FTC and Pennsylvania Attorney General Challenge Reading Health Systems’ Proposed Acquisition of Surgical Institute of Reading

The Federal Trade Commission today authorized an action to block Reading Health System’s proposed acquisition of Surgical Institute of Reading L.P. (SIR), alleging that the combination of the two health care providers would substantially reduce competition in the area surrounding Reading, Pennsylvania, and lead to reduced quality and higher health care costs for the area’s employers and residents.

The FTC, jointly with the Pennsylvania Attorney General, will file a complaint in federal district court next week seeking a preliminary injunction to stop the deal pending an administrative trial.  The FTC has also issued an administrative complaint, initiating a proceeding that will determine the legality of the transaction following a full trial consisting of up to 210 hours of live testimony before an FTC Administrative Law Judge (ALJ).  The ALJ’s decisions and orders are reviewable by the Commission and ultimately a federal Court of Appeals.

 “The FTC is challenging this acquisition because it would lead to higher overall health care costs for employers and patients in the Reading area,” said Bureau of Competition Director Richard Feinstein.  “While SIR is not a full-service general acute-care hospital, it has injected important price and quality competition into the Reading area.  That competition will be lost if this deal goes forward.”

Reading Health System is a comprehensive, not-for profit health care system located in Berks County, Pennsylvania.  It operates the Reading Hospital, as well as accompanying teaching facilities on a 36-acre, 22-building campus in West Reading, Pennsylvania.  The Reading Hospital, a 737-bed facility, is Reading Health System’s main facility, providing inpatient general acute-care, tertiary services, and outpatient care.  In all, Reading Health System has a staff of 970 doctors, had $47 million in operating income in 2011, and has over $1 billion in unrestricted cash and investments.

SIR, which opened in April 2007, is a for-profit physician-owned surgical specialty hospital located in Wyomissing, Pennsylvania, within Berks County.  It has 15 licensed beds and provides a range of inpatient and outpatient surgical services, including ear, nose, and throat (ENT), orthopedic, spine, and general surgical procedures.  Most of the inpatient surgeries performed at SIR are orthopedic and spine procedures.  SIR is owned by 16 physicians, has 11 independent doctors on staff, and employs about 100 nursing and support staff. 

On May 21, 2012, Reading Health System agreed to acquire SIR.  According to the FTC’s administrative complaint, the proposed acquisition would be anticompetitive and would violate the FTC Act and the Clayton Act.  The FTC, together with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, will seek a preliminary injunction in federal district court barring consummation of the transaction pending completion of the administrative proceeding and any appeals.

The FTC’s administrative complaint alleges that the acquisition would reduce competition in four markets where Reading Health System and SIR compete: 1) inpatient orthopedic/spine surgical services; 2) outpatient orthopedic/spine services; 3) outpatient ENT surgical services; and 4) outpatient general surgical services.  In each market, the FTC alleges, the proposed deal would lead to combined Reading Health System/SIR market shares ranging from 49 to 71 percent.

According to the complaint, the proposed transaction would decrease the number of meaningful competitors for inpatient orthopedic/spine surgical services in the Reading area from three to two.  The markets for outpatient general surgical services and outpatient ENT services also would be left with only one other significant competitor, and the number of competitors for outpatient orthopedic surgical services would be reduced from four to three.

The complaint charges that the proposed deal would increase Reading Health System’s already significant negotiating leverage, enabling it to raise the reimbursement rates it negotiates with commercial health plans.  This would increase the health care costs of local employers, potentially forcing them to cut benefits, burdening their employees with higher costs, and in some cases, causing them to delay or forgo medical care and treatment.  The acquisition also would eliminate important non-price competition between Reading Health System and SIR, potentially leading to a decrease in the quality of existing facilities and services.

The Commission votes approving both the administrative and federal district court complaints were 5-0.  The administrative complaint was issued today, and a public version will be available on the agency’s website shortly.  The federal district court complaint will be filed next week in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.  The evidentiary hearing is scheduled before an Administrative Law Judge at the FTC, beginning on April 16, 2013. 

NOTE:  The Commission issues or files 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.  The complaint is not a finding or ruling that the named parties have violated the law. The administrative complaint marks the beginning of a proceeding in which the allegations will be ruled upon after a formal hearing by an administrative law judge.

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.

(FTC File No. 121-0155)

FTC Warns Consumers: Robocalls Touting Expedited FTC Refunds Are Fake

Scammers are using illegal robocalls to impersonate the Federal Trade Commission, and to try to trick consumers into disclosing their bank account information on a non-FTC website, the agency warns.  The scammers’ robocalls direct consumers to the website http://ftcrefund.com, which deceives consumers into thinking they can get, or expedite, a refund from the FTC by entering their bank account information into a form on the website.  To fool people, the robocalls provide the FTC’s toll-free helpline, 877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357)

This website, http://ftcrefund.com, is part of the scam and is not affiliated in any way with the FTC.

