Markets Wired - Page 1157 of 1418 - Global Financial Market News and Press Releases

FTC and International Privacy Enforcement Authorities Launch Global Privacy Cooperation Network and Website

The Federal Trade Commission and privacy enforcement authorities from 11 countries around the world recently launched the Global Privacy Enforcement Network (GPEN), a new network that promotes information sharing and international assistance in enforcement of privacy laws. Today the network unveiled GPEN’s public website, www.privacyenforcement.net. The new website is designed to promote public awareness of the network.

“To protect consumers’ privacy in today’s global economy, all of us who work in law enforcement around the world need to cooperate with each other,” said FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz. “We at the FTC are looking forward to working closely with our colleagues overseas to make this happen.”

International organizations such as the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum have called for strengthening cooperation in privacy enforcement. The OECD is providing website support to GPEN.

In addition to the FTC, network participants currently include privacy enforcement authorities from Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Ireland, Israel, Italy, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Spain, and United Kingdom.

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 1,800 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.

(world privacy NR)

Court Halts Deceptive Envelope-Stuffing Operation

At the request of the Federal Trade Commission, a U.S. district court has temporarily halted an envelope-stuffing operation that allegedly scammed cash-strapped consumers by falsely promising they could make substantial income working from home.

As part of ongoing efforts to protect Americans who are struggling to cope with the economic downturn, the FTC charged that Louis Salatto and his company, Global U.S. Resources, deceived consumers into paying up-front fees by making phony promises about the earning potential of their envelope-stuffing operation.

According to the FTC’s complaint, Salatto bought classified ads in local pennysavers and community newspapers that promised weekly earnings ranging from $1,200 to $4,400. Consumers who paid the up-front fee did not receive the materials they needed to do the envelope stuffing, nor the income promised, nor the refund that Salatto said they could get upon request.

The court order halts the allegedly illegal tactics of Salatto and Global U.S. Resources and freezes their assets while the FTC moves forward with its case seeking a permanent prohibition against the defendants’ false and deceptive claims.

Since at least 2005, Salatto has advertised nationwide through large classified advertising networks such as Gateway Media Inc. and National Advertising Network Inc., according to the FTC complaint. Ads in pennysavers and community papers stated “No Experience Necessary! Start Immediately!” They provided a toll-free number at which consumers were instructed to leave a message with their contact information. Consumers who responded to these ads received a “registration form” that typically stated they would receive $8 for every brochure they stuffed, plus 25 percent of every sale made as a result of their mailing, the complaint alleged. They were instructed to pay a “refundable” fee – typically $40 – by cash, check, or money order.

After paying the fee, consumers typically received either nothing or a pamphlet titled “Secret Home Employment Guide,” which listed other bogus work-at-home opportunities and provided instructions on how to market them, the FTC complaint stated. Consumers who requested refunds were typically unable to reach anyone, and could only obtain the refunds by submitting a complaint to a Better Business Bureau or law enforcement agency.

The FTC acknowledges the assistance of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Connecticut, the United States Postal Inspection Services, the Office of Attorney General in Connecticut, and the Better Business Bureau serving Connecticut.

The Commission vote authorizing the staff to file the FTC complaint and seek a temporary restraining order was 4-1, with Commissioner J. Thomas Rosch voting no. The FTC filed its complaint and requested a temporary restraining order against the defendants from the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. On September 13, 2010, the court granted the request for the temporary restraining order.

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 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 1,800 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.

(Salatto NR.wpd)
(FTC File No. 1023162)

Concertgoers Who Bought Springsteen Tickets from Ticketmaster Resale Website Are Sent Refund Claim Forms by FTC

An administrator working for the Federal Trade Commission has mailed claim forms to 1,174 consumers who are eligible for refunds because they allegedly were steered from the Ticketmaster website to its ticket resale website TicketsNow while buying tickets to attend Bruce Springsteen concerts last year. Ticketmaster and its affiliates agreed to pay refunds to some of the concertgoers to settle FTC charges that they used deceptive bait-and-switch tactics to sell event tickets.

