commission, 601 New Jersey Ave., Room 7117, Washington, DC 20001.  To learn more about the Bureau of Competition, read Competition Counts.  Like the FTC on Facebook, follow us on Twitter, and subscribe to press releases for the latest FTC news and resources.

Administrative Law Judge Dismisses Illegal Price-Setting Charges Against McWane, But Finds That It Illegally Excluded Competitors

In an Initial Decision announced today, Chief Administrative Law Judge D. Michael Chappell dismissed charges in a Federal Trade Commission complaint that McWane Inc. — one of the largest U.S. suppliers of ductile iron pipe fittings (DIPF) used in municipal and regional water distribution systems — illegally conspired with its competitors to raise and stabilize DIPF prices.  But the Judge found that McWane violated the antitrust laws when it excluded competitors from the market for U.S. made DIPF (domestic DIPF).

Judge Chappell found that the preponderance of the evidence did not support FTC complaint charges that McWane illegally conspired with two of its competitors, Sigma Corporation and Star Pipe Products Ltd., to raise and stabilize DIPF prices. But the judge ruled that the preponderance of the evidence did show that McWane reached an anticompetitive agreement that led Sigma to abandon its efforts to enter the market for domestic DIPF, and that McWane illegally pressured distributors to exclude Star Pipe from the domestic DIPF market.

Ductile iron pipe fittings are used in water distribution systems for the installation of valves, water meters, and hydrants and to change the flow of water.  According to the FTC’s complaint, McWane, Sigma and Star Pipe account for the overwhelming majority of ductile iron pipe fittings sales in the United States.

Judge Chappell found that there is a separate product market for domestic DIPF because in some waterworks projects, state or federal law requires that only domestically manufactured fittings be used. In addition, in February 2009, Congress passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, which allocated more than $6 billion to water infrastructure projects. Waterworks projects funded by ARRA were required by federal law to use domestic fittings.

Issued in January 2012, the FTC complaint alleged that the three companies entered into an agreement, beginning in 2008, to raise and stabilize the prices for imported DIPF.  The complaint also alleged that McWane possessed a monopoly in the market for domestic DIPF. The FTC complaint alleged that McWane illegally sought to maintain its monopoly after Sigma and Star tried to enter the market in 2009.

McWane denied the allegations. Sigma and Star Pipe both previously settled FTC charges.

In the Initial Decision announced today, Judge Chappell dismissed the first three counts in the seven-count FTC complaint, finding that the evidence presented by FTC staff failed to support allegations that McWane:

  • conspired with competitors to raise and stabilize prices in the market for imported DIPF.
  • conspired with competitors to exchange competitively sensitive sales information.
  • issued an “invitation to collude,” to restrain price competition, to competitors in the market for imported DIPF.

 “Accepting Complaint Counsel’s conspiracy theory depends on accepting numerous assertions, assumptions, and inferences that are not sufficiently grounded in evidence,” the Initial Decision states. “In addition, the preponderance of the economic evidence is not consistent with the alleged conspiracy.”

However, in upholding the last four counts of the complaint, Judge Chappell concluded that the evidence did show that:

  • There is a separate relevant product market for U.S. made DIPF, and that McWane possesses monopoly power in the market for domestic DIPF, as established both by the company’s high market share and the high barriers to entry facing any potential competitors, and by the company’s ability to control prices or exclude competitors.
  • McWane announced and implemented an exclusive dealing policy to forestall Star’s entry into the domestic DIPF market, with the specific intent of preventing Star from entering and lowering prices in the domestic DIPF market.
  • McWane entered into a distribution agreement with Sigma that unreasonably restrained trade in the domestic DIPF market, and further excluded Star from the market.

“Counts Four, Five, Six, and Seven – that respondent engaged in monopolistic practices, attempted to monopolize, engaged in a conspiracy to monopolize, and engaged in an unreasonable restraint of trade with Sigma in the Domestic Fittings market – have been proven by a preponderance of the evidence. The appropriate remedy is to bring an end to this conduct, rectify past violations, and prevent reoccurrence,” the Initial Decision states.

The Order Judge Chappell included with the Initial Decision would require McWane to cease and desist from, among other things:

  • allocating or dividing domestic DIPF markets, customers, contracts, transactions, business opportunities, lines of commerce, or territories.
  • agreeing with competitors not to compete for each other’s customers, contracts, transactions, or business opportunities in the domestic DIPF market.
  • inviting, entering into or enforcing certain customer exclusivity agreements in the domestic DIPF market.
  • inviting, entering into or enforcing certain retroactive customer sales incentives in the domestic DIPF market.
  • discriminating against, penalizing, or otherwise retaliating against any customer that distributes, purchases or sells a competitor’s domestic DIPF.