For official information about the FTC’s refund process, consumers should visit Getting Your Money Back: Consumer Refunds

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 Announces Expanded Fight to Stop Deceptive Business Opportunity Schemes

logo of Financial Fraud Enforcement Task ForceThe Federal Trade Commission will host a press conference in Washington, DC, on Thursday, November 15, 2012, at 11 a.m. ET to announce a major federal-state law enforcement crackdown on scams that falsely promise jobs and opportunities to “be your own boss” to people who are unemployed or underemployed

David C. Vladeck, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, will be available to answer reporters’ questions, as well as Stuart Delery, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice; Teresa Thome, Deputy Chief Inspector, U.S. Postal Inspection Service; and Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller.

WHO: David C. Vladeck, Director, Bureau of Consumer Protection, FTC

Stuart Delery, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice

Teresa Thome, Deputy Chief Inspector, U.S. Postal Inspection Service

Greg Zoeller, Indiana Attorney General

WHERE: Federal Trade Commission
Room 432, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC
CALL-IN: Reporters unable to attend the event can call in. The phone number is 800-398-9389, the confirmation ID number is 271344. The lines, which are only for news media, will open at 10:45 a.m. The conference leader is Bruce Jennings.
WEBCAST: The event will be webcast live.
SOCIAL CHATS: Join FTC staff online 2-3 p.m. ET to discuss the crackdown and get tips on avoiding job scams on Twitter. Follow @FTC and tweet questions/comments with the hashtag #FTCbcp. Staff will also host a chat on the FTC Facebook page from 3-3:30 p.m. ET.
MEDIA CONTACT: Office of Public Affairs
202-326-2180

FTC Expands Fight Against Deceptive Business Opportunity Schemes

The Federal Trade Commission today announced seven new law enforcement actions and logo of Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Forcedevelopments in five other FTC cases involving scams that falsely promise jobs and opportunities to “be your own boss” to people who are unemployed or underemployed.  Six of the new FTC actions are the first cases brought under the FTC’s recently updated Business Opportunity Rule, which requires business opportunity sellers to provide specific information to help consumers evaluate a business opportunity, and provides a simple, one-page disclosure form.

As part of a continuing federal-state crackdown, “Operation Lost Opportunity” targets scams that took millions of dollars from more than two million consumers. The defendants in the FTC’s cases allegedly lured consumers with deceptive offers to help them start businesses as mystery shoppers, credit card processors, website operators, and government insurance refund processors.

This joint effort by the Consumer Protection Working Group of the Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force also includes 22 actions brought by the Department of Justice, 15 administrative actions by the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, and 20 actions by state attorneys general in Indiana, California, Arizona, Colorado, and Ohio.  Earlier federal-state enforcement efforts against consumer financial fraud include Operation Empty Promises, Operation Bottom Dollar, and Operation Short Change.

“The scam artists the FTC shut down lied to people trying to make an honest buck, and robbed them of their money as well as their hopes,” said David C. Vladeck, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection.  “We brought these cases on behalf of millions of people who wanted to jumpstart their incomes and rebalance their budgets – people who placed their hopes in a business opportunity so they could better provide for their families.”

The defendants in the FTC cases announced today allegedly committed multiple violations of the FTC Act, including misrepresenting how much money people could make through the business opportunity.  The defendants in six of the cases* also allegedly violated the amended Business Opportunity Rule.**

Participants in the FTC “Operation Lost Opportunity” press conference
David Vladeck, Director, FTC Bureau of Consumer Protection, announces more than 70 civil and criminal law enforcement actions against promoters of fraudulent business opportunities at a Federal Trade Commission press conference in Washington on Nov. 15, 2012. Pictured, left to right: David Vladeck; Greg Zoeller, Indiana Attorney General; Stuart Delery, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Department of Justice; Shawn Tiller, Deputy Chief Inspector of the U.S. Postal Inspection Service; Janice Kopec, FTC Staff Attorney; and Tracey Thomas, FTC Staff Attorney.

