Markets Wired - Page 1090 of 1417 - Global Financial Market News and Press Releases

FTC Closes Its Investigation Into Facebook’s Proposed Acquisition of Instagram Photo Sharing Program

The Federal Trade Commission has closed its nonpublic investigation of Facebook’s proposed acquisition of Instagram, Inc., without taking any action. Accordingly, the deal may now proceed as proposed.

The Commission vote to close the investigation was 5-0. The closing letters to the companies can be found on the FTC’s website and as a link to this press release. (FTC File No. 121-0121; the staff contact is Christina Perez, 202-326-2048)

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 20580. 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.

(FYI 31.2012.wpd)

Puerto Rican Pharmacy Cooperative Settles Price-Fixing Charges

A Puerto Rican cooperative of pharmacy owners, Cooperativa de Farmacias Puertorriquenas, known as “Coopharma,” has agreed to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that it harmed competition by negotiating, entering into, and implementing agreements among its member pharmacies to fix prices on which they contract with insurers and pharmacy benefit managers.

According to the FTC, Coopharma’s actions over the past five years have led to higher prices for Puerto Rico’s health care consumers. In settling the charges, Coopharma has agreed not to engage in such conduct in the future. The case is the latest example of the FTC’s work to protect consumers from higher costs and decreased innovation in the health care sector.

Coopharma consists of approximately 300 pharmacy-owner members who own more than 350 pharmacies in Puerto Rico. Its members represent at least one-third of all pharmacies in Puerto Rico, and have a particularly strong presence on the western side of the island.

The FTC charges that since at least 2007, Coopharma has violated federal antitrust laws by collectively negotiating with more than 10 payers over reimbursement rates, and signing seven single-signature “master contracts” on behalf of its member pharmacies. In addition, the FTC alleges that the threat of collective action by Coopharma members led two payers to pay higher rates to the group’s members through their individual pharmacy contracts. Coopharma’s actions caused substantial harm to Puerto Rican health care consumers, the FTC charges, without any offsetting efficiencies.

The proposed consent order resolves the FTC’s concerns relating to Coopharma’s conduct and is designed to prevent its recurrence. It prohibits Coopharma from entering into or facilitating agreements between or among any pharmacies:

to negotiate on behalf of any pharmacy with any payer;
to refuse to deal or threaten to refuse to deal with any payer;
to include any term, condition, or requirement upon which any pharmacy deals, or is willing to deal, with any payer, including, but not limited, price terms; or
not to deal individually with any payer or not to deal with any payer other than through Coopharma.

The proposed order also prohibits Coopharma from facilitating information exchanges between pharmacies regarding whether, or on what terms to contract with a payer, and it bars attempts to engage in any of the conduct prohibited by the order. It also bars Coopharma from encouraging, suggesting, advising, pressuring, inducing, or trying to induce anyone to engage in the prohibited conduct.

Finally, the proposed order allows payers to terminate their contracts with Coopharma without penalty, and requires Coopharma to notify each pharmacy that provides services through that contract of the termination. It also subjects Coopharma to provisions designed to ensure its compliance with the proposed order, which will expire in 20 years.

The Commission vote to accept the consent agreement and proposed consent order for public comment was 5-0. The FTC will publish a description of the consent agreement package in the Federal Register shortly. The agreement will be subject to public comment for 30 days, beginning today and continuing through September 20, 2012, after which the Commission will decide whether to make the proposed consent order final.

Interested parties can submit written comments electronically or in paper form by following the instructions in the “Invitation To Comment” part of the “Supplementary Information” section. Comments can be submitted electronically. Comments in paper form should be mailed or delivered to: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Room H-113 (Annex D), 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20580. The FTC is requesting that any comment filed in paper form near the end of the public comment period be sent by courier or overnight service, if possible, because U.S. postal mail in the Washington area and at the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security precautions.

NOTE: The Commission issues an administrative 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 respondent has actually violated the law. A consent order is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by the respondent that the law has been violated. 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 up to $16,000.

(FTC File No. 101-0079)
(Coopharma.final)

FTC Files Amicus Brief in Federal District Court Opposing Pending Settlement of Class Action Cramming Case Moore v. Verizon Communications, Inc.

