Federal Trade Commission - Protecting America's Consumers

FTC Reopens and Sets Aside Chevron-Hess Final Order

Thu, 17 Jul 2025 08:00:00 -0400

Today, the Federal Trade Commission reopened and set aside the final consent order involving Chevron Corporation’s proposed acquisition of Hess Corporation. The January 2025 final consent order prohibited Chevron from nominating, designating, or appointing Hess CEO John B. Hess Chevron’s board of directors.

The FTC’s complaint alleged that Mr. Hess made “supportive messaging” to representatives of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) regarding their agenda to stabilize the oil market. The complaint alleged that Mr. Hess’s participation on Chevron’s board would amplify Mr. Hess’s messaging to OPEC and others, increasing the likelihood that Chevron would align its production with OPEC’s output decisions.

When the settlement was published in September 2024, now-Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson and Commissioner Melissa Holyoak dissented. However, just days before President Trump’s inauguration, the outgoing majority approved the final consent order, again over the dissent of now-Chairman Ferguson and Commissioner Holyoak.

In March 2025, Chevron and Hess petitioned the Commission to reopen and modify the final consent order. After a period of public comment and review, the FTC found that the complaint:

failed to plead any antitrust law violation under Section 7 of the Clayton Act,
contained no allegations that Chevron’s acquisition of Hess would be anticompetitive,
did not allege that the acquisition would materially increase market concentration or that it would increase the potential for coordination among oil producers, and
disregarded the FTC’s Merger Guidelines and decades of precedent.

The FTC concluded that in light of these deficiencies, maintaining the restrictions on Mr. Hess’s employment would damage the FTC’s credibility and undermine its mission. Granting Chevron’s and Hess’s petition is therefore in the public interest.

The vote approving the petition to reopen and set aside the order was 3-0. Commissioner Mark R. Meador issued a statement.

FTC Reopens and Sets Aside Exxon-Pioneer Final Order

Thu, 17 Jul 2025 08:00:00 -0400

Today, the Federal Trade Commission reopened and set aside the final consent order involving Exxon Mobil Corporation’s proposed acquisition of Pioneer Natural Resources Company. The FTC’s final order prohibited Exxon from nominating, designating, or appointing founder and former Pioneer CEO Scott Sheffield to Exxon’s board of directors or from serving in an advisory capacity in any way to the Exxon board or Exxon’s management. In addition, the final consent order required that for a period of five years, Exxon shall not nominate, designate, or appoint any Pioneer employee or director, other than certain named individuals, to Exxon’s board.

The FTC’s May 2024 complaint alleged that Mr. Sheffield sought to coordinate oil output levels with other crude oil producers, and that appointment to Exxon’s board would give him a larger platform for coordination and create an unlawful interlocking directorate. Now-Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson and Commissioner Melissa Holyoak dissented when the consent order was proposed.

In January 2025, just days before President Trump’s inauguration, the outgoing majority approved the final consent order, again over the dissent of now-Chairman Ferguson and Commissioner Holyoak.

In March 2025, Mr. Sheffield petitioned the FTC to reopen and vacate the order, and the FTC received over 3,000 comments from the public. Upon review of the matter, the FTC found that the complaint:

failed to plead any antitrust law violation under Section 7 of the Clayton Act,
contained no allegations that Exxon’s acquisition of Pioneer would be anticompetitive,
did not allege that the acquisition would materially increase market concentration or that it would increase the potential for coordination among oil producers, and
disregarded the FTC’s Merger Guidelines and decades of precedent.

The FTC denied Mr. Sheffield’s petition because he lacked standing. However, the FTC Act authorizes the Commission to modify a prior order when it is in the public interest. In light of the complaint’s deficiencies, the FTC concluded that maintaining the restrictions on Mr. Sheffield’s employment would damage the FTC’s credibility and undermine its mission. Vacating the final order is therefore in the public interest.

Exxon has already consented to setting aside the final order and has waived all its rights under rule 3.72(b). Today’s decision accordingly sets aside the final order without further process.

The vote to reopen and set aside the final order was 3-0. Commissioner Mark R. Meador issued a statement.

FTC Denies Sheffield’s Petition to Reopen and Set Aside the Exxon-Pioneer Final Order

Tue, 15 Jul 2025 08:00:00 -0400

The Federal Trade Commission denied a request filed by Scott Sheffield, the founder and former CEO of Pioneer Natural Resources, to reopen and set aside a final consent order involving Exxon Mobil Corporation’s acquisition of Pioneer.

Sheffield’s petition to reopen and set aside the final order in its entirety must be denied because Sheffield is not a party to the final order and therefore cannot make use of the petition process, as defined by the FTC’s Rules of Practice, specifically Rule 2.51.

The FTC’s final consent order, issued in January 2025, prohibits Exxon from nominating, designating, or appointing Sheffield to the Exxon board of directors or from having him serve in an advisory capacity in any way to the Exxon board or Exxon’s management. In addition, the final consent order requires that for a period of five years, Exxon shall not nominate, designate, or appoint any Pioneer employee or director, other than certain named individuals, to the Exxon board.

The final consent order resolved an FTC complaint alleging that Exxon’s acquisition of Pioneer was anticompetitive due to the proposed appointment of Sheffield to Exxon’s board of directors. The complaint alleged that Sheffield’s appointment would increase the likelihood of anticompetitive coordination and harm crude oil competition, based on allegations regarding Sheffield’s past communications with representatives of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) concerning the output of oil and gas. Sheffield’s appointment to the board might also create an unlawful interlocking directorate, the complaint stated.

While the FTC’s complaint made several references to Sheffield’s alleged conduct, it did not formally charge him with violating the antitrust laws, specifically Section 7 of the Clayton Act or Section 5 of the FTC Act. The order denying the petition states that Sheffield is not a party to the final consent order and thus lacks the requisite standing to file a petition under Rule 2.51. Requests and information from those not subject to an FTC order may be submitted to the Commission for review and consideration, but any action on such requests would be in the Commission’s discretion, and any resulting modification would follow the procedural requirements of Rule 3.72 within the FTC’s Rules of Practice.

While Sheffield cannot make use of the petition process under Rule 2.51, the Commission plans to consider his arguments in support of reopening and vacating the final order under Rule 3.72.

The vote denying the petition to reopen and set aside the order was 3-0.

FTC Grants in Part, Denies in Part EnCap, Verdun, XCL Petition to Modify Order

Mon, 07 Jul 2025 08:00:00 -0400

The Federal Trade Commission has approved in part and denied in part a petition to modify a final consent order involving the acquisition of EP Energy LLC (EP Energy) by a subsidiary of EnCap Capital Fund XI, L.P. and EnCap Investments L.P. (together, EnCap).

The 2022 consent order settled charges that the acquisition would harm competition for the sale of Uinta Basin waxy crude oil to Salt Lake City area refiners. The consent order required the divestiture of EP Energy’s entire business and assets in Utah, and required EnCap and its subsidiaries Verdun Oil Company II LLC (Verdun) and XCL Resources Holdings, LLC (XCL) to obtain prior approval from the FTC before engaging in certain acquisitions in the seven Utah counties comprising the Uinta Basin.

EnCap, Verdun, and XCL filed a petition with the FTC earlier this year that sought to remove the prior-approval requirement. To support their request, the parties noted in the petition that XCL sold all its interests in the Uinta Basin and currently none of the parties compete in the market at issue in the complaint.

In reviewing the petition to reopen and modify the order, the Commission determined that the 2022 order warranted some modification. The FTC’s order modifying the petition removes the prior-approval requirement for any reentry into the market by EnCap, Verdun, or XCL, as requested by the parties, and replaces the prior-approval requirement with a prior-notice requirement for any subsequent transaction involving oil- or gas-producing assets in the Uinta Basin area.

Under the prior-notice requirement, EnCap, Verdun, and XCL will be required to notify the FTC of subsequent acquisitions involving oil- or gas-producing assets in the Uinta Basin area after they reenter the market, similar to existing reporting provisions under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act.

Requiring prior notice instead of prior approval helps alleviate the concerns underlying the petition relating to delays and uncertainty of prior approval while balancing the FTC’s mission to maintain competitive markets.

The Commission vote approving the petition in part and denying it in part was 2-0-1, with Commissioner Melissa Holyoak recused.

FTC and DOJ Host Listening Session on Lowering Americans’ Drug Prices Through Competition

Mon, 30 Jun 2025 08:00:00 -0400

WHAT:	The Federal Trade Commission and the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division, along with the Department of Commerce and the Department of Health and Human Services, will jointly host the first of three listening sessions focused on discussing ways to make prescription drugs more affordable for Americans by promoting competition. The first listening session will discuss anticompetitive conduct that impedes generic or biosimilar competition.
WHEN:	Monday, June 30, 2025, 2 pm E.T.
WHERE:	Attendance in-person is by invitation only, but the event is being streamed online. Members of the public may submit questions online.
WHO:	The listening session will feature remarks by practitioners and scholars.

FTC Takes Action to Prevent Anticompetitive Effects of Retail Gas Station Deal

Thu, 26 Jun 2025 08:00:00 -0400

Today, the Federal Trade Commission took action to protect Americans from paying higher prices at the pump by resolving antitrust concerns surrounding Alimentation Couche-Tard Inc.’s (ACT) proposed $1.57 billion acquisition of 270 retail fuel outlets from grocery store chain Giant Eagle, Inc.

ACT currently operates more than 7,100 stores in the United States, primarily under the brand Circle K. Under the proposed consent order, the FTC will require ACT to divest 35 gas stations, which will be acquired by Majors Management, LLC. The consent order settles FTC charges that ACT’s deal with Giant Eagle is anticompetitive and will likely lead to higher fuel costs for consumers across Indiana, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.

“This anticompetitive acquisition threatened to make Americans pay more at the pump by raising fuel prices,” said Daniel Guarnera, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Competition. “The FTC’s action today preserves competition between gas stations that is critical for keeping fuel prices in check. The FTC will keep a watchful eye on retail fuel markets to make sure American consumers can spend less on gas and keep more money in their pockets.”

As originally structured, ACT’s acquisition of Giant Eagle’s retail fuel outlets would eliminate head-to-head competition across 35 local markets in Indiana, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, the FTC’s complaint alleges. In these 35 local markets, ACT and Giant Eagle routinely monitor each other’s prices and currently use that information when setting their own prices for gasoline and diesel fuel. In addition, ACT and Giant Eagle stations are frequently located along the same traffic routes and are geographically close to each other, making them a clear, and sometimes the only, alternative for consumers.

The complaint alleges that ACT would be able to raise fuel prices unilaterally after the proposed acquisition by eliminating current competition from Giant Eagle. Further, the acquisition threatens to lead to coordinated interaction between the remaining retail fuel outlets, since the merger would reduce the number of independent competitors in each local market.

Majors, which will acquire the 35 divested gas stations, is an experienced operator of retail fuel outlets. This transaction will expand its geographic footprint as a new competitor in markets across Indiana, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, ultimately resolving the FTC’s antitrust concerns.

The FTC’s proposed order requires the store divestitures and specifies, among other terms, that:

The divestiture of the retail fuel outlets must be completed no later than 20 days after ACT consummates the acquisition;
ACT must maintain the economic viability, marketability, and competitiveness of each divested station until the divestiture to Majors is complete;
ACT must not re-acquire any divested station for a period of 10 years; and
ACT must provide advance notice to the Commission before acquiring any stations designated by the Commission as competitively significant in the local markets of the divested stations for 10 years.

The Commission vote to issue the complaint and accept the consent agreement for public comment was 3-0. Commissioner Mark R. Meador issued a statement.

The public will have 30 days to submit comments on the proposed consent agreement package. Instructions for filing comments appear on the docket. Once processed, they will be posted on Regulations.gov.

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.

Statement on the Grant of Early Termination of the FTC’s Investigation of the Proposed Acquisition of Kellanova by Mars

Wed, 25 Jun 2025 08:00:00 -0400

Today, the FTC granted early termination of its review of Mars, Incorporated’s proposed acquisition of Kellanova. Mars is a global manufacturer of pet care, snacking, and food products. Kellanova owns legacy Kellogg brands, including in snacks, crackers, and frozen breakfasts, after spinning off its North American cereals business in 2023 as WK Kellogg Co.

“The Commission cares deeply about any competition concerns that affect American consumers, including in food products,” said Daniel Guarnera, Director of the Bureau of Competition. “Commission staff closely reviewed every aspect of this transaction, including both specific product markets and potential portfolio effects from the acquisition. They turned over every stone needed to arrive at a robust assessment of the likely competitive effects of this transaction. After nearly a year of investigation, dozens upon dozens of interviews with non-parties at all levels of the supply chain (including large chains and small, independent businesses), extensive data analysis, sworn testimony from party witnesses, and the review of hundreds of thousands of documents, staff found that the evidence pointed in one direction: this transaction does not meet the standard for an anticompetitive merger set by Section 7 of the Clayton Act.”

“In other countries, Mars and Kellanova offer different products than they do in the United States, and they face different market participants, consumer preferences, and shopping practices. Notably, Kellanova continues to sell breakfast cereal in other markets, including the European Union, that it does not sell in the United States,” continued Guarnera. “The Trump-Vance FTC takes an America First approach to antitrust enforcement. Our job is to protect competition and consumers in the United States. Our job is to determine whether there is a violation of American law that we can prove in court. And once we’ve concluded there is not, our job is to get out of the way.”

FTC Prevents Anticompetitive Coordination in Global Advertising Merger

Mon, 23 Jun 2025 08:00:00 -0400

Today, the Federal Trade Commission took action to resolve antitrust concerns related to Omnicom Group Inc.’s $13.5 billion acquisition of The Interpublic Group of Companies, Inc. (IPG).

The FTC accepted a proposed consent order that will prevent potential anticompetitive coordination by Omnicom, a global advertising agency that facilitates media buying by representing advertisers in negotiations with media publishers over conditions such as pricing, ad placement, and sponsorships, as well as helping execute advertisers’ ad campaigns.

Omnicom and IPG are the third- and fourth-largest media buying advertising agencies in the U.S. Combined, they will be the world’s largest media buying advertising agency. The proposed order imposes restrictions that prevent Omnicom from engaging in collusion or coordination to direct advertising away from media publishers based on the publishers’ political or ideological viewpoints.

“Websites and other publications that rely on advertising are critical to the flow of our nation’s commerce and communication,” said Daniel Guarnera, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Competition. “Coordination among advertising agencies to suppress advertising spending on publications with disfavored political or ideological viewpoints threatens to distort not only competition between ad agencies, but also public discussion and debate. The FTC’s action today prevents unlawful coordination that targets specific political or ideological viewpoints while preserving individual advertisers’ ability to choose where their ads are placed. I thank the FTC staff for their thorough investigation of this merger.”

The proposed consent order resolves an FTC complaint alleging that Omnicom’s acquisition of IPG threatens to further consolidate the U.S. media buying services market. Further consolidation risks eroding competition by increasing the risk of media buying coordination among the remaining advertising agencies, which have a history of engaging in coordination.

The FTC’s complaint alleges that advertising agencies have coordinated—including through industry associations—on decisions not to advertise on certain websites and applications. Coordination among advertising firms may reduce ad revenues for particular media publishers, forcing those publishers to reduce the amount of content they can offer to their own consumers and their investment in their sites.

The terms of the FTC’s proposed consent order include a series of provisions that would eliminate Omnicom’s ability to deny advertising dollars to media publishers based on their political or ideological viewpoint, except at the express and individualized direction of Omnicom’s advertiser customers.

The Commission vote to issue the complaint and accept the consent agreement for public comment was 2-0-1, with Commissioner Mark R. Meador recused. Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson issued a statement.

FTC and DOJ to Host Listening Sessions on Lowering Americans’ Drug Prices Through Competition

Wed, 11 Jun 2025 08:00:00 -0400

As part of implementing President Trump’s Executive Order No. 14273, Lowering Drug Prices by Once Again Putting Americans First, the Federal Trade Commission and the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division, along with the Department of Commerce and the Department of Health and Human Services, will jointly host listening sessions to discuss ways to make prescription drugs more affordable for Americans by promoting competition. The three listening sessions will occur under the direction of FTC Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson and Assistant Attorney General Gail Slater of the DOJ Antitrust Division.

The listening sessions will focus on improving the affordability of pharmaceuticals by increasing generic and biosimilar availability and promoting competition through drug formularies and benefits. The sessions, which will feature remarks by practitioners and scholars, will cover anticompetitive practices as well as eliminating regulatory barriers and rent seeking. The listening sessions will inform the FTC and DOJ’s joint report on combatting anticompetitive practices in pharmaceutical markets, as mandated by President Trump’s Executive Order.

The dates for the sessions are as follows:

Monday, June 30 at 2 pm ET – Anticompetitive Conduct by Pharmaceutical Companies Impeding Generic or Biosimilar Competition
Thursday, July 24 at 2 pm ET – Formulary and Benefit Practices and Regulatory Abuse Impacting Drug Competition
Monday, August 4 at 2 pm ET – Turning Insights into Action to Reduce Drug Prices

The listening sessions will be streamed on the FTC and DOJ websites, with videos and transcripts posted after the events. Additional information will be posted to the event page prior to each session.

FTC to Require Synopsys and Ansys to Divest Assets to Proceed with Merger

Wed, 28 May 2025 08:00:00 -0400

The Federal Trade Commission will require Synopsys, Inc. and Ansys, Inc. to divest certain assets to resolve antitrust concerns surrounding their $35 billion merger.

The FTC’s proposed divestiture order will preserve competition across several software tool markets that are critical for the design of semiconductors and light simulation devices, which are used in a wide range of products. The proposed order will help protect consumers from higher input prices for cars, smartphones, cameras, televisions, and other critical products.

“The FTC’s action today protects Americans from higher costs for the countless everyday products that use computer chips, LED screens, fiber optic cables, and many other high-tech components,” said Daniel Guarnera, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Competition. “The FTC’s divestiture order ensures that competition can thrive across software markets that are critical to designing the digital products that power Americans’ daily lives.”

Synopsys is a leading developer and supplier of software used to design semiconductors, known as Electronic Design Automation software. Ansys is a provider of simulation software tools, known as Simulation & Analysis software, which engineers use for testing products, including semiconductors.

Under a proposed consent order, Synopsys will divest its optical software tools, which enable engineers to design and simulate optical devices that generate, reflect, or refract light, such as LED screens, mirrors, and lenses. Synopsys will also divest its photonic software tools, which assist in the design and simulation of devices that use photons as a signal to transmit information, which include fiber optic cables and solar panels.

In addition, Ansys will divest a power consumption analysis tool, called PowerArtist, which is used to measure and optimize the power consumption of digital chips at an early stage of the design stage, known as Register Transfer Level (RTL) design.

Both Synopsys and Ansys will divest their assets to Keysight Technologies, Inc.

The proposed consent order settles FTC allegations that Synopsys’s acquisition of Ansys is anticompetitive across three markets – optical software tools, photonic software tools for designing and simulating photonic devices, and RTL power consumption analysis tools. Synopsys and Ansys directly compete against one another across all three markets. The complaint alleges that the proposed deal would eliminate head-to-head competition and lead to higher prices and decreased innovation, harming device manufacturers and consumers.

The proposed consent order, among other terms, requires that:

Synopsys and Ansys complete the divestitures no later than 10 days after Synopsys closes its acquisition of Ansys.
Synopsys and Ansys provide a limited amount of transition services and technological support so that Keysight can compete immediately with the merged company.
The Commission appoint a monitor to oversee the implementation of the requirements of the consent order and a divestiture trustee in the event Synopsys and Ansys fail to complete the divestitures as required.

FTC staff cooperated closely with staff of the competition agencies in the European Union, United Kingdom, Japan, and South Korea to analyze the proposed acquisition and potential remedies.

The Commission vote to issue the complaint and accept the consent agreement for public comment was 3-0. Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson issued a statement joined by Commissioners Melissa Holyoak and Mark R. Meador.

FTC Dismisses Lawsuit Against PepsiCo

Thu, 22 May 2025 08:00:00 -0400

The Federal Trade Commission today voted to dismiss without prejudice a Robinson-Patman Act (RPA) lawsuit against PepsiCo, Inc. (Pepsi) that was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The lawsuit, authorized on January 17, 2025, alleged that Pepsi violated Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act and RPA Sections 2(d) and 2(e), which prohibit firms from engaging in price discrimination by providing side payments, such as discounts or services, to favored customers.

“The Biden-Harris FTC rushed to authorize this case just three days before President Trump’s inauguration in a nakedly political effort to commit this administration to pursuing little more than a hunch that Pepsi had violated the law,” said FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson. “Taxpayer dollars should not be used for legally dubious partisan stunts. The FTC’s outstanding staff will instead get back to work protecting consumers and ensuring a fair and competitive business environment.”

FTC Commissioner Melissa Holyoak said, “The staff at the Federal Trade Commission—both economists and lawyers—are highly skilled professionals, and we as a Commission should not have sent them into court to fight a losing battle. Today’s dismissal allows our dedicated staff to focus on bringing enforcement actions where we have reason to believe the law has been violated, and where they can do what they do best—protect American consumers.”

The Commission vote to dismiss the complaint was 3-0. Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson issued a statement joined by Commissioner Melissa Holyoak. Commissioner Mark R. Meador issued a concurring statement.

FTC and DOJ File Statement of Interest in Energy Collusion Case Against BlackRock, State Street, and Vanguard

Thu, 22 May 2025 08:00:00 -0400

The Federal Trade Commission, joined by the U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division, filed a Statement of Interest in a multistate antitrust case against asset managers BlackRock, State Street, and Vanguard.

The case, led by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, alleges that BlackRock, State Street, and Vanguard engaged in an anticompetitive conspiracy to drive down coal production as part of an industry-wide “Net Zero” initiative to further anti-coal Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) goals. BlackRock, State Street, and Vanguard allegedly exercised their influence as shareholders in competing coal companies to push them to reduce industrywide coal output. The multistate lawsuit alleges that these actions, along with the unlawful sharing of competitively sensitive information and other allegations, increased coal prices and forced American consumers to pay more for energy as part of an unlawful left-wing ideological scheme.

The FTC and DOJ, as the nation’s antitrust law enforcers, filed their Statement of Interest given their strong interest in the correct application of the antitrust laws. The FTC and DOJ seek to protect markets from anticompetitive behavior that raises Americans’ energy bills while avoiding unnecessary interference with ordinary investment activity

“President Donald Trump understands the importance of coal for our energy security and has vowed to fight left-wing ideologues who seek to make us weaker and poorer under the guise of ESG. Today, the Federal Trade Commission carries out this administration’s mission to unleash American energy dominance, protect coal, and stop the left’s attempt to corrupt financial markets with political and social objectives,” said FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson. “These companies allegedly blocked the production of American coal in the name of climate change scaremongering, all so they could take money out of the pockets of American consumers and put it in theirs.”

In their joint statement, the FTC and DOJ urged the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas to reject the asset managers’ claims, citing multiple errors of law regarding the application of the nation’s federal antitrust laws to the actions of institutional shareholders in their role as common owners.

The FTC and DOJ’s Statement of Interest affirms that asset managers and institutional investors may be held liable under Section 7 of the Clayton Act when they use their stock holdings in multiple competitors to achieve anticompetitive goals. While these asset managers play an important role in American capital markets—a role that the agencies are committed to protecting—they nonetheless remain subject to the same antitrust laws as everyone else. The Statement of Interest further affirms that public, industry-wide initiatives may still violate the Sherman Act and Clayton Act, even when purportedly justified out of social concerns.

The Commission vote authorizing staff to file the statement of interest was 2-0-1, with Commissioner Melissa Holyoak recused.

FTC Renews Challenge of More Than 200 Improper Patent Listings

Wed, 21 May 2025 08:00:00 -0400

Continuing its efforts to promote competition and lower drug prices, today the Federal Trade Commission renewed its challenges against dozens of improperly listed device patents that shield brand-name asthma, diabetes, epinephrine autoinjector, and COPD drugs from prompt generic competition. Improper patent listings can delay generic alternatives from entering the market, keeping drug prices artificially high and preventing patients from accessing lower cost drugs.

The FTC sent warning letters to Novartis, Amphastar Pharmaceuticals, Mylan Specialty, Covis Pharma, and three Teva entities, and notified the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that it disputes the appropriateness of more than 200 patent listings in the FDA’s Orange Book across 17 different brand-name products. These patent listings, which the FTC has previously disputed, continue to be maintained in the FDA’s publication of “Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations,” commonly known as the Orange Book. However, these patents do not meet the statutory criteria for listing in the Orange Book, as confirmed by a recent ruling in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

“The American people voted for transparent, competitive, and fair healthcare markets and President Trump is taking action. The FTC is doing its part,” said FTC Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson. “When firms use improper methods to limit competition in the market, it’s everyday Americans who are harmed by higher prices and less access. The FTC will continue to vigorously pursue firms using practices that harm competition.”

The FTC previously challenged the accuracy or relevance of these patent listings via warning letters to companies and notifying the FDA in November 2023 and April 2024. That activity led to the delisting of patents across 22 different brand-name products.

The FTC’s renewed challenges come after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld a District Court’s order to pharmaceutical maker Teva to delist several asthma inhaler patents from the FDA’s Orange Book. The Federal Circuit affirmed a finding that the patents were improperly listed, consistent with an amicus brief filed by the FTC. The FTC previously challenged the Teva asthma inhaler patents at issue in that case via the FDA’s Orange Book dispute process. The Federal Circuit ruling confirmed the basis underlying the FTC’s prior Orange Book disputes.

The FTC’s renewed warning letters sent today target patent listings that remain listed on the FDA’s Orange Book despite the FTC’s previous challenges and the Federal Circuit’s recent ruling.

Upon receipt of the FTC’s patent listing disputes, the FDA will forward those disputes to the respective branded drug manufacturer, which will have 30 days to withdraw or amend the listing or certify under penalty of perjury that the listing complies with applicable statutory and regulatory requirements.

FTC Approves Final Order with Welsh Carson

Tue, 20 May 2025 08:00:00 -0400

The Federal Trade Commission finalized a consent order with Welsh, Carson, Anderson & Stowe and its affiliates (collectively referred to as Welsh Carson) that resolves a potential administrative antitrust case against Welsh Carson.

The final consent order settles FTC charges that alleged Welsh Carson, through its portfolio company U.S. Anesthesia Partners (USAP), engaged in anticompetitive acquisitions to suppress competition and drive up prices for anesthesiology services in Texas.

Under the final consent order, Welsh Carson is required to limit its involvement with USAP and to notify the FTC of specified future acquisitions and investments in anesthesia and other hospital-based physician practices.

The final consent order with Welsh Carson follows a federal lawsuit filed by the Commission against USAP and Welsh Carson in September 2023. The Commission alleged that USAP and Welsh Carson engaged in a roll-up scheme by systemically buying up nearly every large anesthesia practice in Texas to create a single dominant provider.

Welsh Carson was dismissed from the FTC’s federal case in May 2024. The FTC’s case against USAP continues to proceed in federal court.

Following a public comment period, the Commission voted 3-0 to approve the final order.

FTC Chairman Testifies Before House Appropriations Committee on Agency’s Budget

Thu, 15 May 2025 08:00:00 -0400

Federal Trade Commission Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson today appeared before the House Appropriations Committee’s Financial Services and General Government Subcommittee to discuss the agency's Fiscal Year 2025 operations, Fiscal Year 2026 priorities and ongoing work to protect consumers and promote competition.

Testifying on behalf of the Commission, Chairman Ferguson emphasized the value the FTC provides to U.S. taxpayers. For example, in FY 2024, the agency returned more than $333 million to consumers, equivalent to nearly two-thirds of the agency’s annual budget.

The testimony highlighted the FTC’s commitment to using agency resources efficiently and meeting President Trump’s goal of reducing the size of the federal government. In recent months, the FTC has reduced the size of its workforce and cut other costs while still executing on the agency’s priorities – protecting the American people from scams, fraud and other unfair or deceptive practices as well as from harmful collusion and consolidation. The testimony also noted the importance of retaining adequate staffing to maintain the agency’s high level of performance.

As part of the agency’s mission to protect consumers, the FTC is working to prevent illegal telemarketing calls; fraud targeting older Americans and servicemembers; deceptive billing and cancellation practices; unlawful ticket practices; and unlawful data security and privacy practices. On the competition side, the FTC is focused on targeting the root causes of anticompetitive conduct and tackling the most significant harms across markets, particularly by dominant firms whose business practices affect many Americans.

The Commission vote to approve the testimony was 3-0.

FTC Files Amicus Brief on DOJ’s Proposed Final Judgment Against Google for Antitrust Violations

Fri, 09 May 2025 08:00:00 -0400

The Federal Trade Commission filed an amicus brief today in support of the Department of Justice’s Revised Proposed Final Judgment (RPFJ) related to Google’s antitrust violations.

In August 2024, a federal judge found that Google violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act by maintaining monopolies in general search services and general text advertising. As part of the RPFJ aimed at remedying these violations, DOJ proposed that Google be required to share targeted portions of its search index, user, and ads data with certain competitors for a limited period of time with suitable security and privacy safeguards.

As the nation’s primary privacy enforcer, the FTC has a strong interest in ensuring that companies vigorously protect consumers’ privacy and long experience with crafting appropriate remedies to address such privacy and data security violations.

“The privacy safeguards proposed by DOJ are in line with the measures the FTC has required numerous companies to take to address privacy and data security failures,” said Katherine White, Deputy Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “The RPFJ may also force Google and other market participants to finally compete on protecting consumer privacy.”

In its brief, the FTC described the ways in which the RPFJ is consistent with the Commission’s own privacy and data-security orders, and noted Google’s questionable track record related to privacy. The company has entered into three separate consent agreements with the FTC since 2011 over alleged privacy violations.

DOJ’s RPFJ includes similar safeguards to those required by the FTC under the privacy orders the agency has entered into with numerous companies for allegedly failing to protect consumer privacy and data security, according to the FTC’s brief. These privacy orders include requirements that companies establish programs designed to identify and mitigate potential privacy and security risks. These programs are also subject to independent audits by third-party assessors and oversight by the FTC or a federal court.

DOJ’s RPFJ recommends that the court appoint a Technical Committee made up of independent experts that would be charged with ensuring that Qualified Competitors that receive data from Google have adequate safeguards in place to protect Google users’ privacy.

The FTC’s brief argued that the Technical Committee’s oversight is critical to ensuring Google—and competitors who receive user data—adhere to their required privacy obligations, particularly given Google’s past privacy lapses, which included paying a civil penalty for violating its 2011 privacy order with the FTC.

In addition, the brief noted that the RPFJ’s data sharing requirements may create an incentive for Google and other market participants to compete on privacy and data protection, driving higher quality protection market wide.

The Commission vote authorizing staff to file the amicus brief was 1-0-2, with Commissioners Melissa Holyoak and Mark R. Meador recused. Commissioner Holyoak is recused from participating in this matter due to her previous work as Utah’s Solicitor General, where she led Utah’s involvement in the litigation against Google that is the subject of today’s amicus.

FTC and DOJ Issue Letter Seeking Identification of Anticompetitive Regulations Across the Federal Government

Mon, 05 May 2025 08:00:00 -0400

Today, the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice Antitrust Division issued a joint letter directing the heads of agencies across the federal government to create a list of anticompetitive regulations that reduce competition, entrepreneurship, and innovation.

FTC Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson and Assistant Attorney General Abigail Slater of the DOJ’s Antitrust Division issued the letter, which advances President Trump’s Executive Order on Reducing Anticompetitive Regulatory Barriers.

The Executive Order directs all agency heads to provide a list identifying anticompetitive regulations within their agency’s rulemaking authority to the FTC and DOJ. Along with each regulation identified, the agency must include a recommendation for deletion; a recommendation for specific modifications; or a justification for the potential anticompetitive effects.

The joint letter follows a recent Request for Information launched by the FTC inviting members of the public to comment on how federal regulations can harm competition in the American economy.

Following public feedback and the lists of anticompetitive regulations from agency heads, the FTC and DOJ will provide the Director of the Office of Management and Budget a consolidated list of regulations that should be rescinded or modified, along with recommended modifications.

Illinois and Minnesota Join FTC Lawsuit Challenging Medical Device Coatings Deal

Thu, 17 Apr 2025 08:00:00 -0400

The Federal Trade Commission filed an amended complaint adding the states of Illinois and Minnesota as co-plaintiffs in the Commission’s lawsuit challenging GTCR BC Holdings, LLC’s (GTCR) acquisition of Surmodics, Inc. (Surmodics). The amended complaint also adds GTCR, LLC as an additional defendant in the case.

The FTC’s ongoing lawsuit alleges that GTCR’s acquisition of Surmodics would create a combined company controlling more than 50% of the market for outsourced hydrophilic coatings, which are used to produce lifesaving medical devices such as catheters and guidewires.

The complaint alleges:

Surmodics is the largest provider of outsourced hydrophilic coatings and GTCR owns a majority stake in Biocoat, Inc., the second-largest provider of outsourced hydrophilic coatings.
GTCR’s acquisition of Surmodics would eliminate direct competition.
The existing competition has resulted in lower prices, higher quality coatings, and product innovation, which has benefitted both medical device manufacturers and patients.

The amended complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The Commission vote authorizing staff to file the amended complaint was 3-0.

FTC Launches Public Inquiry into Anti-Competitive Regulations

Mon, 14 Apr 2025 08:00:00 -0400

Today, the Federal Trade Commission launched a public inquiry into the impact of federal regulations on competition, with the goal of identifying and reducing anticompetitive regulatory barriers. The FTC launched this inquiry in response to President Trump’s Executive Order on Reducing Anticompetitive Regulatory Barriers.

Per the Executive Order, the Trump-Vance FTC will be on the front lines of advancing the President’s agenda to revitalize the American economy. The FTC seeks to identify unnecessary regulations that exclude new market entrants, protect dominant incumbents, and predetermine economic winners and losers.

“Regulations that reduce competition, entrepreneurship, and innovation can hamper the American economy,” said FTC Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson. “These need to be eliminated or modified to revitalize a competitive market.”

In a Request for Information, the FTC invites members of the public to comment on how federal regulations can harm competition in the American economy. The RFI seeks to understand what federal regulations have an anticompetitive effect. Members of the public—including consumers, workers, businesses, start-ups, potential market entrants, investors, and academics—are encouraged to comment.

The public will have 40 days to submit comments at Regulations.gov, no later than May 27, 2025. Once submitted, comments will be posted to Regulations.gov.

Comments submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice Anticompetitive Regulations Task Force at Regulations.gov that contain information falling within the scope of the FTC’s RFI do not need to be resubmitted in response to the FTC’s RFI.

FTC Seeks Public Comment on Petition to Modify Exxon-Pioneer Final Order

Fri, 11 Apr 2025 08:00:00 -0400

The Federal Trade Commission seeks public comment on a petition filed by Scott Sheffield, the founder and former CEO of Pioneer Natural Resources, requesting that the Commission reopen and set aside a final consent order involving Exxon Mobil Corporation’s acquisition of Pioneer.

On January 17, 2025, the FTC entered into a consent order concerning Exxon’s acquisition of Pioneer. Under the final consent order, Exxon is prohibited from nominating, designating, or appointing Sheffield to the Exxon Board of Directors or from having him serve in an advisory capacity in any way to the Exxon board or Exxon’s management. In addition, the final consent order requires that for a period of five years, Exxon shall not nominate, designate, or appoint any Pioneer employee or director, other than certain named individuals, to the Exxon board. The final consent order was issued in January 2025.

In the petition, Sheffield requests that the Commission set aside and vacate the final order in its entirety.

The public will have 30 days, until May 12, 2025, to submit comments on the petition to set aside the consent order. Instructions for filing comments appear on the docket. Once processed, they will be posted on Regulations.gov. After the comment period closes, the Commission will vote to determine how to resolve the petition.

FTC Seeks Public Comment on Petition to Modify Chevron-Hess Final Order

Fri, 11 Apr 2025 08:00:00 -0400

The Federal Trade Commission is seeking public comment on a petition filed by Chevron Corporation and Hess Corporation requesting that the Commission reopen and set aside a final consent order involving Chevron’s acquisition of Hess.

The companies filed a petition asking the FTC to set aside its consent order, which prohibits Chevron from nominating, designating, or appointing Hess CEO John B. Hess to the Chevron Board of Directors. The final order was issued in January 2025.

FTC Chairman Ferguson Congratulates Mark Meador on Confirmation as FTC Commissioner

Thu, 10 Apr 2025 08:00:00 -0400

Federal Trade Commission Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson today congratulated Mark R. Meador on his confirmation to serve as an FTC Commissioner.

“I am thrilled to welcome Mark to the Commission,” Chairman Ferguson said. “Mark is a brilliant antitrust lawyer who will be a great asset to the Trump-Vance FTC.”

Meador was nominated on January 20, 2025 by President Trump to a term that will expire on September 25, 2031 and confirmed by the Senate on April 10, 2025.

Meador most recently worked in private practice and as a visiting fellow at the Heritage Foundation Tech Policy Center. Prior to that, he served as Deputy Chief Counsel for Antitrust and Competition Policy for Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah. During the first Trump Administration, Meador worked as a trial attorney in the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division. He began his career as an attorney in the FTC’s Bureau of Competition.

Meador earned his law degree from the University of Houston Law Center and his undergraduate degree in philosophy from the University of Chicago.

FTC Approves Modification of Enbridge Inc. Final Order

Tue, 08 Apr 2025 08:00:00 -0400

The Federal Trade Commission approved a petition by Enbridge Inc. to reopen and set aside the Commission’s 2017 final consent order related to Enbridge’s merger with Spectra Energy Corp. The FTC determined that the requirements of the final consent order are no longer necessary because Enbridge no longer holds any ownership interest in a competing natural gas pipeline called the Discovery Pipeline.

By acquiring Spectra, Enbridge gained an indirect ownership interest in the Discovery Pipeline, which is the main competitor to the Walker Ridge Pipeline, a pipeline which Enbridge owns and operates. The FTC alleged that Enbridge’s acquisition of Spectra would result in Enbridge having access to competitively sensitive information about the Discovery Pipeline. Without adequate guardrails, Enbridge could have engaged in anticompetitive conduct that would have made the Discovery Pipeline a less effective competitor or facilitated coordination in the industry.

The FTC’s 2017 order with Enbridge settled charges alleging the merger between Enbridge and Spectra would harm competition in the market for natural gas pipeline transportation in production areas in the Gulf of America. Under the order, Enbridge was required to establish firewalls to limit its access to non-public information about the Discovery Pipeline. Also, with two limited exceptions, board members of the Spectra-affiliated companies that hold a 40 percent share in the Discovery Pipeline were required to recuse themselves from any vote involving the pipeline.

In December 2024, Enbridge filed a petition asking the Commission to reopen and set aside the 2017 order since it sold its minority ownership interest in the Discovery Pipeline to the majority owner of the partnership that held the Discovery Pipeline, the Williams Companies, Inc. Given Enbridge’s sale of all interests in this competing pipeline, the competitive concerns and the remedial provisions of the 2017 order that were intended to address them are no longer necessary, the FTC’s order states.

The Commission voted 2-0 to approve Enbridge’s petition to reopen and modify the order.

FTC Requests Public Comment on EnCap, Verdun, XCL Petition to Modify Order

Wed, 02 Apr 2025 08:00:00 -0400

The Federal Trade Commission is seeking public comment on a petition to reopen and modify a 2022 final consent order involving Verdun Oil Company II LLC’s (Verdun) acquisition of EP Energy LLC (EP).

The FTC’s 2022 order settled charges that the acquisition would harm competition for the sale of Uinta Basin waxy crude oil to Salt Lake City refiners. The FTC’s final consent order required the divestiture of EP’s entire business and assets in Utah. The final order also required Verdun, XCL Resources Holdings, LLC (XCL), and their parent entities, EnCap Energy Capital Fund XI, L.P. and EnCap Investments L.P. (together, EnCap), to obtain prior approval from the Commission before engaging in certain acquisition transactions across several counties in Utah.

Relevant parties to the 2022 order filed a petition with the Commission that seeks to remove this prior approval requirement covering EnCap, Verdun, and XCL from the final consent order.

According to the petition, there have been significant changes since the order was entered that now justify removing the prior approval requirement. These changes include EnCap’s and XCL’s exit from crude oil exploration and production in the Uinta Basin after selling those assets to an unrelated party in 2024. Given these changes, the prior approval requirement is no longer necessary, the petition states.

Comments on the petition to modify the consent order must be filed by May 2, 2025 through Regulations.gov. Instructions for filing comments appear on the docket. Once processed, they will be posted on Regulations.gov. After the comment period closes, the Commission will vote on whether to approve the application.

FTC Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson Appoints Deputy Directors of the Bureaus of Competition and Consumer Protection

Wed, 26 Mar 2025 08:00:00 -0400

Federal Trade Commission Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson today announced he has appointed Taylor C. Hoogendoorn as Deputy Director of the Bureau of Competition and Katherine White as Deputy Director of the Bureau of Consumer Protection.

Hoogendoorn is a talented litigator with expertise in a wide range of litigation, including antitrust, tort, contractual, energy, and intellectual property matters. Hoogendoorn joins the FTC after spending time in private practice at a law firm in Houston. He clerked for the Hon. Samuel A. Alito Jr. on the Supreme Court of the United States; the Hon. Gregory G. Katsas on the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit; and the Hon. J. Harvie Wilkinson III on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

Hoogendoorn holds a J.D. from Yale Law School, where he won the Morris Tyler Moot Court of Appeals and served on the Yale Law Journal, and a B.B.A. with majors in Economics, Finance, Mathematics, and Business Fellows from Baylor University. While at Baylor, he served on the university’s Board of Regents and graduated as the top-ranked student in the Hankamer School of Business.

White is an experienced privacy and consumer protection attorney, with a career in both government service and private practice. White has deep experience in all aspects of consumer protection law and has led complex investigations relating to privacy, data security, and credit reporting.

Most recently, White was a partner at a law firm. Prior to joining the firm, White spent nearly 15 years at the FTC and served in a variety of roles, including as an Attorney Advisor to former Commissioner Noah Phillips during the first Trump administration, Counsel to the Director of the Bureau of Consumer Protection, and as a senior attorney in the Division of Privacy and Identity Protection. In addition, White worked on detail for the Senate Commerce Committee where she provided advice on a range of consumer protection issues.

She is a graduate of the George Washington University Law School and the University of Virginia.

FTC Staff Reaffirm Opposition to Proposed Indiana Hospital Merger

Mon, 17 Mar 2025 08:00:00 -0400

Today, Federal Trade Commission staff again urged the Indiana Department of Health to deny Union Hospital, Inc. (Union Health) and Terre Haute Regional Hospital, L.P.’s (THRH) application to merge.

FTC staff said Union Health and THRH’s second attempt to merge under a proposed certificate of public advantage, also known as a COPA, presents the same anticompetitive harms as their original application did, according to the FTC’s comment letter. Union Health and THRH’s COPA application would shield the proposed merger from antitrust scrutiny. The FTC warned that the merger poses substantial anticompetitive risks such as higher healthcare costs for patients and lower wages for hospital workers.

“This repackaged COPA application presents the same problems as before. Competition consistently results in better outcomes for patients and workers than consolidation subject to COPAs,” said Clarke Edwards, Acting Director of the FTC’s Office of Policy Planning. “The Indiana Department of Health should deny this attempt by Vigo County’s only two hospitals to eliminate competition and avoid antitrust review.”

The FTC’s latest comment letter follows a similar letter issued in September 2024 opposing the proposed COPA. Following the FTC’s opposition, Union Health and THRH withdrew their COPA application in November 2024. FTC staff applauded the withdrawal as a win for patients and healthcare workers.

Union Health and THRH submitted a second COPA application in February 2025. The resubmitted application presents little new information and the concerns the FTC raised in 2024 remain the same, the FTC’s latest comment letter states. The deal continues to pose serious harm to competition and consumers through higher healthcare costs, lower quality, reduced innovation, reduced access to care, and depressed wages for hospital employees, according to the FTC’s comment letter.

The Commission vote to submit the staff comment to the Indiana Department of Health was 4-0.

FTC Challenges Medical Device Coatings Deal

Thu, 06 Mar 2025 07:00:00 -0500

The Federal Trade Commission today sued to block GTCR BC Holdings, LLC’s (GTCR) acquisition of Surmodics, Inc. (Surmodics), alleging that the deal, which seeks to combine the two largest manufacturers of critical medical device coatings, is anticompetitive.

The FTC charges that private equity firm GTCR’s proposed acquisition of Surmodics would create a combined company controlling more than 50% of the market for outsourced hydrophilic coatings. These coatings are often used by medical device manufacturers and are applied to lifesaving medical devices such as catheters and guidewires.

“Medical device makers rely on high-quality coatings in designing and bringing to market life-saving devices, such as neurovascular catheters,” said Daniel Guarnera, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Competition. “This merger threatens to disrupt competitive dynamics that have ultimately benefited patients. Today, the FTC is stepping in to protect patients from this unlawful acquisition.”

GTCR currently owns a majority stake in Biocoat, Inc., which is the second-largest provider of outsourced hydrophilic coatings. Surmodics is the largest provider of outsourced hydrophilic coatings.

As the FTC’s complaint alleges, GTCR’s acquisition of Surmodics would lead to a highly concentrated market for outsourced hydrophilic coatings and eliminate significant head-to-head competition between Biocoat and Surmodics. This direct competition has spurred lower prices, higher quality coatings, and product innovation. The proposed deal would change those competitive dynamics and harm medical device manufacturers as well as patients, the complaint states.

Hydrophilic coatings allow physicians to maneuver medical devices within the tight confines of the body—within a blood vessel in the brain, for example—without damaging sensitive tissue or vital structures. Medical devices with hydrophilic coatings are used in a range of interventional neurovascular, structural heart, coronary, and peripheral vascular procedures.

Market Dynamics

GTCR’s acquisition of Surmodics would significantly increase market concentration in the outsourced hydrophilic coatings sector, which already suffers from few competitors. The merger would result in a level of market concentration that violates the 2023 Merger Guidelines, the FTC’s complaint states.

Internal documents from both companies, as well as competitor and customer testimony, recognize Surmodics and Biocoat as head-to-head competitors. As alleged in the complaint, Surmodics and Biocoat closely monitor each other’s business strategy and often target the same large, small, and startup medical device manufacturers, also known as original equipment manufacturers (OEMs). This fierce competition has driven Surmodics and Biocoat to improve coating quality and services, lower prices, and increase innovation. The benefits of these competitive dynamics, however, would be eliminated by the proposed merger, the FTC’s complaint alleges.

The manufacturing of hydrophilic coatings requires specialized expertise, years of research, and millions of dollars in investments. Many OEMs prefer to outsource this process instead of manufacturing it in-house. Often, OEMs outsource to coatings manufacturers with a proven track record, like Biocoat and Surmodics. Given these dynamics, it is unlikely any new coating provider could emerge to meaningfully compete with GTCR and Surmodics post-merger, the FTC’s complaint alleges.

The Commission vote to issue an administrative complaint and authorize staff to seek a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction was 4-0. Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter joined by Commissioner Alvaro M. Bedoya issued a statement.

The federal court complaint and request for preliminary relief will be filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois to halt the transaction pending an administrative proceeding. A public version of the complaint will be available and linked to this news release as soon as possible.

The Mergers I Division of the FTC’s Bureau of Competition led the investigation in this matter.

NOTE: The Commission issues an administrative complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the law has been or is being violated, and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. The issuance of the administrative complaint marks the beginning of a proceeding in which the allegations will be tried in a formal hearing before an administrative law judge.

FTC Approves Final Order Requiring Building Service Contractor to Stop Enforcing a No-Hire Agreement

Wed, 26 Feb 2025 07:00:00 -0500

The Federal Trade Commission today finalized a consent order that requires building services contractor Planned Building Services and its affiliated companies to cease their enforcement of no-hire agreements.

The FTC issued a complaint in January 2025 against Planned Building Services, Inc., Planned Security Services, Inc., Planned Lifestyle Services, Inc., and Planned Technologies Services, Inc. which do business as Planned Companies, (Planned), alleging that the companies’ enforcement of their no-hire agreements limited workers’ ability to negotiate for higher wages, better benefits, and improved working conditions.

Under the no-hire agreements, residential and commercial building owners were limited from hiring building service workers that were employed by Planned. The no-hire agreements were included in customer service agreements with building owners, according to the FTC’s complaint.

The final consent order places several restrictions and requirements on Planned, including ordering Planned to cease and desist from, directly or indirectly, enforcing a no-hire agreement or communicating to any prospective or current customer that a Planned employee is subject to a no-hire agreement. It also requires Planned to stop including no-hire agreements in their customer contracts and to notify customers and employees that their existing no-hire agreements are no longer enforceable.

Following a public comment period, the Commission vote to approve the final order was 4-0.

FTC Launches Joint Labor Task Force to Protect American Workers

Wed, 26 Feb 2025 07:00:00 -0500

Today, Federal Trade Commission Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson directed the FTC to form a Joint Labor Task Force that will work to prioritize rooting out and prosecuting deceptive, unfair, and anticompetitive labor-market practices that harm American workers.

Pursuant to a memorandum issued by Chairman Ferguson, the FTC’s Bureau of Competition, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Bureau of Economics, and Office of Policy Planning are directed to work together to carry out a variety of responsibilities. The task force will focus on, for example, prioritizing investigations and prosecutions of deceptive, unfair, or anticompetitive labor market conduct and coordinating all such actions across the Bureaus, creating information-sharing protocols across the FTC’s Bureaus and offices to exchange best practices for uncovering and investigating such conduct, and promoting research regarding harmful labor market practices to inform the FTC and the public.

A healthy labor market is critical to the country’s success. But deceptive, unfair, and anticompetitive labor practices are widespread. They negatively affect workers across all types of industries by limiting their mobility and ability to earn a living. Such harmful practices come in a variety of forms. For example, the Chairman’s directive highlights no-poach, non-solicitation, or no-hire agreements, noncompete agreements, wage-fixing agreements, deceptive job advertising such as misleading earnings claims, deceptive business opportunities, misleading franchise offerings, and collusion or unlawful coordination on DEI employment metrics.

The Chairman’s directive seeks to harmonize the FTC’s law-enforcement efforts on behalf of workers to ensure that the FTC prioritizes labor issues in both its consumer-protection and competition matters.

Federal Trade Commission Launches Inquiry on Tech Censorship

Thu, 20 Feb 2025 07:00:00 -0500

Today, the Federal Trade Commission launched a public inquiry to better understand how technology platforms deny or degrade users’ access to services based on the content of their speech or affiliations, and how this conduct may have violated the law.

Censorship by technology platforms is not just un-American, it is potentially illegal. Tech firms can employ confusing or unpredictable internal procedures that cut users off, sometimes with no ability appeal the decision. Such actions taken by tech platforms may harm consumers, affect competition, may have resulted from a lack of competition, or may have been the product of anti-competitive conduct.

The FTC issued a Request for Information (RFI) requesting public comment on how consumers may have been harmed by technology platforms that limited their ability to share ideas or affiliations freely and openly.

“Tech firms should not be bullying their users,” said FTC Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson. “This inquiry will help the FTC better understand how these firms may have violated the law by silencing and intimidating Americans for speaking their minds.”

Tech platform users who have been banned, shadow banned, demonetized, or otherwise censored are encouraged to share their comments in response to the RFI. The FTC is interested in understanding how consumers—including by potentially unfair or deceptive acts or practices, or potentially unfair methods of competition—have been harmed by the policies of tech firms.

The public will have until May 21, 2025 to submit a comment. Once submitted, comments will be posted to Regulations.gov. If consumers would prefer to file a private report with the FTC instead, they can go to ReportFraud.ftc.gov and click “Report Now.”