FTC Law Enforcement Actions

*Shopper Systems, LLC; Revenue Works, LLC, also doing business as Surplus Supplier; EMZ Ventures, LLC; The Veracity Group, LP; Brett Brosseau; Michael Moysich; and Keith R. Powell allegedly sold the business of providing mystery shopping services to retailers, offering lists of merchants seeking mystery shoppers in the buyer’s area.  According to the FTC’s complaint, consumers who agreed to buy were lured into buying another business opportunity – operating a webstore – that did nothing but draw them into negative-option programs (the seller interprets consumers’ silence or inaction as permission to charge them) with unforeseen, recurring monthly charges to their credit cards.  Using text messages, phone calls, websites, ads in periodicals, and ads on online employment websites, the defendants allegedly falsely claimed people could earn an average of $50 per mystery shopping assignment with no limit to the number of assignments.  They offered training for $2.95 and a seven-day trial period for the mystery shopping program, and subsequently charged $49.95 per month for a list of interested merchants, with an option to cancel at any time without further obligation.  The defendants charged $3.95 for the webstore opportunity, with a 14-day trial period and $49.95 per month, and often enrolled consumers without their awareness.  Consumers who canceled the mystery shopper membership were still billed monthly $49.95 charges and were later told they had to cancel both programs, which is how many consumers first learned they had been enrolled in the second program.

The Commission vote authorizing the staff to file the complaint was 3-0-2, with Commissioner Rosch abstaining and Commissioner Ohlhausen not participating.  The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.  On October 31, 2012, the court issued a temporary restraining order that halted the defendants’ deceptive practices, froze assets, and put the companies into receivership temporarily.  At a recent hearing, the Court indicated that it would continue these provisions as to defendants Shopper Systems, LLC, Surplus Supplier, and Michael Moysich.  Defendants EMZ Ventures, LLC and Brett Brosseau agreed to a preliminary injunction that also continues the terms of the order. 

*American Business Builders LLC; ENF LLC, also doing business as Network Market Solutions; UMS Group LLC; United Merchant Services LLC; Universal Marketing and Training LLC; Unlimited Training Services LLC; Shane Michael Hanna, also known as Shane Michael Romeo; and Stephen Spratt took tens of thousands of dollars from consumers, falsely promising that they would set up a profitable credit card processing business for the consumers.  According to the FTC’s complaint, the defendants told consumers that, for a fee typically ranging from $295 to $495, they could operate a home-based business selling the defendants’ payment processing services, credit card terminals, and merchant cash advances to merchants in the consumers’ local communities.  The defendants claimed consumers would earn substantial income from this business opportunity in several ways, including by earning a commission on each payment processing terminal sold or leased, a percentage of each merchant cash advance, and a percentage of each merchant’s monthly sales volume.  The defendants also sold consumers merchant leads for the consumers’ businesses, promising they would conduct telemarketing sales campaigns on the consumers’ behalf that would generate customers and income for the business.  The defendants typically charged $10 per lead, with some consumers paying up to $40,000.  The FTC alleged that the defendants did not obtain customers for consumers, and that consumers did not earn any income.

The Commission vote authorizing the staff to file the complaint was 5-0.  The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona.  On November 6, 2012, the court halted the defendants’ allegedly deceptive practices, froze their assets, and put the companies into receivership pending a court hearing.

*The Online Entrepreneur Inc., also doing business as The Six Figure Program and Ben and Dave’s Program; Ben and Dave’s Consulting Associates Inc.; Benjamin Moskel; and David Clabeaux sold consumers a no-risk, money-back guaranteed opportunity to make money via their own website.  According to the FTC’s complaint, they claimed that, for a $27 fee, they would enable consumers to affiliate with the websites of “big companies,” including Prada, Sony, Louis Vuitton, Verizon, and earn commissions when Internet users clicked through the consumers’ websites and bought something from the “big” retailers.  After buying the programs, consumers found they could use their website only if they purchased a domain name and hosting services, but some consumers who paid the extra money could not get their website to function, and those whose websites did work did not earn the promised income of up to $15,000 per month or at least up to $15 within seven days.  Consumers allegedly found it hard to reach the defendants for assistance, and those who sought refunds typically got an automated response saying someone would call them within 24 hours.  The FTC alleged that refund requests were often ignored, even after consumers contacted the Better Business Bureau.

The Commission vote authorizing the staff to file the complaint was 5-0.  The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida.  On November 6, 2012, the court halted the defendants’ allegedly deceptive practices, froze their assets, and put the companies into receivership pending a court hearing.

Career Advancement Group.  According to the FTC’s complaint, the defendants have operated a nationwide job scam by placing ads in classified sections of newspapers and on job search websites that appear to be postings for jobs with the U.S. Postal Service.  In fact, however, the defendants’ ads are not a legitimate job opportunity, and consumers who call the defendants to apply for a Postal Service job are tricked into spending over $100 for what turns out to be a booklet of general job-seeking advice, the FTC alleges.  The defendants are Career Exams Inc., also doing business as Career Advancement Group; O’Brien Marketing Inc., also doing business as O’Brien Consulting and O’Brien Answers; Jeryn B. Lee; and Derek Jackson.

The Commission vote authorizing the staff to file the complaint was 4-1, with Commissioner Rosch voting no.  The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky.  On November 2, 2012, the court temporarily halted the defendants’ deceptive practices and froze their assets pending resolution of the case.

*Smart Tools LLC and Kirstin Hegg sold a home-based business opportunity that promised purchasers they could become “Government Insurance Refund Processors.”  According to the FTC’s complaint, Smart Tools and Hegg mailed thousands of postcards falsely claiming consumers could earn up to $38,943 per year – just by finding those eligible for refunds of their mortgage loan insurance premiums and charging them a fee to tell them how to get those refunds.  Consumers were persuaded to pay $3.91 for a manual describing how to find people who are owed refunds, in addition to paying a recurring monthly charge of $29.99 (after a free trial period) for access to lists of refund-eligible persons and some refund-processing software.  Although Smart Tools and Hegg led consumers to believe that the lists of those eligible for refunds were not available free of charge, they allegedly buried on page 8 of their 31-page manual an inadequate, inconspicuous disclosure that the Department of Housing and Urban Development offers the same lists for free online.

The Commission vote authorizing staff to refer the complaint to the Department of Justice was 5-0.  The DOJ filed the complaint on behalf of the Commission in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, Portland Division.

*Rebate Data Processor.  Christopher Andrew Sterling, doing business as rebatedataprocessor.com, sterlingvisa.com, and creditcardworker.com, and via links to those websites from other websites, allegedly claimed consumers could earn from $200 to more than $1,000 per day by processing applications for rebates or credit cards offered by certain marketers.  In fact, all Sterling allegedly provided, if anything, was information on how to become an affiliate marketer by creating your own Internet ads for credit card offers.  The ads would generate income only if someone saw an ad and made a purchase.  According to the FTC’s complaint, Sterling promised that, for a minimum fee of nearly $50, he would provide customers for the data processing services.  One of his websites stated, “Rebate Processing Jobs – You Can Process Simple Customer Rebates from Home and Earn $15 each GUARANTEED!”  His claims included a statement that people could earn “$15,526 in 29 days.”  In fact, few, if any, consumers were likely to make the kind of income Sterling claimed, the complaint alleges, because he misrepresented the nature of the business opportunity, because affiliate marketing is complicated and highly competitive, and because Sterling sometimes failed to provide any information in return for a purchase.

The Commission vote authorizing staff to refer the complaint to the Department of Justice was 5-0.  The DOJ filed the complaint on behalf of the Commission in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.

*The Zaken Corp. and Tiran Zaken used direct mail and a website to sell a plan that, for a fee of $148 or more, supposedly would enable consumers to earn thousands of dollars per month.  Consumers would find businesses with excess inventory to sell, and the defendants would find a buyer for the inventory and pay consumers a “finder’s fee” of half the sales price.  The defendants’ mailers asked, “What Would You do With an Extra $5,000 (or more) a Month?” and falsely claimed consumers would earn at least $4,000 or more in the first 30 days and, on average, $4,280 per deal.  The FTC alleged that consumers did not earn substantial income from this business opportunity.

The Commission vote authorizing staff to refer the complaint to the Department of Justice was 5-0.  The DOJ filed the complaint on behalf of the Commission in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

In bringing these cases, the FTC acknowledges assistance from the Attorney General’s offices in Arizona, Florida, Maryland, New York, Kentucky, Oregon and Vermont.

**The amended Business Opportunity Rule requires business opportunity sellers, including work-at-home offers such as envelope stuffing, to disclose, in a one-page document:

  • the seller’s identifying information;
  • whether the seller makes a claim about the purchaser’s likely earnings (and, if the seller checks the “yes” box, the seller must provide information supporting any such claims);
  • whether the seller, its affiliates or key personnel have been involved in certain legal actions (and, if yes, a separate list of those actions);
  • whether the seller has a cancellation or refund policy (and, if yes, a separate document stating the material terms of such policies); and
  • a list of persons who bought the business opportunity within the previous three years.

Misrepresentations and omissions are prohibited under the Rule, and for sales conducted in languages other than English, all disclosures must be provided in the language in which the sale is conducted.

Other FTC Actions

The operation includes a $478 million judgment the FTC obtained in August 2012 against John Beck Amazing Profits, the return of more than $5 million to consumers this year from FTC actions against Infusion Media Inc., AED Inc., and Abili-Staff Ltd., and the FTC’s case, filed in May, against North American Marketing and Associates LLC.

To learn more about these kinds of scams, go to the FTC’s Business Opportunity Scams, or Estafas de Oportunidades de Negocio, and read articles including the FTC’s Bogus Business Opportunities, Government Job Scams, Work-at-Home Businesses, and Mystery Shopper Scams.  Business opportunity sellers should visit the FTC’s Franchises, Business Opportunities, and Investments and read Selling a Work-at-Home or Other Business Opportunity? Revised Rule May Apply to You, or watch The Business Opportunity Rulevideo.