The claim forms were mailed earlier this month to some concertgoers who bought tickets for shows in 14 cities: Glendale, Ariz.; San Jose, Calif.; Los Angeles, Calif.; Denver, Colo.; Hartford, Conn.; Atlanta, Ga.; Chicago, Ill.; Boston, Mass.; Saint Paul, Minn.; East Rutherford, N.J.; Long Island, N.Y.; Pittsburgh, Pa..; University Park, Pa..; and Washington, DC.

According to the February 2010 FTC complaint, Ticketmaster steered unknowing consumers to TicketsNow, where tickets were offered at prices that were sometimes double, triple, or quadruple the face value of the ticket. Under the settlement, these concertgoers will get back the difference between what they paid for their tickets and what they would have paid on Ticketmaster. For example, if a consumer paid $400 for two tickets from TicketsNow, and those same two tickets would have cost $200 from Ticketmaster, the customer will get a $200 refund. Ticketmaster provided the FTC with a list that included the eligible concertgoers who had not received refunds for the extra money they paid to buy the higher-priced tickets from TicketsNow.

All claims must be made by mail and postmarked on or before the date specified on the form. There is no way to submit a claim form online. No date has been set yet for distribution of the checks.

If you received a claim form and have recently moved and would like to change the address the FTC has on file, send your new address to:

FTC v. Ticketmaster
Claims Administration Center
P.O. Box 1110
Corte Madera, CA 94976-1110

If you did not receive a claim form and believe you are entitled to a refund, please call:
1-866-332-6536

For more information about this case, please visit the FTC’s website at:
www.ftc.gov/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 1,800 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The FTC’s Web site provides free information on a variety of consumer topics.

(FTC File No. 092-3091)
(Ticketmaster Refund)

Mortgage Lender Will Pay $1.5 Million to Settle FTC Charges That It Discriminated Against Hispanic Borrowers

A California-based mortgage lender and its owner have agreed to settle FTC charges that they illegally charged Hispanic consumers higher prices for mortgage loans than non-Hispanic white consumers – price disparities that could not be explained by the applicants’ credit characteristics or underwriting risk.

“We will continue to be vigilant in enforcing fair lending laws and we’re not going to tolerate discriminatory practices by mortgage lenders,” FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz said. “Lenders who allow discretion in pricing loans can’t escape liability simply by burying their heads in the sand. Those lenders must monitor discretionary pricing to ensure that American borrowers are treated equally based on their credit – not their race, national origin, or gender.”

The FTC filed a complaint in federal court on May 7, 2009, alleging that Golden Empire Mortgage, Inc. and Howard D. Kootstra violated the Equal Credit Opportunity Act in pricing mortgage loans. They allegedly gave loan officers and branch managers wide discretion to charge some borrowers, in addition to the risk-based price, “overages” through higher interest rates and higher up-front charges. They then paid loan officers a percentage of the overages as a commission, according to the complaint, and failed to monitor whether Hispanic consumers were paying higher overages than non-Hispanic white borrowers. (5/11/2009 release http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/05/gem.shtm).

The settlement order permanently prohibits Golden Empire and Mr. Kootstra from discriminating on the basis of national origin in credit transactions, or otherwise failing to comply with the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and its implementing Regulation B. The order imposes a $5.5 million judgment that will be suspended when $1.5 million has been paid for consumer redress. The full judgment will become due immediately if the defendants are found to have misrepresented their financial condition.

The order also requires Golden Empire to have a policy that restricts loan originators’ pricing discretion, a fair lending monitoring program, a program to ensure the accuracy and completeness of their data, and employee training programs. The pricing policy and fair lending monitoring program set forth in the settlement order are intended to facilitate order enforcement in this case.