The Appeals Process. The Judge’s Initial Decision is subject to review by the full Federal Trade Commission on its own motion, or at the request of any party. The Initial Decision will become the decision of the Commission 30 days after it is served upon the parties, unless a party files a timely notice of appeal – and thereafter files a timely appeal brief – or the Commission places the case on its own docket for review or stays the effective date of the decision.

Copies of the public version of the Initial Decision and Order by the Administrative Law Judge are available from the FTC’s website and also from the FTC’s Consumer Response Center, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20580.

FTC Provides $1.7 Million in Refunds to Nearly 23,000 Consumers Who Lost Money in ‘Free Government Grant’ Scheme

An administrator working for the Federal Trade Commission today began mailing refund checks totalling approximately $1.7 million to 22,764 consumers who were defrauded by a  group that used websites to falsely claim they could help consumers get free government grant money.

After extensive litigation, the FTC settled with four of the defendants and won summary judgment against the remaining 25 individual and corporate defendants.  According to the FTC, the website operators sold many products online, including Grant Connect, which they described as a “unique consumer-friendly US government grant program that delivers all of the tools for the consumer to search multiple databases, write grant proposals, and deliver polished plans…”  The websites also used images of the President and the American flag in an attempt to convince consumers that they were affiliated with the U.S. government, which they were not.

Both the settlement and the summary judgment order ban the defendants from selling grant-related products, among other things.  The defendants also are banned from selling products or services with an automatically recurring fee.

The amount of money defrauded consumers receive will vary based on the amount they lost.  Most consumers will recover nearly 80 percent of their total loss through the Commission’s redress program.  Refund checks must be cashed within 60 days of the date they are received. 

The FTC’s refund administrator in this matter is Gilardi & Co., LLC.  Consumers who have questions about the refund program or whether they qualify can call Gilardi’s hotline number at:  1-877-230-7552.  The FTC also has a website where consumers can obtain general information about the agency’s consumer refund program and answers to frequently asked questions.

The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, visit the FTC’s online Complaint Assistant or call 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357). The FTC enters complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 2,000 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The FTC’s website provides free information on a variety of consumer topics. Like the FTC on Facebook, follow us on Twitter, and subscribe to press releases for the latest FTC news and resources.

FTC Warns Data Broker Operations of Possible Privacy Violations

The Federal Trade Commission sent letters to ten data broker companies warning that their practices could violate the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) after a test-shopping operation by the FTC indicated the companies were willing to sell consumer information without abiding by FCRA requirements.

The test-shopping operation was part of a worldwide privacy protection effort. FTC staff members posed as individuals or representatives of companies seeking information about consumers to make decisions related to their creditworthiness, eligibility for insurance or suitability for employment.

Data broker companies that collect, distribute or sell this information are considered consumer reporting agencies under the FCRA, meaning they must reasonably verify the identities of their customers and make sure that these customers have a legitimate purpose for receiving the information. This requirement ensures that the privacy of sensitive consumer report information is protected. Of the 45 companies contacted by FTC staff in the test-shopper operation, ten appear to violate the FCRA by offering to provide the information without complying with the law’s requirements.

The FTC issued the letters this week in conjunction with an international privacy practice transparency sweep conducted by the Global Privacy Enforcement Network (GPEN). The network connects privacy enforcement authorities to promote and support cooperation in cross-border enforcement of laws protecting privacy. Several GPEN members from countries around the world are taking steps this week to ensure that companies meet their obligations related to the privacy of consumers’ personal information.

The ten companies receiving the warning letters from the FTC include:

The letters are not an official notice by the Commission that any of the named companies is subject to the requirements of the FCRA, nor do the letters lay out any formal complaints against the companies. Instead, they serve to remind the companies to evaluate their practices to determine whether they are consumer reporting agencies, and if so, how to comply with that law.

The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, visit the FTC’s online Complaint Assistant or call 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357). The FTC enters complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 2,000 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The FTC’s website provides free information on a variety of consumer topics.  Like the FTC on Facebook, follow us on Twitter, and subscribe to press releases for the latest FTC news and resources.

FTC Testifies on Credit Reporting Accuracy Study, FCRA Enforcement, Credit Education

The Federal Trade Commission testified before a U.S. Senate Commerce subcommittee on a recent FTC study examining the accuracy of consumer credit reports, as well as the agency’s efforts to improve credit report accuracy through enforcement and education.

On behalf of the agency, Maneesha Mithal, Associate Director, Division of Privacy and Identity Protection, told the Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, Product Safety, and Insurance that errors in credit reports can cause consumers to be denied credit or other benefits or pay a higher price for them. It may also lead credit issuers to make inaccurate decisions that cause them to deny credit to a potentially valuable customer or issue credit to a riskier customer than intended.

“The Commission recognizes the importance of accurate and complete credit reports, both to businesses that use them to make decisions and to the consumers who are affected by those decisions,” the testimony states.

The Commission’s December 2012 study to Congress on credit reporting accuracy focused on identifying potential errors that could have a material effect on a person’s credit standing. Any participant who identified a potentially material error on their report was encouraged to dispute the erroneous information. The study found that 26 percent of consumers reported a potential material error on one or more of their three reports and filed a dispute with at least one credit reporting agency (CRA) and half of these consumers experienced a change in their credit score. For five percent of consumers, the error on their credit report could lead to them paying more for products such as auto loans and insurance.   

Vigorous enforcement of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) is a high priority for the Commission, the testimony states. In the past decade, the FTC has brought over 30 actions to enforce the FCRA.

In addition to enforcement, the FTC works to educate consumers and businesses about consumer reports, credit scores, and their rights and obligations under the FCRA. Resources for consumers include Disputing Errors on Credit Reports and Your Source for a Truly Free Credit Report? AnnualCreditReport.com. Publications including Credit Reports: What Information Providers Need to Know, are available on the FTC’s Business Center website.

The Commission vote authorizing the testimony was 4-0.

The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, visit the FTC’s online Complaint Assistant or call 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357). The FTC enters complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 2,000 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The FTC’s website provides free information on a variety of consumer topics. Like the FTC on Facebook, follow us on Twitter, and subscribe to press releases for the latest FTC news and resources.

FTC Says Mobile Cramming Webcast Viewers Can Submit Questions Online

The Federal Trade Commission will host a one-day workshop on mobile cramming on May 8, 2013, in Washington, D.C., and invites participants watching the webcast to submit questions to moderators online.

Commissioner Maureen Ohlhausen will provide welcome remarks at Mobile Cramming: An FTC Roundtable. Panelists will discuss understanding third-party billing and mobile cramming, and current strategies to reduce cramming on mobile phones. A complete agenda is now available online.

The live webcast will begin at 9:00 a.m. EDT. Viewers can submit questions throughout the day via the following channels for consideration by the moderators:

Twitter: Commission staff will live-tweet the workshop from its @FTC Twitter account and use the hashtag #FTCmobile.

Facebook: Post questions to the FTC’s Facebook page in the workshop status thread.

Email: Submit questions via email to [email protected].

Staff will do their best to answer as many questions as possible from the audience and online during the workshop.

NOTE: The link for the webcast will be active beginning 8:45 a.m. EDT.

The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, visit the FTC’s online Complaint Assistant or call 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357). The FTC enters complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 2,000 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The FTC’s website provides free information on a variety of consumer topics. Like the FTC on Facebook, follow us on Twitter, and subscribe to press releases for the latest FTC news and resources.

FTC Votes Unanimously to Retain July 1 Date for Implementation of the Updated Children’s Online Privacy Protection Rule

The Federal Trade Commission voted unanimously to retain the July 1, 2013 date for implementation of the updated Children’s Online Privacy Protection Rule.  In a letter to industry organizations that had requested that the Commission reconsider the July 1 date, the Commission noted that implementation of the updated rule marks the culmination of a three-year process.  The July 1 date was announced last December, providing companies more than six months to prepare.

During that period, the Commission noted, FTC staff have conducted numerous meetings and consultations with organizations and individual businesses on how to ensure compliance with the new rule, and recently issued an updated set of frequently asked questions for businesses and parents.

In the letter, the Commission also noted the importance of ensuring that the enhanced privacy protections of the revised rule are available to children without delay, especially in the face of rapid evolution in the ways children interact with the Internet.

The commission vote approving the issuance of the letter was 4-0. (FTC File No. P135410; the staff contacts in the Bureau of Consumer Protection are Peder Magee, 202-326-3538; Kristin Cohen, 202-326-2276; and Kandi Parsons, 202-326-2369.)