NOTE:  The Commission files a complaint, or refers a complaint to the DOJ for filing, 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.  The complaint is not a finding or ruling that the defendants have actually violated the law.  The case will be decided by the court.

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 Requires Divestitures for Hertz’s Proposed $2.3 Billion Acquisition of Dollar Thrifty to Preserve Competition in Airport Car Rental Markets

The Federal Trade Commission will require Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. (Hertz) to sell its Advantage Rent A Car (Advantage) business, as well as the rights to operate 29 Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc. (Dollar Thrifty) on-airport locations around the country, under a proposed settlement that resolves charges that Hertz’s $2.3 billion acquisition of Dollar Thrifty would have been anticompetitive.

As part of the proposed settlement, Hertz has agreed to sell the entire Advantage business as well as 16 Dollar Thrifty on-airport locations where Advantage does not yet operate to Franchise Services of North America, Inc. (FSNA) and Macquarie Capital (USA) Inc. (Macquarie).  FSNA currently operates the U-Save rental car business.  In addition, Hertz will sell another 13 Dollar Thrifty on-airport locations to FSNA/Macquarie or another FTC-approved buyer after the deal closes.

 “American consumers rent more than 50 million vehicles at airports nationwide each year, spending $11 billion, so this is a real pocketbook issue for everyday people,” said FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz.  “Today’s bipartisan action by the FTC will ensure that consumers are not forced to pay higher prices for rental cars when they travel.”

Hertz and Dollar Thrifty are close competitors in U.S. airport car rental markets.  The FTC complaint alleges that the deal, as it was originally proposed, would have harmed competition at 72 airports around the United States, by reducing the number of competitors, diminishing future competition, and enabling the combined firm to raise rental car prices for consumers.

Hertz, headquartered in Park Ridge, New Jersey, offers two brands, Hertz “Classic” and Advantage.  Hertz maintains a peak domestic car rental fleet of approximately 355,000 vehicles and employs about 16,400 people in the United States.  In 2011, Hertz earned approximately $3.3 billion in U.S. car rental revenues from transactions at airport locations.  On a national level, Hertz’s market share of all airport car rentals is approximately 26 percent.

Dollar Thrifty is based in Tulsa, Oklahoma.  It operates two brands, Dollar and Thrifty, and maintains an average fleet of approximately 107,000 vehicles, while employing about 5,900 people in the United States.  In 2011, Dollar Thrifty earned approximately $1.4 billion in U.S. car rental revenues, of which approximately 90 percent came from airport locations.  On a national level, Dollar Thrifty’s market share of all airport car rentals is approximately 12 percent. 

Both Hertz and Dollar Thrifty offer car rentals to consumers for leisure and business purposes, and both provide this service to deplaning passengers at airports across the United States.  Hertz and Dollar Thrifty are two of four firms that dominate the U.S. airport car rental markets.  Hertz and Dollar Thrifty, along with Avis Budget Group, Inc. (which operates the Avis and Budget brands), and Enterprise Holdings, Inc. (which operates the National, Alamo and Enterprise brands), are the only rental car providers with a national presence, large fleets, well-known brands, and the most convenient airport locations.  Together, these four firms account for approximately 98 percent of total airport car rentals in the United States.

Under the terms of an agreement signed on August 26, 2012, Hertz intends to buy rental car competitor Dollar Thrifty for $2.3 billion.  According to the FTC’s complaint, Hertz’s original proposed acquisition of Dollar Thrifty would be anticompetitive and would violate both Section 5 of the FTC Act and Section 7 of the Clayton Act, in a number of airport car rental markets.

By reducing the number of major competitors from four to three, the FTC alleges, the proposed acquisition would lead to substantially more concentration in 72 airport rental car markets nationwide.  The complaint also states that the proposed acquisition would eliminate head-to-head competition between Hertz and Dollar Thrifty at these airports, which include large ones such as Baltimore/Washington International Thurgood Marshall Airport, Chicago O’Hare International Airport, and JFK International Airport in New York.

Hertz’s ability to raise rates is currently limited by its competition with Dollar Thrifty, according to the FTC.  As the transaction was originally proposed, the combination of Hertz and Dollar Thrifty would have eliminated this constraint, allowing the combined firm to increase prices to consumers, the FTC alleged.  In addition, according the agency, the proposed acquisition would make anticompetitive coordinated conduct among the remaining three national car rental competitors more likely.

By requiring Hertz to sell its entire Advantage business, as well as a number of additional on-airport locations, the settlement will replace the current and future competition that otherwise would have been lost as a result of the deal, while also eliminating the likelihood of coordinated interaction post-acquisition.  According to the FTC, the settlement will enable Advantage to become the fourth-largest car rental competitor in the United States, and allow it to compete effectively and immediately for the business of deplaning passengers at airports throughout the country.

The FTC has appointed an interim monitor to oversee the sale of the assets as required by the proposed consent order.  It also can seek civil penalties if it finds that Hertz has not complied with the order within 10 days of when it becomes final.

The Commission’s vote approving the complaint and proposed settlement order was 4-1, with Commissioner J. Thomas Rosch voting no.  Commission Rosch explained that, “I voted against acceptance of the consent decree because I found it inadequate to resolve the competitive concerns at several dozen other airports affected by the transaction.  I would have instead voted to challenge the transaction because of the significant risk of post-merger coordinated interaction among the remaining competitors.” 

The proposed order will be subject to public comment for 30 days, until December 17, 2012, after which the Commission will decide whether to make it final.  Comments should be sent to:  FTC, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20580.  Comments can be submitted electronically.

NOTE:  The Commission issues 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.  The issuance of a complaint is not a finding or ruling that the respondent has violated the law.  A consent agreement is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission of a law violation.  When the Commission issues a consent order on a final basis, it carries the force of law with respect to future actions.  Each violation of such an order may result in a civil penalty of $16,000.

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 [email protected], 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.

FTC Issues Performance and Accountability Report for Fiscal Year 2012

The Federal Trade Commission has issued its Fiscal Year (FY) 2012 Performance and Accountability Report. The report shows American taxpayers how the FTC has managed its resources, highlights major accomplishments in fulfilling the FTC’s two core goals of protecting consumers and promoting competition, and outlines plans for addressing future challenges.

As required by the Reports Consolidation Act of 2000, the Performance and Accountability Report combines the FTC’s performance report and its financial statements and audit opinion. The report compares and evaluates the agency’s performance against the established measures and targets in the FTC’s 2009 to 2014 Strategic Plan (and the FY12 Strategic Plan Addendum) and the annual Performance Plan required under the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993.  The FY 2012 independent financial audit resulted in the FTC’s 16th consecutive unqualified opinion, the highest audit opinion available.

The Commission vote to release the Performance and Agency Mission Challenges sections of the report was 5-0. The report can be found on the FTC’s website and as a link to this press release. (FTC File No. P859900, the staff contact is Valerie Green, Office of the Executive Director, 202-326-2901.)

Video transcript

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.

Marketers Behind Fake News Sites Settle FTC Charges of Deceptive Advertising

The Clickbooth affiliate network has agreed to pay $2 million to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that its affiliate marketers deceived consumers through bogus weight-loss claims on fake news sites about acai berry supplements and so-called “colon cleansers.”

The FTC will seek to use the $2 million judgment announced today to provide refunds to consumers who were allegedly deceived by the defendants’ marketing.  The settlement also bars the defendants from a wide range of deceptive marketing practices, including making misleading or unsupported claims; misrepresenting any material fact in the sale of any product; failing to adequately disclose a material connection to the seller of any product, service, or program; and misrepresenting the existence or result of a test or study.

According to the complaint, Sarasota, Florida-based Clickbooth has been paid by merchants since 2008 to market supposed weight-loss products to consumers, and recruited a network of affiliate marketers who deceptively advertised those products.  The complaint also alleges that the defendants prepared and designed websites for Central Coast Nutraceuticals, a merchant that agreed to pay $1.5 million to settle FTC charges of deceptive advertising and unfair billing related to the sale of weight loss and colon cleanse products.

The FTC alleges that the defendants recruited affiliate marketers to advertise the merchants’ so-called weight loss products online.  Clickbooth then monitored the ads that its affiliates used, suggested certain claims for the affiliates to make, and even designed some websites for the affiliates to use, according to the complaint.  Marketing products such as Acai Pure, Acai Max, Pure Berry Max, Acai Advanced Cleanse, Acai Ultraberry Slim, TriSlim, Slimberry, HCG Extreme, ColoThin, Tone DeTox, and ColoPure, some Clickbooth affiliates designed their websites to look like news reports, using domain names such as channel5healthnews.com, dailyconsumeralerts.com, and online6health.com. The supposed news reports had titles such as “Acai Berry Diet Exposed:  Miracle Diet or Scam?” and “1 Trick of a Tiny Belly:  Reporter Loses her ‘Belly’ using 1 Easy Tip,” according to the FTC.  The sites often included the names and logos of major broadcast and cable television networks, falsely representing that the reports on the sites had been seen on the networks.

The defendants named in the complaint – John Daniel Lemp and two companies he controls, Clickbooth.com, LLC and IntegraClick, LLC – violated the FTC Act by making false or unsupported claims about weight loss products, the FTC alleges.  The Clickbooth defendants also are responsible for their affiliates’ misrepresentations that the affiliate marketers’ websites are objective news reports, that objective reporters have performed independent tests of the products, and that “comments” in the affiliate marketers’ ads have expressed views of actual consumers, according to the complaint.  The defendants’ affiliates failed to disclose that the contents of their advertisements actually were paid advertisements, and that consumers who sign up for a “free trial” would be billed on a recurring basis for additional shipments of the product, according to the FTC.

Two other recent settlements involving online affiliate network marketers of acai berry supplements and other weight loss products that made allegedly deceptive claims include the affiliate network Coleadium, Inc., which does business as Ads4Dough, and  IMM Interactive, Inc., which operated the affiliate network Copeac.

The FTC helps consumers recognize and avoid deceptive claims made by fake news sites that market acai berry supplements for weight loss.  To learn more, see the consumer alert THIS JUST IN: Fake News Sites Promote Bogus Weight Loss Benefits of Acai Berry Supplements, and the video Free Trial Offers, which explains how free trials are often used to market acai berry supplements and other products.

The FTC also is grateful for the assistance provided by the Florida Office of the Attorney General in this matter.

The Commission vote authorizing the staff to file the complaint and approving the proposed consent decree was 5-0.  The FTC filed the complaint and proposed consent decree in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division on November 13, 2012.

NOTE:  The Commission files 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.  The complaint is not a finding or ruling that the defendants have actually violated the law.  The consent decree is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by the defendant that the law has been violated.  Consent decrees have the force of law when approved and 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 Announces Agenda for Upcoming Forum on Protecting Consumers Through Cross-Border Codes of Conduct

8:30 Registration 9:00 Introductory Remarks
Commissioner Edith Ramirez
Federal Trade Commission
9:10 Panel
The Rise of Cross-Border Codes of Conduct

Moderator: Stacy Feuer, Assistant Director for International Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission

Panelists:
Sungjoon Cho, Professor, Chicago-Kent College of Law
Joseph N. Mariano, President, Direct Selling Association
Robin Simpson, Senior Policy Adviser, Consumers International
David C. Vladeck, Director, Bureau of Consumer Protection,Federal Trade Commission
David Zaring, Assistant Professor, University of Pennsylvania

10:25 Speaker
Antitrust Implications of Cross-Border Codes

William E. Kovacic, Professor, George Washington University Law School; Former Chairman, Federal Trade Commission

10:45 Break 11:00 Case Study
APEC’s Cross-Border Privacy Rules (CBPR) System

Moderator:
Markus Heyder
, Counsel for International Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission

Panelists:
Paula J. Bruening, Vice President, Global Policy Centre for Information Policy Leadership, Hunton & Williams LLP
Daniele Chatelois, Chair, APEC Data Privacy Subgroup; Senior Policy Advisor, Digital Policy Branch, Industry Canada
Joshua Harris, Vice Chair, APEC Data Privacy Subgroup; Chair, APEC’s CBPR Joint Oversight Panel; Associate Director, Office of Technology and E-Commerce, U.S. Department of Commerce
Frances J. Henderson, National Director, Privacy Initiatives, Council of Better Business Bureaus
Melissa Higuera Pérez, Director for Privacy Policies and Agreements, Federal Institute of Access to Public Information and Data Protection of Mexico
Saira Nayak, Director of Policy, TRUSTe
Scott Taylor, Chief Privacy Officer, Hewlett-Packard Co.

12:15 Lunch 1:30 Case Study
OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises (MNE)

Moderator:
Peter Avery
, Secretariat, OECD Committee on Consumer Policy

Panelists:
Clifford Henry, Member, Stakeholder Advisory Board to the U.S. NCP; Associate Director, Corporate Sustainable Development, Proctor & Gamble
Jonathan Kaufman, Member, Stakeholder Advisory Board to the U.S. NCP; Staff Attorney, EarthRights International
Thea Mei Lee, Vice Chairwoman, U.S. State Department Advisory Committee on International Economic Policy; Deputy Chief of Staff, AFL-CIO
Gwenann Manseau, Senior Attorney, Office of the Chief Counsel for International Commerce, U.S. Department of Commerce
Alan K. Yu, U.S. NCP for the OECD Guidelines, Office of Economic Policy Analysis and Public Diplomacy: Corporate Social Responsibility Unit, U.S. Department of State

2: 45 Case Study
Toy Safety and Food Safety

Moderator:
Scott Cooper
, Vice President Government Relations and Public Policy, American National Standards Institute

Panelists:
Charlotte Christin
, Senior Policy Advisor, Office of Policy, U.S. Food and Drug Administration
Caroline Smith DeWaal, Food Safety Director, Center for Science in the Public Interest
Alan P. Kaufman, Senior Vice President Technical Affairs , Toy Industry Association, Inc.
Richard W. O’Brien, Director, Office of International Programs and Intergovernmental Affairs, U.S. Consumer Products Safety Commission
Joseph A. Scimeca PhD, Vice President, Global Regulatory and Scientific Affairs, Corporate Food Safety and Regulatory Affairs, Cargill, Inc.

4:00 Break 4:15 Panel
Best Practices and Metrics

Moderator:
Keith Fentonmiller
, Senior Attorney, Division of Advertising Practices, Federal Trade Commission

Panelists:
Anne Meuwese
, Professor, Tilburg University Law School
Sheila A. Millar, Vice-Chair, Commission on Marketing and Advertising, International Chamber of Commerce; Partner, Keller and Heckman
C. Lee Peeler, President and CEO, National Advertising Review Council; Executive Vice President, National Advertising Self-Regulation, Council of Better Business Bureaus
Robin Simpson, Senior Policy Adviser, Consumers International
Norma Tregurtha, Senior Policy Manager, ISEAL Alliance

5:30 Closing Remarks

FTC Announces Departure of General Counsel Willard K. Tom, Appointments of David Shonka as Acting General Counsel and Peter Miller as Chief Privacy Officer

Federal Trade Commission Chairman Jon Leibowitz today announced that Willard K. “Will” Tom, the agency’s General Counsel, has left the agency to return to the private sector, and that David Shonka, the FTC’s Principal Deputy General Counsel, will serve as Acting General Counsel.  Leibowitz also announced the appointment of Peter Miller as the FTC’s Chief Privacy Officer (CPO).
 
“Will served this agency with great distinction,” Leibowitz said.  “His leadership helped bring significant antitrust and consumer protection victories on behalf of American consumers, and we will sorely miss his thoughtfulness, wise counsel, and extraordinary writing skills.  We are fortunate that Dave Shonka will serve as Acting General Counsel, as he did very admirably before Will became General Counsel.”

As the Commission’s chief legal officer and adviser, the General Counsel represents the agency in court and provides legal counsel to the Commission and its bureaus and offices.  Will led the Office of General Counsel (OGC) for more than three years.  He previously practiced antitrust law as a partner in Morgan Lewis’s Washington, D.C. office, and during his earlier service at the FTC he was Deputy Director of the Bureau of Competition and led the Bureau’s policy office.

Shonka has served as the FTC’s Principal Deputy General Counsel since April 2008.  He joined the office in 1977 as a staff attorney and later became Assistant General Counsel for Litigation.  Shonka oversees OGC’s Litigation, Legal Counsel, and Policy Studies units.  He also oversees the agency’s FOIA, employment counsel, and Energy Counsel functions, and chairs the FTC’s e-Discovery Steering Committee for government law enforcement investigations.  He graduated from the University of Maine School of Law and earned his B.A. from the University of Nebraska, where he majored in English and economics.

As Chief Privacy Officer, Miller coordinates efforts to implement and review the agency’s policies and procedures for safeguarding all sensitive information.  He also chairs the FTC’s Privacy Steering Committee and the Breach Notification Response Team.  Miller has served as Acting CPO since the former Chief Privacy Officer left the FTC.  He has worked at the FTC for nine years, previously serving as Assistant Director for Regional Operations in the Bureau of Consumer Protection and as a staff attorney in the Division of Advertising Practices.  Before coming to the FTC he was an attorney in the Commercial Litigation Branch of the Department of Justice’s Civil Division and an associate with Miller & Chevalier.  Miller received his J.D., with honors, from the University of Texas and his B.A. from Rice University.

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 Approves Kinder Morgans Application to Sell Pipeline Assets

The Federal Trade Commission has approved an application by energy company Kinder Morgan, Inc. requesting FTC approval for the company to sell certain natural gas pipeline and other assets to Tallgrass Energy Partners, LP.

The FTC required Kinder Morgan to sell Kinder Morgan Interstate Gas Transmission LLC, its interest in the Rockies Express Pipeline and Trailblazer Pipeline Company LLC, as well as other assets, in an order settling charges that Kinder Morgan’s recent acquisition of El Paso Corporation would otherwise have been anticompetitive.

The Commission vote approving the proposed divestiture was 4-0-1, with Commissioner Edith Ramirez recused.  (FTC File No 121-0014, Docket No. C-4355; the staff contact is Elizabeth A. Piotrowski, Bureau of Competition, 202-326-2623; see press release dated May 5, 2012.)

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.