In fair lending cases, the Commission strives to have before it as wide a range of information as possible to determine whether a lender’s policies have run afoul of fair lending laws. As with other FTC orders, the order against GEM is designed to fit the facts of this case.

The extent to which other lenders should use the same methodology in monitoring ECOA compliance will depend on the facts and circumstances of each lender. An appropriate monitoring program requires an examination of a lender’s policies, business model and business necessities and should include statistical analyses that consider, as warranted by the lender’s particular circumstances, various information such as loan characteristics, geographic variations and other relevant factors.

The Equal Credit Opportunity Act and its implementing Regulation B bar creditors from discriminating against applicants for credit on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, age, or the fact that an applicant’s income is derived from public assistance. More information about consumers’ rights under the Act is available at http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/homes/rea08.shtm.

The Commission vote to file the stipulated final order was 5-0. The order was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

NOTE: Stipulated court orders are for settlement purposes only and do not constitute an admission by the defendants of a law violation. Stipulated orders have the full force of law when signed by the 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 1,800 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The FTC’s Web site provides free information on a variety of consumer topics.

(FTC File No. X090044)

FTC, Fordham Law School To Hold Panel on New Horizontal Merger Guidelines and International Convergence on September 22

The Federal Trade Commission and Fordham Law School will co-sponsor a panel discussion on September 22, 2010, on the recently revised Horizontal Merger Guidelines and their role in promoting closer consensus among international antitrust authorities regarding how they assess mergers among competitors. Panelists will include the Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Economics, Dr. Joseph Farrell, and other leading antitrust lawyers and economists.

The panel will be held from 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. in the McNally Amphitheater at Fordham Law School, 140 West 62nd Street, New York, New York. The public is invited, and registration is not required.

In addition to Dr. Farrell, other members of the panel will include:

Dr. Lawrence White, Professor of Business at New York University and former Director of the Economic Policy Office of the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division;
Dr. Janusz Ordover, Professor of Economics at New York University;
William Blumenthal, Partner at Clifford Chance and former FTC General Counsel;
Abbott “Tad” Lipsky, Partner at Latham & Watkins and former Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Department of Justice Antitrust Division;
Calvin “Cal” Goldman, Partner at Blake Cassels & Graydon LLP and former Director of the Canadian Competition Bureau;
Barbara Rosenberg, Partner at Barbosa, Mussnich & Aragao and former head of the Antitrust Department of Brazil’s Ministry of Justice;
Mark Clough Q.C., Partner at Addleshaw Goddard;
Catherine Moscatelli, Chief of the Mergers II Division in the FTC’s Bureau of Competition.

Alden Abbott, a deputy director in the FTC’s Office of International Affairs, will moderate. The revised Horizontal Merger Guidelines were released on August 19, 2010 and are available at http://www.ftc.gov/os/2010/08/100819hmg.pdf. Questions about this panel should be directed to Alden Abbott in the FTC’s Office of International Affairs at 202-326-2881 or Elizabeth Callison in the FTC’s Bureau of Economics at 202-326-3521.

Copies of the documents mentioned in this release are available from the FTC’s website at http://www.ftc.gov and from the FTC’s Consumer Response Center, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20580. Call toll-free: 1-877-FTC-HELP.

(FYI FordhamPanel.wpd)

FTC Seeks Public Comments on Agilent Technologies Application to Modify its Divestiture Obligation Related to Varian Acquisition

The Federal Trade Commission is seeking public comments on an application by Agilent Technologies, Inc. to modify the final FTC Order settling charges that Agilent’s acquisition of Varian, Inc. would reduce competition in the market for high-performance scientific measuring instruments such as gas chromatographs. A public version of the application can be found on the FTC’s website at http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/0910135/index.shtm.

The final Order, which was issued on July 2, 2010, required Agilent to sell Varian’s scientific measuring instrument business to Bruker Corporation. As part of that divestiture agreement, the parties entered into a transition services agreement under which former Varian employees are working for Bruker to assemble the instruments at a facility in Melbourne, Australia. Agilent now seeks to alter some of the terms of the transition services agreement relating to the working requirements of the employees assembling the devices. Details of the proposed modification can be found in Agilent’s application.

The FTC is accepting public comments on the petition for 30 days, starting today and continuing through October 18, 2010. Comments can be sent to: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Washington, DC 20580. (FTC File No. 091-0132; the staff contact is Eric D. Rohlck, Bureau of Competition, 202-326-2681. See press release dated May 14, 2010 at http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2010/05/agilent.shtm.)

(FYI 37.2010.wpd)

FTC Staff Will Not Recommend Agency Challenge Two New Drug Supplier Audit Programs; FTC Approves Final Order Settling Charges That Fidelity National Financial’s Acquisition of Land America was Anticompetitive; Seeks Public Comments on Divestiture

FTC Staff Will Not Recommend Agency Challenge Two New Drug Supplier Audit Programs

The staff of the Federal Trade Commission has advised a consortium of pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies that it has no present intention to recommend that the agency challenge the Consortium’s planned joint supplier quality and safety audit programs. Under these programs, consortium members will be able to share both prior quality and safety audit information and the costs of sponsoring further quality and safety audits of common suppliers.

In an advisory opinion letter responding to a request from the Rx-360 International Pharmaceutical Supply Chain Consortium, the FTC staff states that it appears that the audit programs: 1) do not require exchanges of competitively significant information, 2) contain protections to reduce Rx-360 members’ ability to use the programs for anticompetitive ends, 3) protect audited firms from concerted misuse of the audit programs, and 4) are intended and likely to promote efficiency, quality, and safety. Accordingly, FTC staff advises, it has no present intention to recommend to the Commission that it challenge the programs.

Rx-360 asked the FTC staff for guidance about the law enforcement implications of the two proposed supplier audit programs and supplied information to the staff about the proposed programs. Under the FTC’s Rules of Practice, companies can seek guidance from the Commission or its staff about specific business conduct they are considering undertaking, and what the law enforcement intentions of the Commission or staff would be. These Commission and FTC staff advisory opinions are not binding on the Commission, the courts, other governmental entities, or private parties.

The advisory opinion can be found on the FTC’s website and as a link to this press release at http://www.ftc.gov/os/2010/09/100916bloomletter.pdf. (The staff contact is Michael Bloom, Bureau of Competition, 202-326-2475.)

FTC Approves Final Order Settling Charges That Fidelity National Financial’s Acquisition of Land America was Anticompetitive; Seeks Public Comments on Divestiture Application

Following a public comment period, the Federal Trade Commission has approved a final consent order settling charges that Fidelity National Financial Inc.’s acquisition of the three LandAmerica Financial, Inc. subsidiaries was anticompetitive. The FTC vote approving the final order was 5-0. (FTC File No. 091-0132; the staff contact is Elizabeth Piotrowski, Bureau of Competition, 202-326-2623. See press release dated July 16, 2010 at http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2010/07/fidelity.shtm.)

The FTC also is seeking public comments on a divestiture application submitted by Fidelity National related to an FTC order settling charges that its 2008 acquisition of three LandAmerica Financial subsidiaries reduced competition in markets for real estate title information services. The consent order requires Fidelity to sell several real estate databases, known as title plants, and related assets in the Portland, Oregon and Detroit, Michigan metropolitan areas, and in four other Oregon counties.

In the petition, which can be found on the FTC’s website and as a link to this press release at http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/0910032/100916fidelitypetition.pdf, Fidelity has requested Commission approval to divest the Michigan Title Plant Assets to Data Trace Information Services, LLC, under a purchase agreement dated September 2, 2010. Data Trace is an independent title services provider.

Copies of the documents mentioned in this release are available from the FTC’s website at http://www.ftc.gov and from the FTC’s Consumer Response Center, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20580. Call toll-free: 1-877-FTC-HELP.

FTC Testifies Before House Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust in the Digital Age

In testimony before a U.S. House of Representatives subcommittee, the Federal Trade Commission explained how it protects consumers by applying well-established principles of competition to fast-changing technology markets.

“Some have argued that there should be different rules for markets characterized by rapid technological development, but Congress drafted the antitrust laws in general terms to accommodate changing markets and new products, and the laws are flexible enough to meet the challenges of the high-tech era,” said Bureau of Competition Director Richard Feinstein, testifying on behalf of the FTC before the House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Courts and Competition Policy.

The testimony discusses two recent FTC matters to illustrate the agency’s flexibility in investigating and bringing enforcement actions in high-tech markets. Last year, the FTC charged Intel Corporation with using unfair methods of competition dating back to 1999 to stifle competition. The agency recently reached a settlement with the company that will help restore lost competition and prevent Intel from suppressing competition in the future, while allowing the company to compete aggressively.

Also last year, the FTC investigated Google’s proposed acquisition of mobile advertising firm AdMob and ultimately decided not to oppose the transaction. The Commission initially had concerns that the loss of head-to-head competition between the two leading mobile advertising networks would harm competition. However, Apple’s acquisition of the third-largest mobile ad network, Quattro, and the introduction of its own mobile advertising network, iAd, indicated that Apple would quickly become a strong player in the mobile advertising market.

The investigation provided an example of how the agency addresses rapidly changing technology markets, in which there is sometimes a short track record of past competition and great uncertainty about the future path of the market.

Going forward, the testimony states, the FTC’s merger reviews will continue to focus on market facts to predict how competition is likely to take place in the future. While that may be slightly more challenging in markets that are experiencing rapid change, “the Commission relies on time-tested tools . . . to protect consumers from anticompetitive mergers, and promote competitive markets where innovation and change can occur.”

The FTC vote approving the testimony and its inclusion in the formal record was 4-0, with Commissioner William E. Kovacic abstaining. The testimony can be found on the FTC’s website at http://www.ftc.gov/os/testimony/100916digitalagetestimony.pdf.

Copies of the Commission’s testimony are available from the FTC’s website at http://www.ftc.gov. 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” at http://www.ftc.gov/competitioncounts.

(FTC File No. P9859910)
(High-Tech Testimony.final.wpd)

Deceptive ‘Credit Card’ Marketers Settle FTC Charges; Cards Were Good Only for Buying ‘Low Pay’ Catalog Merchandise at High Prices

As part of its ongoing efforts to stop deceptive marketing, the Federal Trade Commission halted an operation that deceived consumers into paying for bogus credit cards and charged them illegal fees. The marketers behind this operation agreed to a settlement that will halt their illegal tactics and provide money for consumer redress.

The FTC reached a settlement with six defendants who marketed a credit card that could be used only to buy products from their Low Pay merchandise catalog. According to the FTC’s complaint, the defendants falsely claimed that the card could be used to fully finance purchases; that it would provide access to a no-fee, low cost, or guaranteed cash advance benefit or unsecured line of credit; and that consumers could improve their credit ratings by using it. The defendants failed to disclose clearly that they would debit from consumers’ bank accounts substantial advance fees, a non-refundable annual fee, and 30 percent of a catalog product’s price – which often exceeded the retail price from other sources – plus shipping. In addition, the defendants falsely claimed they would refund a $120 activation fee to consumers who returned the card and catalog in a timely fashion, and illegally charged an advance fee for a guaranteed line of credit. (See http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/11/lowpay.shtm)

Under the settlement, Mardan M. Afrasiabi, the Mardan Afrasiabi Living Trust, Low Pay, Inc., LP Capital Holdings, Inc., Ramin Rahimi, and Century Luxury, Inc. are permanently barred from misrepresenting that a credit card can be used to fully finance purchases or provides access to a no-fee, low-cost, or guaranteed cash advance benefit or that consumers will improve their credit ratings by using a credit card. They also cannot misrepresent any material fact in connection with the sale of any product or service, and must disclose all fees and costs, and the refund or cancellation policy, before consumers are asked to pay. The defendants are further barred from violating the Telemarketing Sales Rule, disclosing or benefitting from customer information and failing to dispose of it properly, and trying to collect money on any account established before the order was entered.