The Federal Trade Commission filed an amicus brief in the phone bill cramming case Moore v. Verizon Communications, Inc. (No. 2 CV 09-1823 SBA) before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, opposing a proposed class action settlement of the case because it is not fair, adequate, and reasonable.

The case stems from an allegation by plaintiffs that Verizon, through its third-party billing and collection system, allowed billing aggregators and third-party merchants to defraud its customers by cramming unauthorized charges onto their phone bills. The plaintiffs alleged, among other things, that Verizon failed to ensure that third-party charges were authorized by consumers, that the company relied on third-party merchants for consumer authorizations for billing charges, and that it deceptively described the charges on consumers’ bills.

The proposed settlement potentially would provide two types of payments to victims who were charged without their authorization. Class members can submit a claim to get a $40 flat payment, or file a claim for full reimbursement of all documented unauthorized charges. The latter type of claim is subject to challenge from Verizon, aggregators, and third-party merchants, and consumers who do not submit a claim will receive no compensation.

According to the FTC’s brief, the central problem with the proposed settlement is that class members who don’t opt out of the settlement would be prohibited from asserting any claims against Verizon, billing aggregators, and third-party merchants, and the settlement notice does not inform consumers of this fact. These consumers would waive any ability to recover their losses, the brief states, regardless of whether they received money under the settlement.

In addition, according to the brief, because unauthorized billing – or cramming – is intentionally designed to escape consumers’ notice, most consumers likely have no idea they have wrongfully been billed, and thus may not pay attention to the settlement notice and realize they are entitled to compensation. “This hurdle to class recovery would be bad enough,” the brief states, “but the settlement also contemplates an arduous claims process that creates significant barriers to recovery and a notice that does not clearly inform class members about the breadth of the parties released.”

Finally, the brief states that the proposed settlement could impair the FTC’s ability to provide redress to consumers who have been harmed by unauthorized billing. For instance, consumers in the class action overlap with those allegedly harmed in the FTC’s ongoing contempt case against BSG, the largest aggregator in the country, and one of the entities released by the terms of the settlement. Class members also covered by the FTC’s BSG litigation would be “out of luck” if a court interpreted the release in this case to preclude compensation from the FTC case. “Such a result is particularly troublesome where, as here, the class members have been victims of fraud and the release operates against them regardless of whether they have obtained financial redress for their harm,” the brief concludes.

The FTC vote approving the amicus brief filing was 4-0-1, with Commissioner Maureen Ohlhausen recused. The brief was filed on August 17, 2012 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. A copy of the filing can be found on the FTC’s website and as a link to this press release. (FTC File No. P024210, Case No. CV 09-1823 SBA; the staff contact is Robin L. Moore, Bureau of Consumer Protection, 202-326-2167.)

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. Like the FTC on Facebook, follow us on Twitter, and subscribe to press releases for the latest FTC news and resources.

(FYI 29.2012.wpd)

FTC Submits Brief for the Petitioner with U.S. Supreme Court in Phoebe Putney Hospital Merger Case

The Federal Trade Commission has submitted its Brief for the Petitioner with the U.S. Supreme Court in Phoebe Putney Health System, Inc., a case in which the FTC challenged the proposed merger of Phoebe Putney Health System and Palmyra Park Hospital in Albany, Georgia.

The FTC filed a complaint in April 2011 to block the transaction, alleging that it will reduce competition significantly and allow the combined Phoebe/Palmyra to raise prices for general acute-care hospital services charged to commercial health plans, substantially harming patients and local employers and employees.

A key issue before the Court is the “state action” doctrine, under which federal antitrust laws do not apply to the anticompetitive conduct of certain public entities created by a state if the conduct is authorized as a part of a state policy to displace competition, and that policy is clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed in state law.

As part of its complaint, the FTC alleges that Phoebe structured the deal in a way that attempts to use the Hospital Authority of Albany-Dougherty County to shield the anticompetitive acquisition from federal antitrust scrutiny under the state action doctrine.

The Brief for the Petitioner can be found on the FTC’s website and as a link to this press release. (FTC File No. 111-0067, Docket No. 9348; the staff contact is Imad D. Abyad, Office of General Counsel, 202-326-2375).

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.

(FYI 30.2012.wpd)

FTC and Department of Justice to Hold Workshop on “Most-Favored-Nation” Clauses

The Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice announced today that they will hold a joint public workshop on most-favored-nation clauses (MFNs) on Sept.10, 2012, to explore the use of MFN clauses and the implications for antitrust enforcement and policy.

The most commonly used MFN provisions guarantee a customer that it will receive prices that are at least as favorable as those provided to other buyers of the same seller, for the same products or services. Although at times employed for benign purposes, MFNs can under certain circumstances present competitive concerns. This is because they may, especially when used by a dominant buyer of intermediate goods, raise other buyers’ costs or foreclose would-be competitors from accessing the market. Additionally, MFNs can facilitate collusion and stabilize coordinated pricing among sellers.

The workshop will offer an opportunity for businesses, academics, economists, lawyers and other interested parties to consider the use of MFNs and the legal and economic analyses of these provisions. The workshop will consist of a series of panels examining, among other topics, the legal treatment of MFNs, economic theories concerning MFNs and why they are used, and industry experiences with MFNs. Panelists for the workshop will include private attorneys, economists, and industry representatives.

The FTC and the Department of Justice are interested in receiving comments on MFNs, and will accept written submissions from the public before the workshop and until Oct. 10, 2012, 30 days after the event. Interested parties may submit public comments by e-mail. Submitted comments will be made publicly available on the Department of Justice and FTC websites.

The all-day workshop is free and open to the public. Individuals are encouraged, but not required, to register in advance for the workshop by e-mail. Please include “RSVP” in the subject line. Seating will be on a first-come, first-served basis.

The workshop will take place at the FTC’s satellite conference center at 601 New Jersey Ave., NW, Washington, DC from 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. ET on Sept. 10, 2012. It will include the following panels and presentations:

Economic Theories of MFNs: Harms and Efficiencies

Presenters
Jonathan Baker, Professor of Law, American University Washington College of Law
Judith A. Chevalier, William S. Beinecke Professor of Finance and Economics, Yale School of Management

Moderators
Daniel O’Brien, Senior Economic Policy Advisor, Federal Trade Commission
Robert Majure, Economics Director of Enforcement, Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of Justice

Empirical Evidence on Effects of MFNs

Presenter
Ramsey Shehadah, Senior Vice President, NERA Consulting

Panel
Jonathan Baker, Professor of Law, American University Washington College of Law
Judith A. Chevalier, William S. Beinecke Professor of Finance and Economics, Yale School of Management
Ramsey Shehadah, Senior Vice President, NERA Economic Consulting

Moderators
Daniel O’Brien, Senior Economic Policy Advisor, Federal Trade Commission
Robert Majure, Economics Director of Enforcement, Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of Justice

Legal Treatment of MFNs

Panel
Doug Anderson, Of Counsel, Bailey Cavalieri LLC
Andrew I. Gavil, Incoming Director, Office of Policy Planning, Federal Trade Commission
Elai Katz, Partner, Cahill, Gordon & Reindel LLP
Janet L. McDavid, Partner, Hogan Lovells

Moderator
Peter J. Levitas, Deputy Director, Bureau of Competition, Federal Trade Commission

Lunchtime Speech: Nelson Jung, Director, Markets and Projects, U.K. Office of Fair Trading

MFNs: From Theory to the Real World

Panel
W. Thomas McGough Jr., Senior Vice President & Chief Legal Officer, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center
Melissa A. Scanlan, Director, Legal Affairs, T-Mobile USA, Inc
John Thorne, Partner, Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel PLLC
Mark D. Whitener, Senior Counsel, General Electric Co.
Murray N. Ross, Ph.D., Vice President & Director, Institute of Health Policy, Kaiser Permanente

Moderator
Martha S. Samuelson, President & CEO, Analysis Group Inc.

Moving Forward – How Has Thinking about MFNs Evolved and Where Might It Go?

Panel
David I. Gelfand, Partner, Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton LLP
Jonathan M. Jacobson, Partner, Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosati
Joseph Kattan, Partner, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
Steven C. Salop, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center

Moderator
Renata Hesse, Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Civil Enforcement, Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of Justice

Directions to the FTC’s Conference Center are available here.

Reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities are available upon request. Requests should be submitted via email to [email protected] or by calling Samantha Konstandt at 202-326-3348. Requests should be made in advance. Please include a detailed description of the accommodation needed, and provide contact information.

FTC Approves Final Order Settling Charges that Koninklijke Ahold’s Proposed Acquisition of Genuardi’s Supermarkets was Anticompetitive

Following a public comment period, the Federal Trade Commission has approved a final order settling charges that Koninklijke Ahold N.V.’s proposed acquisition of Genuardi’s supermarkets would have been anticompetitive in the local grocery market in Newtown, Pennsylvania. The final order resolving the charges preserves competition in the local grocery market by requiring Ahold to sell a supermarket in Newtown, Pennsylvania to McCaffrey’s supermarkets.

The Commission vote approving the final order and letter to the one public commenter was 5-0. (FTC File No. 121-0055; the staff contact is Jill M. Frumin, Bureau of Competition, 202-326-2758; see press release dated June 15, 2012.)

(FYI 28.2012.wpd)

FTC Joins Amicus Brief Opposing Federal Court Finding On Consumers’ Rights Under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

The Federal Trade Commission, the Department of Justice, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau filed a joint amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court supporting consumers’ ability to protect their rights under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by suing debt collectors. The FTC and CFPB share authority to enforce the Act.

The amicus brief urges the Supreme Court to overturn a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. In this case, a consumer, Olivea Marx, sued a debt collector, General Revenue Corporation, that had contacted her employer to obtain information about her employment status. Marx believed that the debt collector’s conduct had violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, but she lost the case. The Tenth Circuit ruled that Marx was responsible for paying more than $4,500 to cover the debt collector’s litigation costs, even though she had brought the case in good faith.

The amicus brief argues that the Tenth Circuit’s decision was inconsistent with the terms of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, which specifies that consumers who win lawsuits against debt collectors may recover their litigation costs from the defendants, but that consumers who lose these cases must pay defendants’ litigation costs only if the consumers sued in bad faith or for purposes of harassment. The amicus brief also argues that these provisions of the Act advance Congress’ intent to help consumers deter abusive debt collection practices by bringing private enforcement actions in good faith. By contrast, the Tenth Circuit’s ruling would create a disincentive to the prosecution of private enforcement actions, the brief states.

To learn more about debt collection and other credit-related issues, visit Credit & Loans and MyMoney.gov, the U.S. government’s portal to financial education.

The FTC vote to join the amicus brief filing was 5-0. The Department of Justice filed the brief on August 3, 2012. (FTC File No. P082105; the staff contact is David L. Sieradzki, Office of the General Counsel, 202-326-2092.)

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.

(FDCPA Amicus FYI)

Settlement with FTC Prohibits Marketer Brain-Pad, Inc. from Claiming that Its Mouthguards Can Reduce Risk of Concussions

In a settlement reached with the Federal Trade Commission, mouthguard marketer Brain-Pad, Inc. and its President Joseph Manzo are barred from making unsupported claims that their mouthguards reduce the risk of concussions from lower jaw impacts, reduce the risk of concussions generally, or have been clinically proven to do either. As part of the FTC’s ongoing efforts to protect consumers from over-hyped health claims, the settlement also prohibits Brain-Pad and Manzo from misrepresenting the health benefits of any mouthguard or other athletic equipment designed to protect the brain from injury.

According to the FTC, Brain-Pad and Manzo made their claims about the mouthguards’ concussion-protecting qualities on product packaging and in Internet and print advertisements. On packaging for the Brain-Pad Pro-Plus Junior mouthguard, the defendants claimed the device “creates new brain safety space!” and “Reduces Risk of Concussions! From Lower Jaw Impacts.” Similarly, packaging for the adult-size Brain-Pad Double Mouth Guard proclaims that the device, “Reduces risk of CONCUSSIONS! Protects Upper AND Lower Teeth!” The mouthguards retail for $10 to $30.

Mouthguards can help to shield a person’s teeth from being injured, and some can reduce impact to the lower jaw,” said David Vladeck, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “But it’s a big leap to say these devices can also reduce the risk of concussions. The scientific evidence to make that claim just isn’t adequate.”

The FTC administrative complaint charges the Conshohocken, Pennsylvania-based Brain-Pad and Manzo with deceptive advertising for claiming that their mouthguards reduce the risk of concussions from lower jaw impacts, reduce the risk of concussions generally, and have been clinically proven to do both.

Consumers should carefully evaluate health claims made by advertisers. For more information about concussions, see: Concussion and Mild Traumatic Brain Injury.

The Commission vote to accept the consent agreement package containing the proposed consent order for public comment was 4-1, with Commissioner J. Thomas Rosch voting no. The FTC will publish a description of the consent agreement package in the Federal Register shortly. The agreement will be subject to public comment for 30 days, beginning today and continuing through September 17, 2012, after which the Commission will decide whether to make the proposed consent order final. Interested parties can submit written comments electronically or in paper form by following the instructions in the “Invitation To Comment” part of the “Supplementary Information” section. Comments can be submitted electronically by clicking here. Comments in paper form should be mailed or delivered to: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Room H-113 (Annex D), 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580. The FTC is requesting that any comment filed in paper form near the end of the public comment period be sent by courier or overnight service, if possible, because U.S. postal mail in the Washington area and at the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security precautions.

NOTE: The Commission issues an administrative 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 respondent has actually violated the law. A consent agreement is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by the respondent that the law has been violated. 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 up to $16,000.

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 File No. 1223073)
(Brain Pad NR)

FTC Advises Parents How to Protect Kids’ Personal Information at School

A new school year usually means filling out paperwork like registration forms, health forms, and emergency contact forms, to name a few. The Federal Trade Commission wants parents to know that many school forms require personal and sensitive information that, in the wrong hands, could be used to commit fraud in their child’s name.

A criminal can use a child’s Social Security number to get government benefits, open bank and credit card accounts, or rent a place to live. Most parents and guardians don’t expect their child to have a credit file, and rarely order or monitor a child’s credit report. Child identity theft may go undetected for years – until the child applies for a job or loan and discovers problems in a credit report.

To help limit the risks of child identity theft, the Federal Trade Commission offers Protecting Your Child’s Personal Information at School. It explains how the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act protects the privacy of student records and gives parents of school-age children the right to opt out of sharing contact information with third parties. It also suggests that parents ask their child’s school about its directory information policy, learn about privacy policies of sports or music activities that are not school-sponsored, and find out what to do if their child’s school experiences a data breach.

The second publication, Safeguarding Your Child’s Future, offers tips on how to keep your child’s data safe at home and online, and explains the warning signs of child identity theft. It also explains how parents and guardians can check whether their child has a credit report, and what to do if the report has errors.

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.

(ID Theft School)

FTC Extends Deadline for Public Input on Jewelry Industry Marketing Guides

Do you have something to say about jewelry and how it’s marketed? If so, the Federal Trade Commission wants to hear from you, and is extending the deadline for filing public comments on the agency’s Jewelry Guides.

The Guides (formally, the “Guides for the Jewelry, Precious Metals, and Pewter Industries”) explain to businesses how to avoid making deceptive claims about precious metal, pewter, diamond, gemstone, and pearl products, and when they should make disclosures to avoid unfair or deceptive trade practices. The FTC completed its last comprehensive review of the Guides in 1996 and has modified them four times since then.

On July 2, 2012, as part of the Commission’s systematic review of its rules and guides, the FTC published a notice in the Federal Register requesting public comments on the Guides’ costs and benefits, and on whether the Guides should be repealed, amended, or retained in their current form. The notice also requested comments on specific issues concerning composite gemstones, pearls, diamonds, and precious metal alloys, as well as comments regarding any other issues or concerns relating to the Guides. The notice set August 27, 2012 as the deadline for filing comments.

A trade association representing jewelry industry members requested an extension of this deadline to allow additional time to develop comments and supporting evidence that would fully address the issues. Given the complexity and range of issues raised in the notice, including the request for consumer perception evidence, the Commission has decided to extend the comment period to September 28, 2012.

The Commission vote extending the deadline for filing public comments on the Guides for the Jewelry, Precious Metals, and Pewter Industries was 5-0. The notice extending the deadline is available on the FTC’s website and in the Federal Register. Instructions for filing comments appear in the Federal Register Notice. Comments must be received by September 28, 2012. All comments received will be posted at www.ftc.gov/os/publiccomments.shtm. (FTC File No. G711001; the staff contact is Reenah Kim, Bureau of Consumer Protection, 202-326-2272)

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.

(Jewelry Guides extension)

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts: