Editing Federal Trade Commission (section)

== Notable work since 2001 ==
<!-- NOTE TO EDITORS: Please arrange cases by chronological order (oldest case first, most recent case last).  Since some cases can take many years to resolve, suggest order by when the FTC ***FIRST*** got involve with a particular case. -->

=== Bush administration ===
<!-- 2001–2008 -->

==== Gateway Learning case ====
<!-- start date Sep 2004 -->
In the 2004 case ''[[In re Gateway Learning Corp.]]'', the FTC alleged that Gateway committed unfair and deceptive trade practices by making retroactive changes to its privacy policy without informing customers and by violating its own privacy policy by selling customer information when it had said it would not.<ref>{{cite web |title=Complaint |url=http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/0423047/040707cmp0423047.pdf |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20041023221034/http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/0423047/040707cmp0423047.pdf |archive-date=October 23, 2004 |access-date=August 14, 2012}}</ref> Gateway settled the complaint by entering into a consent decree with the FTC that required it to surrender some profits and placed restrictions upon Gateway for the following 20 years.<ref>{{cite web |title=Gateway Decision and Order, Sept. 2004 |url=http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/0423047/040917do0423047.pdf |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20041023221102/http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/0423047/040917do0423047.pdf |archive-date=October 23, 2004 |access-date=August 14, 2012}}</ref>

=== Obama administration ===
<!-- 2009–2016 -->

During the Obama Administration, [[Jon Leibowitz]] served as the Chair. 

==== Sears Holdings case ====
<!-- Jun 2009 -->
In the 2009 case ''[[In the Matter of Sears Holdings Management Corp.]]'', the FTC alleged that a research software program provided by Sears was deceptive because it collected information about nearly all online behavior, a fact that was only disclosed in legalese, buried within the end user license agreement.<ref>{{cite web |title=Sears Complaint |url=http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/0823099/090604searscomplaint.pdf |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090605203428/http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/0823099/090604searscomplaint.pdf |archive-date=June 5, 2009 |access-date=August 14, 2012}}</ref> The FTC secured a consent decree in the case.

==== Money Now Funding / Cash4Businesses case ====
In September 2013, a federal court closed an elusive [[business opportunity]] scheme on the request of the FTC, namely "Money Now Funding"/"Cash4Businesses".<ref>{{Cite web |date=2013-09-26 |title=FTC Halts Elusive Business Opportunity Scheme |url=https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2013/09/ftc-halts-elusive-business-opportunity-scheme |access-date=2019-02-08 |website=Federal Trade Commission |language=en}}</ref> The FTC alleged that the defendants misrepresented potential earnings, violated the [[National Do Not Call Registry|National Do Not Call Register]], and violated the FTC's Business Opportunity Rule in preventing a fair consumer evaluation of the business.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Case 2:13-cv-01583-ROS Document 95 Filed 09/13/13 |url=https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/cases/130926rosemarketingpi-hobbs.pdf |website=FTC}}</ref> This was one of the first definitive actions taken by any regulator against a company engaging in transaction laundering, where almost US$6 million were processed illicitly.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2018-03-15 |title=What is transaction laundering and what is the Industry doing about it? |url=https://www.paymentscardsandmobile.com/what-is-transaction-laundering-and-what-is-the-industry-doing-about-it/ |access-date=2019-02-08 |website=Payments Cards & Mobile |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=2017-09-13 |title=FTC Targets Transaction Laundering In Landmark Lawsuit |url=http://evercompliant.com/ftc-targets-transaction-laundering-in-landmark-lawsuit/ |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190209180130/http://evercompliant.com/ftc-targets-transaction-laundering-in-landmark-lawsuit/ |archive-date=February 9, 2019 |access-date=2019-02-08 |website=EverCompliant |language=en-US}}</ref>

In December 2018, two defendants, Nikolas Mihilli and Dynasty Merchants, LLC, settled with the FTC.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2018-12-10 |title=Two Defendants Settle Allegations in 'Money Now Funding' Credit Card Charge Laundering Scheme |url=https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2018/12/two-defendants-settle-allegations-money-now-funding-credit-card |access-date=2019-02-08 |website=Federal Trade Commission |language=en}}</ref> They were banned from processing credit card transactions, though the initial monetary judgment of $5.8 million was suspended due to the defendant's inability to pay.

==== OMICS Publishing Group case ====
In 2016, the FTC launched action against the academic journal publisher [[OMICS Publishing Group]] for producing [[predatory journals]] and organizing [[predatory conferences]].<ref>{{cite news |date=September 2, 2016 |title=FTC sues OMICS group: Are predatory publishers' days numbered? |url=https://www.statnews.com/2016/09/02/predatory-publishers/ |access-date=October 22, 2016 |newspaper=STAT News}}</ref> This action, partly in response to ongoing pressure from the academic community,<ref name="Straumsheim">{{cite news |last=Straumsheim |first=Carl |date=August 29, 2016 |title=Federal Trade Commission begins to crack down on 'predatory' publishers |url=https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/08/29/federal-trade-commission-begins-crack-down-predatory-publishers |access-date=October 22, 2016 |newspaper=[[Inside Higher Ed]]}}</ref> is the first action taken by the FTC against an academic journal publisher.<ref name="RWatch">{{cite web |last=McCook |first=Alison |date=August 26, 2016 |title=U.S. government agency sues publisher, charging it with deceiving researchers |url=http://retractionwatch.com/2016/08/26/u-s-government-group-sues-publisher-charging-it-with-deceiving-researchers/ |access-date=November 2, 2016 |publisher=[[Retraction Watch]]}}</ref><ref name="OMICS-Group">{{cite web |date=1 May 2018 |title=OMICS Group Inc. |url=https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/152-3113/federal-trade-commission-v-omics-group-inc |access-date=15 January 2019 |website=Federal Trade Commission}}</ref>

The complaint alleges that the defendants have been "deceiving academics and researchers about the nature of its publications and hiding publication fees ranging from hundreds to thousands of dollars".<ref name="FTC">{{cite web |last1=Shonka |first1=David C. |last2=Rusu |first2=Ioana |last3=Ashe |first3=Gregory A. |last4=Bogden |first4=Daniel G. |author-link4=Daniel Bogden |last5=Welsh |first5=Blaine T. |date=August 25, 2016 |title=Case No. 2:16-cv-02022 &ndash; Complaint for Permanent Injunction and Other Equitable Relief |url=https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/160826omicscmpt.pdf |access-date=October 22, 2016 |website=Case 2:16-cv-02022 |publisher=Federal Trade Commission}}</ref> It additionally notes that "OMICS regularly advertises conferences featuring academic experts who were never scheduled to appear in order to attract registrants"<ref name="Straumsheim" /> and that attendees "spend hundreds or thousands of dollars on registration fees and travel costs to attend these scientific conferences."<ref name="FTC" /> Manuscripts are also sometimes held hostage, with OMICS refusing to allow submissions to be withdrawn and thereby preventing resubmission to another journal for consideration.<ref name="RWatch" /> Library scientist [[Jeffrey Beall]] has described OMICS as among the most egregious of [[predatory publisher]]s.<ref name="Straumsheim" /><ref>{{cite web |last=Bailey |first=Jonathan |date=September 12, 2016 |title=Federal Trade Commission Targeting Predatory Publishers |url=http://www.ithenticate.com/plagiarism-detection-blog/federal-trade-commission-targeting-predatory-publishers |access-date=November 2, 2016 |work=[[iThenticate]] &ndash; Plagiarism Blog}}</ref> In November 2017, a federal court in the [[United States District Court for the District of Nevada|Court for the District of Nevada]] granted a preliminary injunction that: 

{{quote|prohibits the defendants from making misrepresentations regarding their academic journals and conferences, including that specific persons are editors of their journals or have agreed to participate in their conferences.  It also prohibits the defendants from falsely representing that their journals engage in peer review, that their journals are included in any academic journal indexing service or any measurement of the extent to which their journals are cited. It also requires that the defendants clearly and conspicuously disclose all costs associated with submitting or publishing articles in their journals.<ref name="OMICS-prelim-injunction">{{cite web |date=22 November 2017 |title=FTC Halts the Deceptive Practices of Academic Journal Publishers |url=https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2017/11/ftc-halts-deceptive-practices-academic-journal-publishers |access-date=15 January 2019 |publisher=Federal Trade Commission}}</ref>}}

In April 2019, the court imposed a fine of US$50.1 million on OMICS companies for unfair and deceptive business practices.<ref name="ftc case">{{Cite web |date=26 August 2016 |title=OMICS Group Inc. |url=http://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/cases-proceedings/152-3113-omics-group-inc |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220323144329/https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/cases-proceedings/152-3113-omics-group-inc |archive-date=2022-03-23 |access-date=2022-03-23 |publisher=Federal Trade Commission |language=en}}</ref><ref name="Hindu.2019">{{Cite news |last=Prasad |first=R. |date=3 April 2019 |title=Hyderabad-based OMICS fined $50 million for 'unfair, deceptive business practices' |language=en-IN |work=The Hindu |url=https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/science/hyderabad-based-omics-fined-50-million-for-unfair-deceptive-business-practices/article26724904.ece |access-date=2022-03-23 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220323214944/https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/science/hyderabad-based-omics-fined-50-million-for-unfair-deceptive-business-practices/article26724904.ece |archive-date=2022-03-23 |issn=0971-751X|url-access=subscription}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=11 October 2011 |title=Brief of the Federal Trade Commission |url=https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/omics_ca9_ftc_answering_brief_10-11-19.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211104143419/https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/omics_ca9_ftc_answering_brief_10-11-19.pdf |archive-date=2021-11-04 |access-date=2021-11-04 |publisher=Federal Trade Commission}}</ref>

=== Activities in the healthcare industry ===
<!-- start date UNKNOWN -->
In addition to prospective analysis of the effects of mergers and acquisitions, the FTC has recently resorted to retrospective analysis and monitoring of consolidated hospitals.<ref name="DHG">{{cite web |title=What hospital executives should be considering in mergers and acquisitions |url=http://www.dhgllp.com/res_pubs/hospital-mergers-and-acquisitions.pdf |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170124010441/http://www2.dhgllp.com/res_pubs/hospital-mergers-and-acquisitions.pdf |archive-date=January 24, 2017 |access-date=November 16, 2014 |publisher=DHG Healthcare}}</ref> Thus, it also uses retroactive data to demonstrate that some hospital mergers and acquisitions are hurting consumers, particularly in terms of higher prices.<ref name="DHG" /> Here are some recent examples of the FTC's success in blocking or unwinding of hospital consolidations or affiliations:

==== Phoebe Putney Memorial Hospital and Palmyra Medical Center in Georgia ====
In April 2011, the FTC successfully challenged in court the $195 million acquisition of Palmyra Medical Center by Phoebe Putney Memorial Hospital.<ref name="DHG" /><ref name="Phoebe">{{cite web |date=April 20, 2011 |title=In the Matter of Phoebe Putney Health System, Inc., Phoebe Putney Memorial Hospital, Inc., Phoebe North, Inc., HCA Inc., Palmyra Park Hospital, Inc., and Hospital Authority of Albany-Dougherty County |url=http://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/111-0067/phoebe-putney-health-system-inc-phoebe-putney-memorial |access-date=November 16, 2014 |publisher=Federal Trade Commission}}</ref> The FTC alleged that the transaction would create a monopoly as it would "reduce competition significantly and allow the combined Phoebe/Palmyra to raise prices for general acute-care hospital services charged to commercial health plans, substantially harming patients and local employers and employees".<ref name="Phoebe" /> The [[Supreme Court of the United States|Supreme Court]] on February 19, 2013, ruled in favor of the FTC.<ref name="Phoebe" />

==== ProMedica health system and St. Luke's hospital in Ohio ====
Similarly, court attempts by ProMedica health system in [[Ohio]] to overturn an order by the FTC to the company to unwind its 2010 acquisition of St. Luke's hospital were unsuccessful.<ref name="DHG" /><ref name="ProMedica">{{cite web |date=January 5, 2012 |title=Administrative Law Judge Upholds FTC's Complaint Against Ohio Hospital Deal, Orders ProMedica to Divest St. Luke's Hospital |url=http://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2012/01/administrative-law-judge-upholds-ftcs-complaint-against-ohio |access-date=November 16, 2014 |publisher=Federal Trade Commission}}</ref> The FTC claimed that the acquisition would hurt consumers through higher premiums because insurance companies would be required to pay more.<ref name="ProMedica" /> In December 2011, an administrative judge upheld the FTC's decision, noting that the behavior of ProMedica health system and St. Luke's was indeed anticompetitive. The court ordered ProMedica to divest St. Luke's to a buyer that would be approved by the FTC within 180 days of the date of the order.<ref name="DHG" /><ref name="ProMedica" />

==== OSF healthcare system and Rockford Health System in Illinois====
In November 2011, the FTC filed a lawsuit alleging that the proposed acquisition of Rockford by OSF would drive up prices for general acute-care inpatient services as OSF would face only one competitor (SwedishAmerican health system) in the Rockford area and would have a market share of 64%.<ref name="OSF">{{cite web |date=April 13, 2012 |title=OSF Healthcare System Abandons Plans to Buy Rockford in Light of FTC Lawsuit; FTC Dismisses its Complaint Seeking to Block the Transaction |url=http://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2012/04/osf-healthcare-system-abandons-plan-buy-rockford-light-ftc |access-date=November 16, 2014 |website=Federal Trade Commission}}</ref> Later in 2012, OSF announced that it had abandoned its plans to acquire Rockford Health System.<ref name="OSF" />

=== First Trump administration ===
<!-- 2017–2020 -->

==== Meta antitrust acquisitions case ====
{{Main Article| Federal Trade Commission v. Meta Platforms, Inc.}}
In December 2020, the FTC sued Meta (formally known as Facebook) for anticompetitive conduct under Section 2 of the [[Sherman Antitrust Act|Sherman Act]], which prohibits improper monopolization of a market. The FTC accused Meta of buying up its competitors to stifle competition which reduced the range of services available to consumers and by creating fewer social media platforms for advertisers to target.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Kang |first1=Cecilia |last2=Isaac |first2=Mike |title=U.S. and States Say Facebook Illegally Crushed Competition |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/09/technology/facebook-antitrust-monopoly.html |access-date=25 August 2024 |work=The New York Times |date=9 December 2020}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last1=Mobbs |first1=Brent |title=FTC v. Facebook: Social Media Giant Sued for Anticompetitive Conduct |url=https://jolt.law.harvard.edu/digest/ftc-v-facebook-social-media-giant-sued-for-anticompetitive-conduct |website=Harvard Journal of Law & Technology |access-date=25 August 2024 |language=en |date=9 March 2021}}</ref>

=== Biden administration ===
<!-- 2021–2024 -->

The FTC was chaired by [[Lina Khan]] during the Biden Administration. 

==== Google ====
In November 2024, U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta agreed with Assistant Attorney General [[Jonathan Kanter]] and FTC Chair Khan, ruling the company a monopoly, and ordering Google to sell its Chrome web browser.<ref>Liedtke, Michael [https://apnews.com/article/google-search-monopoly-penalty-justice-department-84e07fec51c5c59751d846118cb900a7 "US regulators seek to break up Google, forcing Chrome sale as part of monopoly punishment"] ''Associated Press'', November 21, 2024. Retrieved November 24, 2024.</ref>

