Markets Wired - Page 1117 of 1416 - Global Financial Market News and Press Releases

Shopping Online This Holiday Season? FTC Offers Advice on Getting the Best Deal

Whether your gift list is ready or you’re wondering how long you can wait to start your holiday shopping, the Federal Trade Commission has online tips to help you get the best deals. The bottom line: Some extra research can really pay off:

Set a Budget. Create a gift list and check it twice to help you stay on track and not overspend.

Decide What Matters. Especially if you’re buying gadgets, know what your “must-have” features are vs. those that are just nice to have.

Use Search Engines. Type a company or product name into your search engine with terms like “review,” “complaint” or “scam” to find out more about it.

Read Reviews Online. Reviews from other people, experts, and columnists can give you an idea of how a product performs. But don’t put all of your trust in one review.

Consider Reputation. A brand’s reputation for quality and good customer service can really pay off.

Check Comparison Shopping Sites. They connect to many retailers selling the same product, sometimes at significantly different prices. Keep shipping costs in mind.

Consider Coupons. Some companies offer discounts via e-mail, and some websites collect and list codes for free shipping and other discounts. Search for the store with terms like “discount,” “coupon” or “free shipping.”

Read Return Policies. Not all stores have the same rules. Some charge fees for return shipping or restocking things like electronics.

Decide How to Pay. When you shop online, credit cards can offer extra protections.

Look for a Secure Checkout. Does the website start with https (the “s” stands for secure) when you’re checking out?

Learn more about researching products online at OnguardOnline.gov/SmartShopper.

For hassle-free online shopping, keep records like e-mails and online receipts in case there’s a problem. Also, make sure you know who you’re dealing with and protect your personal and financial information, since anyone can set up shop online under almost any name. Learn more about safe shopping online at http://onguardonline.gov/articles/0020-shopping-online.

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 and follow us on Twitter.

(Holiday Shopping)

FTC Extends Comment Period on Proposed Settlement with Marketer of Four Loko Malt Beverage Until December 2, 2011

The Federal Trade Commission has extended the deadline for the public to submit comments on a proposed settlement with Phusion Projects, LLC, the company that markets the beverage Four Loko, until December 2, 2011.

In a complaint announced on October 3, 2011, the FTC alleged that the marketer made deceptive claims about Four Loko. Under the proposed administrative settlement, Phusion Projects is required to re-label and repackage Four Loko to resolve FTC charges of deceptive advertising.

The comment period originally was set to expire on November 2, 2011. It will be extended by 30 days, after which the Commission will decide whether to make the settlement order final.

The Commission vote to extent the public comment period was 4-0. The FTC has published a description of the consent agreement package in the Federal Register. 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 in electronic form should be submitted by clicking here and following the instructions on the web-based form. 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 requests 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. mail in the Washington area and at the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security precautions. FTC File No. 1123084; The staff contacts are Janet Evans or Carolyn L. Hann, Bureau of Consumer Protection, 202-326-2125 or 202-326-2745; see press release dated October 3, 2011.

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 and follow us on Twitter.

FTC Requires Parent of Market Research Firm IMS Health to Sell Two Product Lines Before Acquiring Rival SDI Health

The Federal Trade Commission today announced that Healthcare Technology Holdings, Inc., the parent company of market research firm IMS Health Inc., has agreed to sell two product lines of rival SDI Health LLC, as a condition of allowing it to proceed with its acquisition of SDI.

The proposed settlement order requires the sale of SDI’s promotional audit and medical audit businesses to an FTC-approved buyer to resolve the agency’s charges that IMS’s acquisition of SDI, as originally proposed, is anticompetitive and likely would increase prices for market research products in the health care industry. The settlement is part of the FTC’s ongoing efforts to protect competition in the health care industry.

IMS is based in Danbury, Connecticut, and produces and sells health care data and analytics to pharmaceutical and biotechnology firms and other customers. SDI, which is headquartered in Plymouth Meeting, Pennsylvania, offers many of the same types of health care data and analytics to its customers. Customers use these data and analytics to promote and market their products, and otherwise manage their operations. Healthcare Technology, a health care market research firm, plans to acquire SDI through its subsidiary IMS.

IMS and SDI are competing providers of promotional audits, which are market research products that estimate advertising and other promotional activities for branded drugs. Drug makers and other customers use promotional audits to determine how much to spend in various categories to promote their branded drugs.

IMS and SDI also compete to provide medical audits, which estimate actual medical diagnoses made, and therapies prescribed, by physicians. Customers use medical audit data to assess which products are used to treat specific diseases, and to help them understand drug prescription and treatment trends in the health care marketplace.

According to the FTC’s complaint, the U.S. market for promotional audits is highly concentrated, with only IMS, SDI, and Cegedim S.A. involved; SDI currently has 68 percent of the market, followed by IMS and Cegedim, with 30 percent and two percent, respectively. In the market for medical audits, only IMS and SDI compete. IMS controls 53 percent of the market, while SDI holds the remaining 47 percent.

In its complaint, the FTC alleges that the proposed acquisition would substantially increase IMS’s share in both the promotional audit and medical audit markets, while at the same time eliminating the direct and substantial competition of SDI, its only significant competitor. As a result, IMS’s acquisition of SDI likely would lead to a unilateral exercise of market power by IMS in these markets, and thus higher prices.

The proposed order settling the FTC’s charges is intended to remedy the anticompetitive impact of IMS’s proposed acquisition of SDI. It requires Healthcare Technology to sell all of the overlapping SDI businesses related to both promotional and medical audits to an FTC-approved buyer within three months of the completion of the deal. If Healthcare Technology has not provided an acceptable buyer within the allotted time, the Commission may appoint a trustee to sell the assets.

The proposed settlement order also requires IMS to hold the SDI promotional and medical audit assets separate and apart from its other businesses, and to ensure they remain competitive pending their sale.

The Commission vote approving the complaint and proposed consent order was 4-0. The order will be published in the Federal Register subject to public comment for 30 days, until November 28, 2011, after which the Commission will decide whether to make it final. Comments can be submitted electronically here.

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 order 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 up to $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 20580. To learn more about the Bureau of Competition, read Competition Counts. Like the FTC on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.

(FTC File No. 111-0097)
(IMS.final)

At FTC’s Request, Court Orders Debt Collection Operation to Stop Deceiving and Abusing Consumers

At the request of the Federal Trade Commission, a U.S. district court has halted a debt collection operation that allegedly deceived and abused consumers – making bogus threats that consumers had been sued or could be arrested over debts they often did not owe. As part of its continuing crackdown on scams that target consumers in financial distress, the FTC charged two individuals and seven companies in a Corona, California-based debt-collection operation doing business as Rincon Debt Management. The court order stops the illegal conduct, freezes the operation’s assets, and appoints a temporary receiver to take over the defendants’ business while the FTC moves forward with the case.

Operating since March 2009, the defendants have been unjustly enriched by at least $9.4 million, according to documents the FTC filed with the court.

“Consumers have a right to expect that debt collectors will be truthful and abide by the law,” said FTC Commissioner Edith Ramirez. “We allege that, instead, the victims in this case were subject to abusive and illegal debt-collection practices, and that cannot stand.”

The FTC complaint alleges that the defendants targeted both English- and Spanish-speaking consumers. The defendants called consumers and their employers, family, friends, and neighbors, posing as process servers seeking to deliver legal papers that purportedly related to a lawsuit. In some instances, the defendants threatened that consumers would be arrested if they did not respond to the calls. The defendants also posed as attorneys or employees of a law office, and demanded that consumers pay “court costs” and “legal fees.” However, according to the FTC, the debt collectors making calls to consumers were not actually process servers, attorneys, or their employees, and the defendants did not file lawsuits against consumers. In addition, in many instances, consumers did not even owe the debt the defendants were trying to collect.

The FTC charged that the defendants’ false and misleading claims that they were process servers or attorneys who had filed – or were about to file – a lawsuit against a consumer violated the FTC Act. In addition, the FTC alleged that the defendants violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by:

improperly contacting third parties about consumers’ debts;
failing to disclose the name of the company they represented, or the fact that they were attempting to collect on a debt, during telephone calls to consumers;
misrepresenting the existence of a debt, the amount, and other facts about the debt; and
failing to notify consumers of their right to dispute and obtain verification of their debts.

Last month, at the FTC’s request, a U.S. district court halted another debt collection operation that allegedly deceived and abused consumers.

For consumer information about dealing with debt collectors, see Debt Collection FAQs: A Guide for Consumers.

The Commission vote authorizing the staff to file the complaint was 4-0. The FTC filed the complaint and request for a temporary restraining order in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on October 11, 2011. On the same day, the court granted the FTC’s request.

The complaint names as defendants Jason R. Begley; Wayne W. Lunsford; Rincon Management Services, LLC; Prime West Management Recovery, LLC; Pacific Management Recovery, LLC; City Investment Services, LLC; Global Filing Services, LLC; National Filing Services, LLC; and Union Management Services, LLC.

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 defendant has actually violated the law.

(FTC File No. 1123142)
(Rincon NR)

FTC Study Finds that in FY 2011, Pharmaceutical Industry Continued to Make Numerous Business Deals that Delay Consumers Access to Lower-Cost Generic Drugs

According to an overview of industry data released by the staff of the Federal Trade Commission, in Fiscal Year 2011, pharmaceutical companies continued a recent anticompetitive trend of paying potential generic rivals to delay the introduction of lower-cost prescription drug alternatives for American consumers.

The FTC staff report found that drug companies entered into 28 potential pay-for-delay deals in FY 2011 (October 1, 2010 through September 30, 2011). The figure nearly matches last year’s record of 31 deals and is higher than any other previous year since the FTC began collecting data in 2003. Overall, the agreements reached in the latest fiscal year involved 25 different brand-name pharmaceutical products with combined annual U.S. sales of more than $9 billion.

“While a lot of companies don’t engage in pay-for-delay settlements, the ones that do increase prescription drug costs for consumers and the government each year,” said FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz. “Fortunately, Congress has the opportunity to fix this problem through the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction — and save the government and American taxpayers billions of dollars.”

Generic drugs are the key to making medicines affordable for millions of American consumers, and they also help hold down costs for taxpayer-funded health programs such as Medicare and Medicaid. Generic drug prices are typically at least 20 to 30 percent less than the name-brand drugs, and in some cases are up to 90 percent cheaper.

In recent years, certain brand-name companies have paid or otherwise compensated generic firms to settle their patent challenges and, in turn, delay the introduction of lower-cost medicines. An FTC staff study has found that patent settlements that include a payment or other compensation delay generic entry on average by 17 months longer than those that do not include a payment. According to the Congressional Budget Office, proposed legislation would reduce the federal deficit by $2.67 billion over 10 years.

The FTC has challenged a number of these patent settlement agreements in court, contending that they are anticompetitive and violate U.S. antitrust laws. The agency also has supported legislation in Congress that would prohibit pay-for-delay settlements that increase the cost of prescription drugs.

According to the new staff report, companies reached a total of 156 final patent settlements in FY 2011. Twenty-eight settlements contained a payment to a generic manufacturer and also restricted the generic’s ability to market its product. Of those 28 settlements, 18 involved generics that were so-called “first filers,” meaning that they were the first to seek FDA approval to market a generic version of the branded drug, and, at the time of the settlement, were eligible to exclusively market the generic product for period of time. Because of the regulatory framework, when first filers delay entering the market, other generic manufacturers can also be blocked from entering the market, which makes such patent settlement deals particularly harmful to consumers.

The report summarizes data on patent settlements filed with the FTC and the Department of Justice during FY 2011 under the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003.

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, Room 394, Bureau of Competition, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Ave, N.W., Washington, DC 20580. To learn more about the Bureau of Competition, read Competition Counts. Like the FTC on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.

(2011 MMA Report.final)

Former FTC Commissioner William E. Kovacic Named Recipient of 2011 Kirkpatrick Award

Federal Trade Commission Chairman Jon Leibowitz today named former FTC Commissioner and Chairman William E. Kovacic the 2011 recipient of the Miles W. Kirkpatrick Award for Lifetime FTC Achievement, noting how much of his professional career and personal passion Kovacic has devoted to the agency. “Bill Kovacic provided exceptional leadership during his years of service to the Federal Trade Commission and the American public,” said Chairman Leibowitz. “As an attorney, teacher, General Counsel, Commissioner, Chairman, and colleague, his unceasing efforts have made the FTC stronger, more nimble, and more effective.”

Kovacic was an FTC Commissioner from January 2006 to October 2011, and served as Chairman of the agency from March 2008 to March 2009. Kovacic previously was the FTC’s General Counsel from 2001 through 2004, and also worked for the agency from 1979 until 1983, initially as a staff attorney in the Bureau of Competition’s Planning Office and later as an attorney advisor to former Commissioner George W. Douglas.

Kovacic has returned to George Washington University Law School where he began teaching in 1999 and where he once was the E.K. Gubin Professor of Government Contracts Law. Prior to that, he taught at the George Mason University School of Law. Earlier in his career, Kovacic practiced antitrust and government contracts law for three years at Bryan Cave’s Washington, D.C., office, and spent one year on the majority staff of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee’s Antitrust and Monopoly Subcommittee.

Kovacic has served as an adviser on antitrust and consumer protection issues to the governments of Armenia, Benin, Egypt, El Salvador, Georgia, Guyana, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Mongolia, Morocco, Nepal, Panama, Russia, Ukraine, Vietnam, and Zimbabwe. Since January 2009, he has also served as Vice Chairman for Outreach of the International Competition Network. Kovacic received a bachelor degree from Princeton University in 1974 and a law degree from Columbia University in 1978.

The Kirkpatrick Award was established in 2001 to honor the commitment and talent of individuals who have made lasting and significant contributions to the FTC throughout their public and private careers. It is named after Miles Kirkpatrick, a legendary figure in the antitrust community known for his dynamic leadership of the American Bar Association’s 1969 commission to study the FTC. Kirkpatrick wrote a report that resulted in a mandate for substantial reform and reorganization of the agency. Kirkpatrick served as FTC Chairman from 1970 to 1973, and in that capacity was able to implement the recommendations of the 1969 report, including recruitment of highly qualified and motivated new talent.

Previous recipients of the award include Basil J. Mezines, Robert Pitofsky, Jodie Bernstein, Caswell O. Hobbs, III, Calvin J. Collier, Thomas B. Leary, Mary Gardiner Jones, and Timothy J. Muris.

FTC Approves Final Order Settling Charges that DaVita, Inc.s Acquisition of DSI was Anticompetitive in Market for Dialysis Clinics

Following a public comment period, the Federal Trade Commission has approved a final order settling charges that DaVita, Inc.’s acquisition of CDSI I Holding Company, also known as DSI, was anticompetitive and reduced competition in the U.S. market for outpatient dialysis clinics. The final order requires DaVita to sell 29 outpatient dialysis clinics in 22 markets throughout the country to resolve the alleged anticompetitive effects of the transaction.

The Commission vote approving the final order was 4-0. The order can be found on the FTC’s website and as a link to this press release. (FTC File No. 111-0102, Docket No. C-4334; the staff contact is Lisa D. DeMarchi Sleigh, Bureau of Competition, 202-326-2535; see press release dated September 2, 2011.

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, Room 394, Bureau of Competition, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Ave, N.W., Washington, DC 20580. To learn more about the Bureau of Competition, read Competition Counts. Like the FTC on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.

(FYI 43.2011.wpd)

Third FTC Roundtable to Cover Motor Vehicle Leasing Issues, Review Sales, Financing and Leasing Issues from All of the Roundtables, and Discuss Possible Next Steps

The Federal Trade Commission will host its third roundtable on November 17, 2011, in Washington, D.C., to gather information on consumers’ experiences in the leasing of motor vehicles at dealerships. The roundtable also will address what has been learned about auto sales, financing and leasing at all of the roundtables; what consumer and business education initiatives would be useful; and any practices that may harm consumers significantly or that are widespread.

Buying or leasing a car is among the most expensive transactions that many consumers make. Financing obtained at a dealership may provide benefits for many consumers, such as convenience, special manufacturer-sponsored programs, access to a variety of banks and financial entities, or access to credit otherwise unavailable to a buyer. Dealer-arranged financing, however, can be a complicated, opaque process and could potentially involve unfair or deceptive practices.

The FTC’s first roundtable, on consumer protection issues involving dealership sales and financing of cars, SUVs, and light trucks, was held in Detroit in April. The second roundtable, on military consumers’ experiences in buying and financing motor vehicles, the role of financial literacy in consumers’ understanding of that process, and fair lending issues, was held in San Antonio in August.

The roundtable will be held at the FTC’s Conference Center, 601 New Jersey Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. It is free and open to the public.

Pre-registration is not required but is encouraged to help staff plan the event and to expedite attendees’ passage through security. Details can be found at http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/workshops/motorvehicles/. The FTC will offer a live webcast of the event. The Commission staff will identify and invite people with relevant expertise to participate and may invite others to participate who have submitted requests. Those who want to be panelists at the roundtable may e-mail their name and affiliation to [email protected] on or before November 4. Please note that if you submitted a request to participate in the prior roundtables, you need not submit another request to participate in the Washington, D.C. Roundtable. All requests to participate that were submitted will be considered. At this time, no other roundtables have been scheduled.

Those who wish to submit comments on roundtable topics or on motor vehicle sales, finance and lease issues more generally may file comments at http://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/motorvehicleroundtables3 per instructions on the web-based form. The FTC will accept comments on roundtable topics or on motor vehicle sales, finance and lease issues until at least January 31, 2012. More information will be posted at http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/workshops/motorvehicles/ as it becomes available.

Reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities are available upon request. If you need an accommodation related to a disability, please call Carole Reynolds at 202-326-3224. Your request should include a detailed description of the accommodations you need and a way to contact you if we need more information. Please provide advance notice. (FTC File No. P104811; staff contacts are Jim Chen, Carole Reynolds, and Robin Thurston, Division of Financial Practices, Federal Trade Commission; 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20580, 202-326-3224.)

(FYI Auto Dealers)
(FTC File No. P104811)

FTC Approves Final Settlement Orders Against Marketers Who Claimed Their Mobile Apps Could Cure Acne

Following a public comment period, the Federal Trade Commission has finalized two settlement orders with three individuals who allegedly claimed that their smartphone applications could cure acne. The settlements bar the marketers of AcneApp and Acne Pwner from making acne-treatment claims about their mobile apps and other medical devices, or claims about the safety, performance, benefits, or efficacy of any device unless they have scientific evidence. The two marketers of AcneApp are also barred from misrepresenting research, tests, or studies.

The Commission votes approving the final settlement orders were 4-0. (FTC File Nos. 102-3205 and 102-3206, the staff contacts are Stacey Ferguson or James Prunty, Bureau of Consumer Protection, 202-326-2361 or 202-326- 2438; see news release dated September 8, 2011.)

(FYI 43.2011.wpd)

FTC Gives Final Approval to Settlement with Google over Buzz Rollout

Following a public comment period, the Federal Trade Commission has accepted as final a settlement with Google, and authorized the staff to provide responses to the commenters of record. The settlement resolves charges that Google used deceptive tactics and violated its own privacy promises to consumers when it launched its social network, Google Buzz, in 2010. The agency alleged that the practices violate the FTC Act. The settlement bars the company from future privacy misrepresentations, requires it to implement a comprehensive privacy program, and calls for regular, independent privacy audits for the next 20 years.

The Commission vote approving the final settlement was 4-0. (FTC File No. 102-3136; the staff contact is Katherine Race Brin, Bureau of Consumer Protection, 202-326-2106; see press release dated March 30, 2011.)

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts: