Guidance on Identifying, Accepting, and Reporting Brokered Deposits

FIL-2-2015
January 5, 2015

Guidance on Identifying, Accepting, and Reporting Brokered Deposits

Printable Format:

FIL-2-2015 – PDF (PDF Help)

Summary:

The FDIC is issuing guidance in the form of “Frequently Asked Questions” or “FAQs” to promote consistency by insured depository institutions in identifying, accepting, and reporting brokered deposits.

Statement of Applicability to Institutions With Total Assets Under $1 Billion: This Financial Institution Letter applies to all insured depository institutions.

Highlights:

  • Section 29 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. § 1831f) and Section 337.6 of the FDIC’s regulations (12 C.F.R. § 337.6) restrict the acceptance of brokered deposits by FDIC-insured depository institutions (IDIs) that are not well capitalized.
  • All insured depository institutions (including those that are well capitalized) must report brokered deposits in their Consolidated Reports of Condition and Income.
  • The FDIC has explained the requirements for identifying, accepting, and reporting brokered deposits in published advisory opinions and in the Study on Core Deposits and Brokered Deposits issued in July 2011. Nevertheless, questions continue to arise regarding whether certain types of deposits are considered brokered deposits.
  • To provide guidance on this subject, the FDIC is issuing “Frequently Asked Questions” or “FAQs.” These FAQs (with answers) will be periodically updated on the FDIC’s Web site.
  • The FAQs cover various topics, such as identifying brokered deposits, accepting deposits, listing services, interest rate restrictions, and other brokered deposit-related matters.

Continuation of FIL-2-2015

Financial Institution Letters
FIL-2-2015
January 5, 2015

Guidance on Identifying, Accepting, and Reporting Brokered Deposits

This Financial Institution Letter provides guidance on identifying, accepting, and reporting brokered deposits. It is important for insured depository institutions (IDIs) to distinguish brokered deposits from other deposits in order to comply with Section 29 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (FDI Act).1 Additionally, insured depository institutions are responsible for reporting brokered deposits in their Consolidated Reports of Condition and Income (Call Reports).

Under Section 29 of the FDI Act, an insured depository institution is prohibited from accepting deposits by or through a deposit broker unless the institution is well capitalized for Prompt Corrective Action (PCA) purposes.2 The FDIC may waive this prohibition if the insured depository institution is adequately capitalized; however, the prohibition cannot be waived if the institution is undercapitalized.3 Section 29 also imposes restrictions on the deposit interest rates that an insured depository institution may offer if the institution is not well capitalized.4 The FDIC has implemented the restrictions imposed by Section 29 through Section 337.6 of its regulations.5

The term “deposit broker” is broadly defined as “any person engaged in the business of placing deposits, or facilitating the placement of deposits, of third parties with insured depository institutions or the business of placing deposits with insured depository institutions for the purpose of selling interests in those deposits to third parties.”6 If a deposit is accepted through a “deposit broker,” the deposit is a brokered deposit.

In some cases, an insured depository institution may be uncertain whether a particular deposit qualifies as a brokered deposit. The FDIC has explained the requirements for identifying and accepting brokered deposits in published advisory opinions. Also, the requirements were explained in the Study on Core Deposits and Brokered Deposits, which the FDIC issued in July 2011. However, questions continue to arise regarding the proper classification of certain types of deposits, particularly since determining whether deposits are brokered tends to depend on specific facts surrounding a particular arrangement, which can evolve over time. Therefore, guidance is provided in the attached “Frequently Asked Questions” or “FAQs.” These questions and answers will be periodically updated on the FDIC’s Web site.

Doreen R. Eberley
Director
Division of Risk Management Supervision

FTC Approves Final Order Settling Charges Against Snapchat

Following a public comment period, the Federal Trade Commission has approved a final order settling charges that Snapchat deceived consumers with promises about the disappearing nature of messages sent through the service.

According to the FTC’s complaint, which was first announced in May, 2014, Snapchat also deceived consumers over the amount of personal data it collected and the security measures taken to protect that data from misuse and unauthorized disclosure.

The settlement with Snapchat is part of the FTC’s ongoing effort to ensure that companies market their apps truthfully and keep their privacy promises to consumers. It prohibits Snapchat from misrepresenting the extent to which it maintains the privacy, security, or confidentiality of users’ information. In addition, the company will be required to implement a comprehensive privacy program that will be monitored by an independent privacy professional for the next 20 years.

The Commission vote approving the final order and letters to members of the public who commented on them was 5-0.  (FTC File No. 132-3078)

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.

New FTC Video Advises Computer Users to Back Up Digital Files

What’s worse than losing all the photos and important files on your computer? Knowing you could have prevented it.

The Federal Trade Commission, the nation’s consumer protection agency, advises consumers that a wise resolution for the New Year is to back up your digital life.

Maybe you just got a new computer over the holidays, or you’re seeing how long your old one will last. Either way, commit to back up the files on your computer at least once a week. It’s a new year’s resolution that can save you time and money in 2015.

For more information, watch the FTC’s video Back It Up: Don’t Lose Your Digital Life.

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

FTC Approves Final Order Preserving Competition in Ambulatory Surgery Center Market

Following a public comment period, the Federal Trade Commission approved a final order settling charges that the $792 million proposed acquisition of Symbion Holdings Corporation by Surgery Center Holdings, Inc., would likely be anticompetitive.  

Under the order, Surgery Center Holdings, known as Surgery Partners, agrees to divest Symbion’s ownership in the Blue Springs Surgery Center in Orange City, Fla., within 60 days.

According to the complaint announced in October 2014, the merger would have combined the only two multi-specialty ambulatory surgical centers in the Orange City/Deltona area of Florida, and would have left commercial health plans and commercially insured patients there with only one meaningful alternative to Surgery Partners’ outpatient surgical services.

This action is part of the Commission’s ongoing effort to protect American consumers from higher healthcare costs.

The Commission vote approving the final order was 5-0.

The FTC’s Bureau of Competition works with the Bureau of Economics to investigate alleged anticompetitive business practices and, when appropriate, recommends that the Commission take law enforcement action. To inform the Bureau about particular business practices, call 202-326-3300, send an e-mail to antitrust{at}ftc{dot}gov, or write to the Office of Policy and Coordination, Bureau of Competition, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Room CC-5422, 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.

To Settle FTC Charges, Two Trade Associations Agree to Eliminate Rules that Restrict Competition

An association representing electricians and another representing skating teachers have agreed, in two separately settled actions, to eliminate provisions in their bylaws that the Federal Trade Commission charged limit competition among each association’s members.

The settlements with the not-for-profit Professional Lighting and Sign Management Companies of America, Inc. (PLASMA) and Professional Skaters Association are the latest FTC enforcement actions challenging restraints on competition contained in membership rules or ethics codes of professional and trade associations. 

The FTC’s complaint against PLASMA alleges that its bylaws restrain competition by: 1) prohibiting members from providing commercial lighting or sign services in the designated territory of another member unless that member declines to perform the work; 2) imposing a price schedule on work performed in the designated territory of another member; and 3) barring former members from soliciting or competing for clients of current members for one year after leaving the group. The FTC alleged that the purpose and effect of these bylaws has been to restrain competition by discouraging and restricting competition among PLASMA members.

The proposed consent order settling the FTC’s charges requires PLASMA to revise its bylaws, publicize its settlement with the FTC, and implement an antitrust compliance program.

In a separate complaint, the FTC charged that the Professional Skaters Association, through its code of ethics, broadly bans members from soliciting other members’ students, and thereby deprives consumers of the benefits of competition among the 6,400 ice skating teachers and coaches who are members.

The association requires members to abide by its code of ethics, which states, “No member shall in any case solicit pupils of another member, directly or indirectly, or through third parties.” According to the complaint, the PSA instructed its members that this code provision prohibited coaches from many types of direct and indirect communications with skaters and parents, and actively enforced the ban through a variety of penalties, including suspension, even over the objections of skating students and their parents who wanted to switch coaches.

The proposed consent order settling the FTC’s charges requires the Professional Skaters Association to stop restraining its members from soliciting work and competing on the basis of price. It also requires the group to change its code of ethics, publicize its settlement with the FTC, and implement an antitrust compliance program.

The Commission votes to issue the administrative complaint and accept the proposed consent order for the Professional Lighting and Sign Management Companies of America, Inc. and the Professional Skaters Association for public comment were both 5-0.

The FTC will publish the consent agreement packages in the Federal Register shortly. The agreements will be subject to public comment for 30 days, beginning today and continuing through January 22, 2015, after which the Commission will decide whether to make the proposed consent orders final.

Comments on the Professional Lighting and Sign Management Companies of America, Inc. matter and the Professional Skaters Association matter can be filed electronically, or in paper form by following the instructions in the “Supplementary Information” section of the Federal Register notice.

NOTE: The Commission issues administrative complaints 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. When the Commission issues consent orders on a final basis, they carry 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 per day.

The FTC’s Bureau of Competition works with the Bureau of Economics to investigate alleged anticompetitive business practices and, when appropriate, recommends that the Commission take law enforcement action. To inform the Bureau about particular business practices, call 202-326-3300, send an e-mail to antitrust{at}ftc{dot}gov, or write to the Office of Policy and Coordination, Bureau of Competition, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Room CC-5422, 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.

FTC Halts Texas Auto Dealer’s Deceptive Ads

An auto dealer in suburban Dallas has agreed to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that it used deceptive ads to promote the sale and lease of its vehicles, including an ad that claimed consumers could get out of their current loan or lease for $1.

According to the complaint, false or deceptive ads from TXVT Limited Partnership, doing business as Trophy Nissan (Trophy), violated the FTC Act as well as the Consumer Leasing Act (CLA) and Regulation M, and the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and Regulation Z.

The FTC charged that Trophy advertised enticing prices, lease or finance terms, and promotions and then attempted to disclaim its attractive offers using small text in print and video ads. In addition to print and TV advertisements, Trophy also ran ads on its website, Facebook and Twitter. The dealership also ran print ads in a local Spanish-language newspaper, Al Dia.

Among the deceptive ads run by Trophy was one that misled consumers into thinking they could get out of their current loan or lease for only $1. The Commission’s complaint alleges the advertisement was deceptive since consumers could not get out of their loan or lease for that amount. In fact, Trophy would add the balance of any loan or lease obligation to the balance of a new loan.

Sample Trophy Nissan TV spot

In another promotion, “Max Your Tax,” Trophy claimed it would match tax refunds to use for a down payment, but the small print at the bottom of the ad disclosed it limited match refunds to no more than $1,000. The FTC alleges that Trophy failed to disclose adequately the additional terms.

As part of the proposed consent order, Trophy is prohibited from:

  • misrepresenting it will pay off a consumers’ trade-in;
  • misrepresenting material terms of any promotion or other incentive;
  • misrepresenting the cost of leasing or purchasing a vehicle; and
  • failing to clearly and conspicuously disclose material terms of a promotion or other incentive. 

The proposed consent order also requires Trophy to comply with CLA and Regulation M and TILA and Regulation Z.

The case is part of the Commission’s continued efforts to protect consumers in the auto marketplace. The FTC provides a variety of resources for consumers buying or leasing a vehicle, including Are Car Ads Taking You For A Ride?

The Commission vote to issue the administrative complaint and accept the proposed consent order was 5-0. The agreement is subject to public comment for 30 days, beginning today and continuing through Jan. 22, 2015, after which the Commission will decide whether to make the proposed consent order final. Submit a comment online or through the mail.

NOTE: The Commission issues administrative complaints 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. When the Commission issues consent orders on a final basis, they carry 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 per day.

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 the Consumer Sentinel Network, a secure, online database available to more than 2,000 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies. 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 Requests Public Comment on Merck & Co., Inc.’s Application to Approve Sale of Facilities for Manufacturing Heartgard and Heartgard Plus Heartworm Treatments for Dogs

The Federal Trade Commission is currently accepting public comments on an application by Merck & Co., Inc. to sell assets and properties in Puerto Rico it uses to manufacture Heartgard and Heartgard Plus to  Merial Barceloneta LLC, a subsidiary of Merial Inc. The sale requires the prior approval of the Commission under the FTC’s October 2009 order settling charges that Schering-Plough’s acquisition of Merck was anticompetitive.

According to the application, Merck has supplied Merial with Heartgard Products using the Barceloneta manufacturing facility since 1989, and the transaction to sell the assets to Merial will provide certainty over the cost and production of its own product.

The Commission will decide whether to approve the proposed divestiture after expiration of a 30-day public comment period. Public comments may be submitted until January 22, 2015. Written comments should be sent to: FTC Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Washington, DC 20580. Comments can also be filed electronically.

Copies of the application can be found on the FTC’s website and as a link to this press release. (FTC File No. 091 0075, Docket No. C-4268; the staff contact is Daniel P. Ducore, Bureau of Competition, 202-326-2526)

The FTC’s Bureau of Competition works with the Bureau of Economics to investigate alleged anticompetitive business practices and, when appropriate, recommends that the Commission take law enforcement action. To inform the Bureau about particular business practices, call 202-326-3300, send an e-mail to antitrust{at}ftc{dot}gov, or write to the Office of Policy and Coordination, Bureau of Competition, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Room CC-5422, 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.

Marketers Settle FTC Charges That They Used Deceptive Ads In Promoting Products for Mole and Wart Removal, Anti-Aging and Weight Loss

Two companies that market skin care and weight-loss products must stop making false or unsubstantiated deceptive claims about their products, under settlements resolving charges in two separate cases brought by the Federal Trade Commission.

In one case, the FTC challenged ads for DermaTend, a skin cream that was promoted for do-it-yourself removal of moles, skin tags, and warts, as well as Lipidryl, a supplement promoted for weight loss. In the second case, the agency challenged claims for Photodynamic Therapy anti-aging lotions, as well Shrinking Beauty, a supposed body-slimming lotion.

The FTC settlements in both cases prohibit the defendants from misleading consumers about the efficacy of their products and about whether their claims are backed by scientific evidence. In addition, the marketers of DermaTend and Lipidryl are required to disclose when people promoting the products are paid for their endorsement.

“These companies made outrageous claims that their products could provide a range of benefits – from removing warts to decreasing the appearance of cellulite to providing substantial weight loss,” said Jessica Rich, Director of the Bureau of Consumer Protection. “The common thread for all of these claims was the fundamental lack of scientific evidence. Consumers deserve better.”

DermaTend and Lipidryl

Aaron Lilly, a Nevada-based marketer, owns and operates both Solace International, Inc. and Bioscience Research Institute LLC, which sell DermaTend and Lipidryl, respectively. DermaTend was advertised in SkyMall (both the magazine and website), as well as on Amazon.com and eBay, and through Google AdWords. It was also sold on company-owned websites and marketed through affiliates.

According to the FTC’s complaint, DermaTend contains the botanical bloodroot and zinc chloride. A 1.7 ounce container of the “Original” formula sells for $39.95, while a 3.4 ounce container of “Ultra” sells for $69.95. Consumers who bought DermaTend also received an emery board and instructions directing consumers to file down their mole, skin tag, or wart with the emery board before applying the product.

The complaint alleges that DermaTend ads made false or unsubstantiated claims that the product worked in a very short amount of time, caused little or no scarring, and was safe (even for children). They also touted a “97 percent success rate.” The FTC also alleges that DermaTend ads touted “real user results” supposedly showing before and after photos of consumers who had success using the products, and written testimonials, without disclosing that reviewers were sometimes paid for their stories.

Bioscience, Lilly’s other company, charged $129.99 for a three-month supply of Lipidryl, which contains African mango seed extract. The FTC complaint charges that ads for Lipidryl falsely claimed that the supplement was clinically proven to cause substantial weight loss (such as 28 pounds in 10 weeks) and reduce users’ waistlines.

The FTC’s settlement order with Lilly and his companies requires that future claims for DermaTend and other products promoted for removing skin lesions be supported by high-quality human clinical testing. Future claims for Lipidryl or other weight-loss products must be supported by at least two well-done human clinical studies.

The order prohibits the defendants from making a number of specific unsubstantiated representations; requires disclosure if endorsers are provided with compensation; and requires monitoring of affiliate marketers. The order also requires the defendants to pay $402,338 and to provide the Commission with the proceeds from the sale of four homes in Texas.

DERMAdoctor, Inc.

According to the FTC’s complaint, DERMADoctor, Inc. and its majority owner, Audrey Kunin, M.D., violated the FTC Act by making deceptive claims about their anti-aging products and a body-slimming lotion. DERMAdoctor is based in Missouri and marketed Photodynamic Therapy Liquid Red Light Anti-Aging Lotion and Photodynamic Therapy Liquid Red Light Eye Lift Lotion, as well Shrinking Beauty, a “firming, sculpting & toning lotion with lobster weight loss inspired technology.”

The complaint states that since October 2010, the defendants have marketed and sold Photodynamic Therapy lotion with extract of the noni fruit, which was promoted as able to capture UV light and transform it into visible red light that has purported anti-aging effects on the skin. The defendants charged $85 for a one-ounce bottle of the face lotion. DERMAdoctor products are sold in retailers such as Nordstrom, Sephora, and Ulta, and according to the FTC, Photodynamic Therapy was advertised on QVC, the DERMAdoctor website, and in women’s magazines, including Cosmopolitan and Shape.

Since December 2012, the defendants also have marketed and sold Shrinking Beauty, with a retail price of $58 for a 5.5-ounce tube. Through ads in magazines such as Health and on the DERMAdoctor website, the defendants claimed the product would improve the appearance of cellulite, smooth and tighten skin, and that the results were “clinically proven to reduce measurements up to one inch in two weeks.”

The proposed settlement order with DERMAdoctor requires that the defendants have competent and reliable scientific evidence to support future anti-aging and cellulite-reduction claims, as well as at least two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled human clinical studies to support claims relating to weight loss or reduction of body size. It also prohibits them from misrepresenting the existence or results of any scientific test, study or research. The order requires payment of $12,675.

The Commission votes approving the complaints and proposed stipulated orders in both cases were 5-0. The complaint and proposed order in the Lilly case were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada on December 10, 2014 and signed by the judge the next day The complaint and proposed order in the DERMAdoctor case were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, Western Division, on December 23, 2014.

In the course of its investigation into Solace International and Bioscience Research Institute, the FTC worked with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which issued a warning letter to Solace regarding its marketing of DermaTend, and law enforcers in 10 California counties. The National Advertising Division of the Better Business Bureaus referred this matter to the Commission.

Information for Consumers

When it comes to treatments for health and fitness, it can be tough to tell useful products and services from those that don’t work or aren’t safe. For more information, see the FTC’s guidance on Treatments & Cures and Weight Loss & Fitness.

The FTC is a member of the National Prevention Council, which provides coordination and leadership at the federal level regarding prevention, wellness, and health promotion practices. This case advances the National Prevention Strategy’s goal of increasing the number of Americans who are healthy at every stage of life.

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. Stipulated orders have the force of law when approved and signed by the District Court judge.

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

FTC Charges Data Broker with Facilitating the Theft of Millions of Dollars from Consumers’ Accounts

A data broker operation sold the sensitive personal information of hundreds of thousands of consumers – including Social Security and bank account numbers – to scammers who allegedly debited millions from their accounts, the Federal Trade Commission charged in a complaint filed today.

According to the FTC’s complaint, data broker LeapLab bought payday loan applications of financially strapped consumers, and then sold that information to marketers whom it knew had no legitimate need for it. At least one of those marketers, Ideal Financial Solutions – a defendant in another FTC case – allegedly used the information to withdraw millions of dollars from consumers’ accounts without their authorization.

“This case shows that the illegitimate use of sensitive financial information causes real harm to consumers,” said Jessica Rich, Director of the Federal Trade Commission’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “Defendants like those in this case harm consumers twice: first by facilitating the theft of their money and second by undermining consumers’ confidence about providing their personal information to legitimate lenders.”

The defendants collected hundreds of thousands of payday loan applications from payday loan websites known as publishers. Publishers typically offer to help consumers obtain payday loans. To do so, they ask for consumers’ sensitive financial information to evaluate their loan applications and transfer funds to their bank accounts if the loan is approved. These applications, including those bought and sold by LeapLab, contained the consumer’s name, address, phone number, employer, Social Security number, and bank account number, including the bank routing number.

The defendants sold approximately five percent of these loan applications to online lenders, who paid them between $10 and $150 per lead. According to the FTC’s complaint however, the defendants sold the remaining 95 percent for approximately $0.50 each to third parties who were not online lenders and had no legitimate need for this financial information.

The Commission’s complaint alleges that these non-lender third parties included: marketers that made unsolicited sales offers to consumers via email, text message, or telephone call; data brokers that aggregated and then resold consumer information; and phony internet merchants like Ideal Financial Solutions. According to the FTC’s complaint, the defendants had reason to believe these marketers had no legitimate need for the sensitive information they were selling.

In the FTC’s case against Ideal Financial Solutions, between 2009 and 2013, Ideal Financial allegedly purchased information on at least 2.2 million consumers from data brokers and used it to make millions of dollars in unauthorized debits and charges for purported financial products that the consumers never purchased. LeapLab provided account information for at least 16 percent these victims.

The complaint notes that LeapLab hired a key executive from Ideal Financial as its own Chief Marketing Officer and then knew that Ideal used the information purchased from it to make unauthorized debits. Yet, the complaint alleges, the defendants continued to sell such information to Ideal.

The defendants in the case, Sitesearch Corp., LeapLab LLC; Leads Company LLC; and John Ayers, are alleged to have violated the FTC Act’s prohibition on unfair practices.

The Commission vote authorizing the staff to file the complaint was 5-0. The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, Phoenix Division.

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 case will be decided by the court.

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

FTC Puts Conditions on Eli Lilly’s Proposed Acquisition of Novartis Animal Health

Global pharmaceutical company Eli Lilly and Company has agreed to divest its Sentinel product line of medications for treating heartworm disease in dogs in order to settle FTC charges that its proposed $5.4 billion acquisition of Novartis Animal Health would likely be anticompetitive. Under the proposed settlement, Eli Lilly will divest its Sentinel product line and associated assets to the French pharmaceutical company, Virbac S.A.

Indianapolis-based Eli Lilly, through its Elanco Animal Health division, and Switzerland-based Novartis AG’s Novartis Animal Health business unit both develop and market a wide range of animal health products, including medications to treat diseases and conditions affecting pets and livestock.

The FTC’s complaint challenging the transaction alleges that the proposed acquisition would be anticompetitive and lead to higher prices. Canine heartworm parasiticides are used to treat heartworm disease in dogs and are available in a variety of formulations, some of which are given orally while others are applied to a dog’s skin or injected.

According to the complaint, Eli Lilly’s Trifexis and Novartis Animal Health’s Sentinel products are particularly close substitutes because they are the only two products that are given orally once a month, contain the same active ingredient, and also treat fleas and other internal parasites in dogs.

The complaint alleges that, without the divestitures required by the proposed order, the transaction would have eliminated the close competition between Eli Lilly and Novartis Animal Health and substantially decreased competition in the market for canine heartworm parasiticides. Also, any other company seeking to enter the canine heartworm parasiticide market would face high barriers, because developing new animal health pharmaceutical products — including those that treat heartworm in dogs — is difficult and time-consuming, the complaint alleges.

More information about this proposed merger and the FTC’s consent agreement can be found in the analysis to aid public comment.

The Commission vote to accept the complaint and proposed consent order for public comment was 5-0.

The FTC will publish 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 January 21, 2015, after which the Commission will decide whether to make the proposed consent order final. Comments can be filed electronically or in paper form by following the instructions in the “Supplementary Information” section of the Federal Register notice.

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. 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 per day.

The FTC’s Bureau of Competition works with the Bureau of Economics to investigate alleged anticompetitive business practices and, when appropriate, recommends that the Commission take law enforcement action. To inform the Bureau about particular business practices, call 202-326-3300, send an e-mail to antitrust{at}ftc{dot}gov, or write to the Office of Policy and Coordination, Bureau of Competition, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Room CC-5422, 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.