==== Banning non-compete clauses ====
The FTC ruled to ban virtually all [[Non-compete clauses in the United States|non-competes nationwide]] in April 2024.<ref name=":1">{{Cite news |last=Hsu |first=Andrea |date=April 23, 2024 |title=U.S. bans non-compete agreements for nearly all jobs |url=https://www.npr.org/2024/04/23/1246655366/ftc-bans-noncompete-agreements-lina-khan |work=NPR}}</ref> The agency estimates 30 million workers are bound by these clauses and only excludes senior executives from the ban on enforcing non-competes.<ref name=":1" /> The agency believes that this will allow workers to find better working conditions and pay, since switching companies, on average, provides the biggest pay raises.<ref name=":2">{{Cite web |last=Rugaber |first=Christopher |date=2024-04-23 |title=New federal rule would bar 'noncompete' agreements for most employees |url=https://apnews.com/article/jobs-employers-noncompete-agreements-economy-pay-4d7b3eb8e143cfd52025c7f2f5259fc4 |access-date=2024-08-04 |website=AP News |language=en}}</ref> It also allows workers to leave abusive work environments and can prevent some doctors from having to leave medicine once they leave a practice.<ref name=":2" /> The ban was put on hold by U.S. District Judge [[Ada Brown (judge)|Ada Brown]] on July 3, 2024, but then upheld on appeal by U.S. District Judge [[Kelley B. Hodge]] on July 23, 2024.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Niedzwiadek |first=Nick |date=July 23, 2024 |title=Politico Pro: Judge sides with FTC in second challenge to non-compete ban |url=https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/2024/07/judge-sides-with-ftc-in-second-challenge-to-noncompete-ban-00170739 |access-date=2024-08-04 |website=subscriber.politicopro.com |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Wise |first1=Justin |title=FTC Gets Win on Noncompete Ban After Loss in Another Court |url=https://news.bloomberglaw.com/antitrust/judge-sides-with-ftc-in-noncompete-challenge-splitting-courts |access-date=25 August 2024 |publisher=Bloomberg Law |date=23 July 2024}}</ref> On August 20, 2024, a federal court in Texas overturned the FTC's ban on non-compete agreements, which was originally scheduled to take effect on September 4, 2024.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Hsu |first1=Andrea |title=Federal judge throws out U.S. ban on noncompetes |url=https://www.npr.org/2024/08/21/g-s1-18376/federal-judge-tosses-ftc-noncompetes-ban |website=NPR |date=August 21, 2024 |access-date=25 August 2024}}</ref> U.S. District Judge Ada Brown said the FTC did not have the authority to issue the ban, which she said was "unreasonably overbroad without a reasonable explanation."<ref>{{cite web |last1=Mekelburg |first1=Madlin |title=FTC Ban on Worker Noncompete Deals Blocked by Federal Judge (2) |url=https://news.bloomberglaw.com/antitrust/ftc-ban-on-worker-noncompete-deals-blocked-by-federal-judge?context=search&index=4 |website=Bloomberg Law |access-date=25 August 2024}}</ref> Victoria Graham, an FTC spokeswoman responded to the ruling by stating "We are seriously considering a potential appeal..."<ref>{{cite news |last1=Kaye |first1=Danielle |title=Judge Blocks F.T.C.'s Noncompete Rule |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/20/business/economy/noncompete-ban-ftc-texas.html |access-date=25 August 2024 |work=The New York Times |date=20 August 2024}}</ref>

==== Chip manufacturers ====
The FTC successfully blocked [[Nvidia]] from purchasing [[Arm Holdings]] in 2022.<ref name=":0">{{Cite news |last=Jones |first=Callum |date=2024-03-09 |title='She's going to prevail': FTC head Lina Khan is fighting for an anti-monopoly America |url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/mar/09/lina-khan-federal-trade-commission-antitrust-monopolies |access-date=2024-07-14 |work=The Guardian |language=en-GB |issn=0261-3077}}</ref>

==== Pharmaceutical drug prices ====
The FTC has pursued lawsuits against companies to lower drug prices,<ref>{{Cite news |date=July 10, 2024 |title=Feds poised to sue pharmacy gatekeepers over high drug costs |url=https://www.politico.com/news/2024/07/10/ftc-pharmacy-insulin-drug-00167342 |work=Politico}}</ref> including for insulin<ref>{{Cite news |date=July 10, 2024 |title=US FTC to sue drug middlemen over insulin prices, source says |url=https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/us-ftc-sue-drug-middlemen-over-insulin-prices-wsj-reports-2024-07-10/ |work=Reuters}}</ref> and for inhalers.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Brittain |first=Blake |date=June 10, 2024 |title=Amneal, US FTC win order removing Teva inhaler patents from FDA list |url=https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/amneal-us-ftc-win-order-removing-teva-inhaler-patents-fda-list-2024-06-10/ |work=Reuters}}</ref>

The FTC launched its investigation into [[Pharmacy benefit management|pharmacy benefit managers]] (PBMs) in 2022. In July 2024, it released an interim report on its 2-year investigation into [[Pharmacy benefit management|pharmacy benefit managers]], the agency requested documents from the six largest PBMs as part of its investigation. The three largest – [[Optum|UnitedHealth Group's OptumRx]], [[Express Scripts|Cigna's Express Scripts]] and [[CVS Caremark|CVS Health's Caremark]] – manage about 80% of U.S. prescriptions. The top three PBMs share a parent company with a large [[Health insurance|medical insurance company]]. The FTC accused these companies of raising drug prices through [[Conflict of interest|conflicts of interest]], [[vertical integration]], concentration, and exclusivity provisions; the agency also alleged that the companies created a rebate system that prioritized high rebates from drug manufacturers, among other factors. The agency stated that several PBMs failed to provide documents in a timely manner and warned that it could take the companies to court to force them to comply, during the announcment in the preliminary findings.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Sisco |first=Josh |date=July 10, 2024 |title=Feds poised to sue pharmacy gatekeepers over high drug costs |url=https://www.politico.com/news/2024/07/10/ftc-pharmacy-insulin-drug-00167342 |work=Politico}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=Aboulenein |first=Ahmed |date=July 9, 2024 |title=Explainer: Why are US pharmacy benefit managers under fire? |url=https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/why-are-us-pharmacy-benefit-managers-under-fire-2024-07-09/ |work=Reuters}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Whyte |first=Liz Essley |date=July 9, 2024 |title=Big Pharmacy-Benefit Managers Increase Drug Costs, FTC Says |url=https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/other/big-pharmacy-benefit-managers-increase-drug-costs-ftc-says/ar-BB1pFXiS |access-date=2024-08-14 |website=Wall Street Journal |via=MSN}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Pifer |first=Rebecca |date=2024-07-09 |title=FTC slams pharmacy benefit managers in first report from ongoing investigation |url=https://www.healthcaredive.com/news/ftc-pharmacy-benefit-manager-investigation-interim-report/720814/ |archive-url=https://archive.today/20240924031133/https://www.healthcaredive.com/news/ftc-pharmacy-benefit-manager-investigation-interim-report/720814/ |archive-date=2024-09-24 |access-date=2024-09-24 |website=Healthcare Dive |language=en-US}}</ref> In September 2024, the FTC sued the three largest pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) for allegedly engaging in anti-competitive practices that increased their profits while artificially inflating the list price of insulin. The agency is seeking to prohibit the PBMs from favoring medicines because certain pharaceuticals make them more money.<ref>{{Cite web |last1=Abelson |first1=Reed |last2=Robbins |first2=Rebecca |date=September 20, 2024 |title=F.T.C. Accuses Drug Middlemen of Inflating Insulin Prices |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/20/health/ftc-drug-price-inflation-insulin.html |archive-url=https://archive.today/20240920225837/https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/20/health/ftc-drug-price-inflation-insulin.html |archive-date=2024-09-20 |access-date=September 23, 2024 |website=New York Times}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Weixel |first=Nathaniel |date=2024-09-20 |title=FTC sues three largest drug middlemen for allegedly inflating insulin prices |url=https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/4891338-ftc-sues-drug-companies-insulin-prices/ |access-date=2024-09-24 |website=The Hill |language=en-US}}</ref>

==== Fake online reviews ====
In August 2024, the FTC announced  it would finalize rules to ban fake reviews online.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.reuters.com/business/retail-consumer/us-ftc-finalizes-ban-fake-online-reviews-2024-08-14/|title=US FTC finalizes ban on companies buying and selling fake online reviews|website=Reuters|date=August 14, 2024}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/4828686-ftc-bans-fake-online-reviews-testimonials/|title=FTC bans fake online reviews, testimonials|website=The Hill|date=August 14, 2024}}</ref>

==== Food prices ====
In February 2024, the FTC challenged the [[Proposed acquisition of Albertsons by Kroger|Kroger-Albertsons merger]], arguing it would drive up grocery and pharmacy prices, worsen service, and lower wages and working conditions.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Hill |first=Meredith Lee |date=August 14, 2024 |title=Grocery price gouging to feature prominently in Harris economic plan |url=https://www.politico.com/news/2024/08/14/harris-food-prices-economy-speech-00174112 |work=Politico}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=Sisco |first=Josh |date=February 26, 2024 |title=FTC, states challenge Kroger's $25 billion grocery merger with Albertsons |url=https://www.politico.com/news/2024/02/26/ftc-krogers-albertsons-grocery-merger-00143287 |work=Politico}}</ref> On December 10, 2024, U.S. District [[Adrienne Nelson|Judge Adrienne Nelson]] agreed with the FTC, that the merger would risk reducing competition at the expense of both consumers and workers. Judge Nelson halted Kroger’s $24.6 billion acquisition of Albertsons with a preliminary injunction.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Kaye |first=Danielle |date=2024-12-10 |title=Federal Judge Blocks $25 Billion Kroger-Albertsons Grocery Merger |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/10/business/kroger-albertsons-merger-ftc.html |archive-url=https://archive.today/20241225105934/https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/10/business/kroger-albertsons-merger-ftc.html |archive-date=2024-12-25 |access-date=2024-12-10 |work=The New York Times}}</ref> 

In March 2024, the FTC released a report that found higher profit margins as a driver of inflation for grocery prices.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Burns |first=Tobias |date=2024-03-29 |title=FTC calls out profits as a driver of grocery prices |url=https://thehill.com/business/4562244-how-retailers-are-profiting-from-food-inflation-profit-inflation-question-gains-new-urgency-from-ftc-report/ |access-date=2024-08-17 |website=The Hill |language=en-US}}</ref>

In August 2024, it announced it would be probing grocery prices to look for anti-competitive behavior and [[price gouging]] at chain supermarkets.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Suter |first=Tara |date=2024-08-02 |title=Federal Trade Commission to probe stubbornly high grocery prices |url=https://thehill.com/business/4808280-ftc-federal-probe-high-grocery-prices-inflation/ |access-date=2024-08-17 |website=The Hill |language=en-US}}</ref><ref name=":3">{{Cite news |last=Godoy |first=Jody |date=August 1, 2024 |title=US targets surging grocery prices in latest probe |url=https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/us-targets-surging-grocery-prices-latest-probe-2024-08-01/ |work=Reuters}}</ref> 

==== Junk fees, high prices, and the "click to cancel" subscription rule ====
In October 2023, the FTC proposed a new rule that would ensure that the cancellation process of subscription services is as easy as the process of signing up.<ref>Godoy, Jody [https://www.reuters.com/world/us/ftc-takes-subscription-traps-with-click-cancel-rule-2024-10-16/ "FTC takes on subscription traps with 'click to cancel' rule"] ''Reuters'', October 16, 2024. Retrieved November 5, 2024.</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Narea |first=Nicole |date=2024-08-13 |title=Biden wants to free you from all those subscriptions you meant to cancel but didn't |url=https://www.vox.com/policy/366838/biden-subscription-membership-junk-fees |access-date=2024-08-14 |website=Vox |language=en-US}}</ref> On October 16, 2024, the FTC announced the new rule, dubbed "click to cancel", requiring companies to make subscription services "as easy for consumers to cancel their enrollment as it was to sign up."<ref name=":4">{{Cite web |last=Mastrangelo |first=Dominick |date=2024-10-16 |title=FTC to implement rule making it easier to cancel subscriptions |url=https://thehill.com/homenews/media/4936175-federal-trade-commission-subscription-cancellation/ |access-date=2024-10-16 |website=The Hill |language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=Selyukh |first=Alina |date=October 16, 2024 |title=Canceling subscriptions has to be as easy as signing up, FTC says in a new rule |url=https://www.npr.org/2024/10/16/nx-s1-5154814/click-to-cancel-subscriptions-memberships-ftc-rule |access-date=October 16, 2024 |work=NPR}}</ref> Khan said in an interview that the new rule is designed so that if consumers signed up online, they must also be able to cancel on the same website in the same number of steps.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2024-10-16 |title=FTC moves to take the 'frustration' out of canceling subscriptions for consumers |url=https://www.nbcnews.com/business/consumer/making-it-easier-to-cancel-subscriptions-ftc-lina-khan-interview-rcna175607 |access-date=2024-10-16 |website=NBC News |language=en}}</ref> The rule’s final provisions will go into effect 180 days after it is published in the [[Federal Register]].<ref name=":4" /> On May 9, 2025 the FTC voted to delay enforcing compliance on the "Click to cancel" provision until July 14, 2025.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2025-05-11 |title=FTC delays enforcing 'click to cancel' rule that would finally bring the hammer down on companies that make it as annoying as possible to cancel subscriptions |url=https://www.yahoo.com/news/ftc-delays-enforcing-click-cancel-183815120.html |access-date=2025-05-13 |website=Yahoo News |language=en-US}}</ref> 

It also targeted airlines and credit card companies over [[junk fees]] and high prices.<ref name=":3" /> The rule for junk fees which covers, businesses selling live-event tickets and short-term lodging, requires disclosing total price upfront, and no misrepresentations about fees and charges, went into effect on May 12, 2025.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Adele |first=Chilekasi |date=2025-05-11 |title=Federal Trade Commission's crackdown on junk fees goes into effect this week, here's how you can save money - CBS Pittsburgh |url=https://www.cbsnews.com/pittsburgh/news/ftc-hidden-fee-and-junk-fee-crackdown/ |access-date=2025-05-13 |website=www.cbsnews.com |language=en-US}}</ref> 

==== Microsoft merger ====
{{Main|FTC v. Microsoft}}

In October 2023, the FTC authorized an administrative complaint against [[Proposed acquisition of Activision Blizzard by Microsoft|the merger]] between [[Microsoft]] and [[Activision Blizzard]], Inc. The FTC alleged the deal would suppress competitors from accessing future content/games developed by Activision once the deal goes through. The FTC dropped its lawsuit on July 20, 2023. Microsoft had to restructure its deal to appease UK regulators.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Warren |first=Tom |date=2023-10-13 |title=Microsoft completes Activision Blizzard acquisition, Call of Duty now part of Xbox |url=https://www.theverge.com/2023/10/13/23791235/microsoft-activision-blizzard-acquisition-complete-finalized |access-date=2024-08-04 |website=The Verge |language=en}}</ref> Microsoft reneged on promises it made in court filings by laying off 1900 employees in January 2024, signaling that it did not plan to let Activision Blizzard remain as independent as it had promised and leading the FTC to continue to appeal the decision.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Carpenter |first=Nicole |date=2024-02-07 |title=The FTC isn't too happy with Microsoft's Activision Blizzard layoffs |url=https://www.polygon.com/24065269/ftc-microsoft-activision-deal-layoffs-appeal |access-date=2024-08-04 |website=Polygon |language=en-US}}</ref>

==== Right to repair ====
In July 2021, the FTC voted unanimously to enforce the [[right to repair]] as policy and to look to take action against companies that limit the type of repair work that can be done at independent repair shops.<ref>{{cite web |last=Kelly |first=Makena |date=July 21, 2021 |title=FTC pledges to fight unlawful right to repair restrictions |url=https://www.theverge.com/2021/7/21/22587331/right-to-repair-apple-iphone-ftc-lina-khan-open-meeting |access-date=July 21, 2021 |work=[[The Verge]]}}</ref> In October 2024, following a comment by the FTC to the [[United States Copyright Office|US Copyright Office]], an exemption was granted allowing for repair of retail-level food preparation equipment, such as [[McDonald's ice cream machine|McDonald's ice cream machines]].<ref>{{Cite web |last=Brodkin |first=Jon |date=2024-10-25 |title=US Copyright Office "frees the McFlurry," allowing repair of ice cream machines |url=https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/10/us-copyright-office-frees-the-mcflurry-allowing-repair-of-ice-cream-machines/#gsc.tab=0 |access-date=2024-11-03 |website=Ars Technica |language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Hurwitz |first=Sophie |title=Donald Trump talked about fixing McDonald's ice cream machines. Lina Khan actually did. |url=https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2024/10/donald-trump-talked-about-fixing-mcdonalds-ice-cream-machines-lina-khan-actually-did/ |access-date=2024-11-03 |website=Mother Jones |language=en-US}}</ref>
<!--
=== Second Trump administration ===
<!-- 2025–2028 -->