The settlement order against Afrasiabi, the Mardan Afrasiabi Living Trust, Low Pay, Inc., and LP Capital Holdings imposes a $28.5 million judgment that will be suspended when Afrasiabi and the Mardan Afrasiabi Living Trust have surrendered funds in a specific investment account and paid either $130,400 or the proceeds of the sale of Afrasiabi’s home, or turned the home over to a court-appointed receiver for sale. The settlement order against Ramin Rahimi and Century Luxury, Inc., also imposes a $28.5 million judgment that will be suspended against Rahimi when he has paid $460,000. The full judgments will become due immediately if the defendants have misrepresented their financial condition.

The Commission vote to authorize staff to file the settlement orders was 5-0. The documents were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, Portland Division.

NOTE: Settlement orders are for settlement purposes only and do not necessarily constitute an admission by the defendants of a law violation. Settlement orders have the full force of law when signed by the 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 1,800 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The FTC’s Web site provides free information on a variety of consumer topics.

(FTC File No. X100003)
(Low Pay)

Dun & Bradstreet Settles FTC Charges that 2009 Acquisition was Anticompetitive

The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation will divest certain key assets as part of a settlement with the Federal Trade Commission that is designed to address the competitive harm caused by its acquisition of Quality Educational Data (QED), its nearest rival in the education marketing business. Prior to the acquisition, QED was a division of Scholastic, Inc.

In May 2010 the FTC sued Dun & Bradstreet, alleging that the combination of the two companies created a near monopoly, in violation of federal law, when Dun & Bradstreet acquired more than 90 percent of the market for kindergarten through twelfth grade marketing data (K-12 data), which is used to market books, educational materials, and other products to teachers and other educators nationwide. The $29 million acquisition was below the threshold that would have triggered pre-merger filing requirements, and therefore the companies were not required to notify the FTC and Department of Justice.

The FTC settlement requires Dun & Bradstreet to divest certain assets to MCH Inc., an institutional and educational data company active in the K-12 data market, to restore competition that was eliminated as a result of the transaction. Under the terms of the settlement, Dun & Bradstreet will be required to sell MCH an updated K-12 database, the QED name, and certain associated intellectual property.

The settlement also includes additional terms to ensure that the divestiture restores competition. For example, certain Dun & Bradstreet customers will have the option to terminate their contracts with the firm without penalty so that they can consider doing business with MCH. The order also releases certain Dun & Bradstreet employees from restrictions on their ability to work for MCH. In addition, Dun & Bradstreet will be required to provide MCH with technical assistance for up to one year. Finally, the order calls for the appointment of a Commission-designated monitor to ensure compliance with its terms.

The FTC vote to approve the consent agreement and issue the order as final was 5-0. The FTC will publish an announcement regarding the agreement in the Federal Register shortly. The agreement, though final, will be subject to public comment for 30 days, beginning today and continuing through October 12, 2010.

To file a public comment electronically, please click on the following hyperlink and follow the instructions: https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/mdr. Written comments should be addressed to the FTC, Office of the Secretary, Room H-135, 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. Copies of the complaint, consent agreement, and an analysis of the agreement to aid in public comment are available from both the FTC’s website at http://www.ftc.gov and the FTC’s Consumer Response Center, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20580.

NOTE: Consent agreements are for settlement purposes only and do not constitute an admission by the respondents 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, 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” at http://www.ftc.gov/competitioncounts.

(FTC File No. 091-0081, Docket No. 9342)

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts: