Amicus Briefs

| 2012 | 2011 | 2010 | 2009 | 2008 | 2007 | 2006 | 2005 | 2004 | 2003 | 2002 | 2001 | 2000 | 1999 | 1998 |

 

2012

In re Lamictal Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation, No. 2:12-CV-00995-WHW-MCA (D.N.J.) (October 5, 2012)
Brief of the Federal Trade Commission as amicus curiae before the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, addressing the question of whether an exclusive license that effectively prevents a branded company from launching an authorized generic constitutes a payment-for-delay in restraint of trade, pursuant to the Third Circuit’s ruling in In re K-Dur Antitrust Litigation, No. 10-2077, 2012 WL 2877662 (3d Cir. July 16, 2012). [PDF – 20 pages]

Moore v. Verizon Communications, Inc., et al. No. CV 09-1823 (N.D.Cal.) (August 17, 2012)
Brief of the Federal Trade Commission as amicus curiae before the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, expressing concerns that the proposed class action settlement agreement is flawed and should be rejected.The proposed settlement fails to provide adequate compensation to consumers that were victims of unauthorized billing, does not provide adequate information to class members about their rights or the settlement's impact, is unlikely to deter future fraudulent conduct, and may impair the Commission's ability to provide restitution in its enforcement actions. [PDF – 55 pages]

Olivea Marx v. General Revenue Corporation, No. 11-1175 (S. Ct.) (August 3, 2012)
Joint brief of the United States, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and the Federal Trade Commission, as amici curiae in support of the petitioner, urging the Supreme Court to rule that private plaintiffs who, in good faith, sue debt collectors for alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act are not required to pay prevailing defendants' litigation costs. [PDF – 36 pages]

In re Effexor XR Antitrust Litigation, No. 3:11-cv-05479 (D.N.J.) (August 10, 2012)
Brief of the Federal Trade Commission as amicus curiae before the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, addressing the question of whether a branded company's commitment not to launch an authorized generic in competition with a generic company constitutes a payment-for-delay in restraint of trade, pursuant to the Third Circuit's ruling in In re K-Dur Antitrust Litigation, No. 10-2077, 2012 WL 2877662 (3d Cir. July 16, 2012). [PDF – 25 pages]

Ritz Camera & Image, LLC v. Sandisk Corporation, No. 12-1183 (Fed Cir.) (May 22, 2012)
Joint brief of the United States, in which the FTC joined, as amicus curiae before the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in support of the appellee, Ritz Camera & Image, LLC, urging the Federal Circuit to affirm the district court's holding that appellee, a direct purchaser of appellant SanDisk Corporation's products, has standing under the antitrust laws to seek damages for overcharges resulting from a monopoly obtained through enforcement of patents procured by fraud (a "Walker Process" antitrust claim).

Shamara T. King v. General Information Services, Inc., No. 2:10-cv-06850 (E.D. Pa.) (May 3, 2012)
Memorandum brief of the United States, in which both the FTC and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau joined, supporting the constitutionality of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) provision that bars consumer reporting agencies, in most cases, from disclosing an individual’s arrest record or other adverse information that is more than seven years old.  The brief argues that the court should not invalidate this FCRA provision as unconstitutional because it “directly advances the substantial government interest in protecting individuals’ privacy and is no more extensive than necessary to serve that interest.” 

Auraria Student Housing at the Regency, LLC v. Campus Village Apartments, No. 11-1569 (10th Cir.) (April 13, 2012)
Joint brief of the United States and the Federal Trade Commission, as amici curiae before the United State Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, in support of the appellee, urging the court to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction the interlocutory appeal of a district court order denying a defendant's motion to dismiss an antitrust claim under the "state action" doctrine of Parker v. Brown, 317 U.S. 341 (1943). The brief, which does not address the merits of defendant's state action claim, argues that the court lacks appellate jurisdiction as there has been no final judgment in the underlying litigation, and the district court's order is not immediately appealable under the collateral order rule, which permits immediate appellate review in very limited circumstances to protect a right to avoid trial.

Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Sebelius, No. 1:12-cv-524 (D.D.C.) (April 11, 2012)
Brief of the Federal Trade Commission, as amicus curiae, submitted to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, in a case challenging the Food and Drug Administration's decision giving the seller of a branded drug sole control of the 180-day exclusivity rights granted, under the Hatch-Waxman Act, to a first generic filer. The brief does not take a position on the FDA's interpretation and application of the governing statute and regulations, but explains the Commission's enforcement actions relating to the branded drug, Provigil, and describes the adverse effects on competition from allowing the branded drug seller to control the generic exclusivity period.

Minn-Chem, Inc. v. Agrium, Inc., No. 10-1712 (7th Cir.) (January 12, 2012)
Joint brief of the United States and the Federal Trade Commission, as amici curiae, before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, sitting en banc. The brief adresses the reach of U.S. antitrust law over international restraints of trade, urging the court of appeals to rule that the "import commerce" exception in the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act is not limited to conduct that specifically targets U.S. import commerce, and that the statute's "direct effects" exception is not limited to effects that follow as an immediate consequence of the challenged conduct.

2011

Fein, Such, Kahn & Shepard, PC v. Allen, No. 10-1417 (S. Ct.) (December 23, 2011)
Brief of the United States as amicus curiae, in which both the FTC and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau joined, urging the Supreme Court to deny a writ of certiorari and let the ruling of the court of appeals stand. The brief argues that the court of appeals correctly rejected a debt collector's argument that its communications to a consumer's attorney were categorically excluded from the coverage of section 808(1) of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

St. Joseph Abbey, et al. v. Castille, et al., No. 11-30756 (5th Cir.) (December 16, 2011)
Brief of the Federal Trade Commission, as amicus curiae, submitted to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in a case challenging Louisiana state restrictions on the sale of caskets. The brief does not take a position on the constitutionality of those restrictions, but refutes the argument that the policies of the Commission's Funeral Rule support restrictions of this sort.

Martha Vassalle, et al. v. Midland Funding, LLC, et al., No. 3:11-cv-00096 (N.D. Ohio) (June 21, 2011)
Amicus Brief of the Federal Trade Commission before the Northern District of Ohio, expressing concerns that the proposed class action settlement agreement preliminarily approved by the Court is unfair to consumers and should be rejected. The proposed settlement agreement includes a “Class Release” provision that the FTC argues could deprive over a million consumers of their existing rights to challenge improper judgments entered against them, to defend themselves in ongoing debt collection actions, and to vindicate violations of collections laws in state and federal court by the Defendants. In exchange for losing these substantive rights, under the proposed settlement consumers would only receive a nominal payment, capped at $10, if they filed a claim form. The FTC further argues that the proposed settlement exposes consumers to additional harm because it does not restrict the ability of the Defendants to use or sell class members’ contact and personal bank information disclosed in the claims process.

In re K-Dur Antitrust Litigation, Nos. 10-2077, 10-2078, 10-2079 (3d Cir.) (May 18, 2011)
Amicus brief before the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, supporting plaintiffs/appellants and urging reversal of a decision by the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. That decision dismissed federal antitrust claims brought by direct and indirect purchasers of the drug K-Dur, a blood pressure medication. Plaintiffs alleged that, when K-Dur’s manufacturer, Schering Plough Corp., settled patent infringement litigation that it had brought against two generic drug companies, the settlement agreements, which restricted the generic companies from marketing their generic versions of K-Dur and provided for payments from Schering to the generic companies, violated the antitrust laws. The district court granted the drug companies’ motions for summary judgment on the grounds that the patent at issue trumped any application of the antitrust laws. In particular, the court held that there was no antitrust violation because the agreements settling the infringement litigation applied only to the generic versions of K-Dur, and did not restrict the marketing of those generics beyond the expiration date of Schering’s patent. In its amicus brief, the Commission argues that the district court’s decision is inconsistent with the antitrust laws and the Hatch-Waxman Act. The Commission further argues that such exclusion-payment settlements should be treated as presumptively unlawful.

2010

TiVo, Inc. v. EchoStar Corporation, Echostar DBS Corporation, Echostar Technologies Corporation, Echosphere Limited Liability Company, Echostar Satellite LLC, and Dish Network Corporation, No. 2009-1374 (Fed Cir.) (August 2, 2010)
Brief of the Federal Trade Commission as amicus curiae, before the en banc United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in a case concerning the standards applicable when a patentee moves for contempt of a previously-entered injunction against acts of infringement.  A divided Federal Circuit panel held that a district court had properly evaluated Echostar’s post-judgment conduct in contempt proceedings, and that it infringed TiVo’s patents despite its design-around efforts. The FTC’s brief supports neither of the parties, but urges the Federal Circuit, when crafting the standards for triggering contempt rather than requiring a new infringement trial, to consider how making summary contempt proceedings and contempt sanctions too easily available could dampen incentives for follow-on innovation, while at the same time, enforceable injunctions can also be an important prerequisite to innovation and entry.

Arkansas Carpenters Health and Welfare Fund, et. al v. Bayer AG, et. al (In re Ciprofloxacin Hydrochloride Antitrust Litigation), No. 05-2851 & 05-2852 (2nd Cir.) (May 20, 2010)
An amicus brief in support of plaintiffs-appellants’ petition for rehearing en banc.  The case concerns a court of appeals panel decision upholding the dismissal of an antitrust challenge to a Hatch-Waxman patent settlement.  Because of the “exceptional importance” of the issues involved, however, the panel also invited appellants to file a petition for rehearing en banc, in order for the full court to reconsider a circuit precedent that bound the panel’s decision.  The Commission argues that the earlier circuit decision, In re Tamoxifen Citrate Antitrust Litig., 466 F.3d 187 (2d Cir. 2005), was based on mistaken assumptions about the pharmaceutical industry, which has contributed to a proliferation of exclusion-payment settlements such as the one at issue in the current case, and that the Tamoxifen panel decision did not properly consider the Hatch-Waxman Act, which encourages challenges to pharmaceutical patents to facilitate the early entry of generic drugs.  The Commission urges the court of appeals to rehear the current case en banc, in order to correct that earlier circuit precedent.

E.I. Du Pont De Nemours and Co. v. Kolon Industries, Inc., Nos. 10-1103, 10-1275 (4th Cir.) (May 4, 2010)
Joint brief of the United States and the Federal Trade Commission, as amici curiae before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in support of vacatur and remand.  The case involves the proper definition of the relevant geographic market in an antitrust counterclaim under Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2, arising out of a trade dispute between the parties.  The district court dismissed defendant’s counterclaim for failure to allege a proper geographic market, holding, as a matter of law, that a relevant geographic market in an antitrust case must be defined to include not only the locations of customers put at risk by the alleged anticompetitive conduct but also the locations of production for all supplies of the relevant product available to those customers.  In their brief, the antitrust agencies urge the court of appeals to vacate the district court’s ruling and remand the case for further consideration of the sufficiency of defendant’s geographic market allegations under the proper legal standard.

INEOS AMERICAS LLC v. THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY Nos. 09-3854-cv(L), 09-4026-cv(xap) (2nd Circuit) (April 6, 2010)
Amicus brief filed in the United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, at the invitation of the Court concerning issues presented by an appeal in an ethylene oxide supply contract dispute between INEOS Americas LLC and The Dow Chemical Company. The brief discusses important public interests in promoting competition and consumer welfare that the Commission sought to advance in the merger proceedings stemming from The Dow Chemical Company’s 2001 acquisition of Union Carbide Company. Dow’s divestiture of its ethanolamines business to INEOS was part of the merger remedy required by the Commission in that case, and ethylene oxide is a key feedstock for that business. While taking no position on the ultimate disposition of the contract law issues before the Court, including that of specific performance, the Commission addresses the merger enforcement context in which the supply contract under dispute arose. The Commission states that, to the extent the Court deems public interest considerations pertinent to the issues before it, those interests would be served by a contract remedy that will ensure that INEOS has access to supplies of ethylene oxide that will promote its ability to remain an active and dynamic competitor.

Princo Corp. v. International Trade Commission, No. 2007-1386 (Fed. Cir., en banc) (Feb. 16, 2010)
Brief of the Federal Trade Commission as amicus curiae, before the en banc United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in a case concerning an appeal of an International Trade Commission order banning the import of certain compact discs on the grounds that the importer, Princo Corp., infringed patents held by Philips Corporation. A divided Federal Circuit panel had held that the patents were unenforceable because Philips committed “patent misuse” by conspiring with another company to impose licensing restrictions that had the effect of blocking the development of alternative technologies and stifling potential competition. The FTC’s brief supports neither of the parties, but urges the en banc Federal Circuit, to the extent it draws on antitrust law to address the “patent misuse” claim, to recognize that pro-competitive efficiencies may justify some competitive restraints, but only if they are reasonably necessary to enable the companies to engage in productive collaboration, such as a joint venture to develop new technologies. The brief also emphasizes that, under the flexible “rule of reason” analysis used in antitrust cases, some “inherently suspect” business practices may be deemed anticompetitive without any elaborate analysis of market power or proof of actual harm to competition.

2009

Jerman v. Carlisle, McNellie, Rini, Kramer & Ulrich LPA, et al., No. 08-1200 (S. Ct.) (Sept. 25, 2009)
Joint brief of the United States and the Federal Trade Commission as amicus curiae supporting petitioner, and urging reversal of a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.  That court held that the bona fide error defense of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(c), could apply not just to clerical or mathematical errors, but also to errors of law.  The brief argues that errors of law do not satisfy the FDCPA’s requirements for a “bona fide error” because such errors are never “not intentional,” and because a debt collector cannot maintain procedures reasonably adapted to avoid errors of law.  The brief also argues that the provision was based on an identical provision in the Truth in Lending Act, which excludes errors of law.

American Needle, Inc. v. National Football League, et al., No. 08-661 (S. Ct.) (Sept. 25, 2009)
Joint brief of the United States and the Federal Trade Commission as amicus curiae in a case concerning whether the National Football League and its member teams’ collective actions can be exempt from antitrust review under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, which prohibits unreasonable restraints of trade. The brief urges the Supreme Court to vacate the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, which had upheld a district court’s summary judgment in favor of the NFL and its separately owned teams on the grounds that they function as a “single entity” when licensing and marketing their logos and trademarks under an exclusive licensing agreement with Reebok International Ltd. The brief states that the conduct of joint ventures, such as the NFL, is generally concerted action under Section 1. In discussing whether a sports league and its member teams should be deemed to function as a “single entity” for purposes of Section 1’s concerted action requirement, the brief demonstrates that such treatment is only appropriate if two conditions are satisfied. First, the teams and the league must have effectively and legitimately merged the relevant aspect of their operations, thereby eliminating actual and potential competition among the teams and between the teams and the league in that operational sphere; and second, the challenged restraint must not significantly affect actual or potential competition among the teams or between the teams and the league outside their merged operations. In addition to asking the Supreme Court to vacate the judgment, the brief asks that the case be remanded for further proceedings and application of the correct legal standard for single-entity analysis.

American Needle, Inc. v. National Football League, et al., No. 08-661 (S. Ct.) (May 28, 2009)
Joint brief of the United States and the Federal Trade Commission as amicus curiae urging the Supreme Court to deny certiorari in this case, in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that the National Football League (NFL) and its separately owned, member teams functioned as a “single entity” when licensing and marketing their logos and trademarks under an exclusive licensing agreement with Reebok International, Ltd. The plaintiff, American Needle, had alleged that the agreement was unlawful under Section 1 of the Sherman Act as concerted conduct in restraint of trade. The NFL and its members teams argued that their conduct was that of a “single entity” under the Copperweld doctrine (Copperweld Corp. v. Independence Tube Corp., 467 U.S. 752 (1984)). The brief argues that the case does not merit Supreme Court review because of an absence of a split among the courts of appeals and because it does not represent an appropriate vehicle for ruling whether a sports league and its member teams (or generally any joint venture and its participants) should be deemed to function as a “single entity.”

2008

Altria Group, Inc., et al. v. Good, et al., No. 07-562 (S. Ct.) (June 18, 2008)
Joint brief of the United States and the Federal Trade Commission as amicus curiae before the Supreme Court, in support of respondents and urging affirmance of the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.  That decision held that respondents’ claims under the Maine Unfair Trade Practices Act were not expressly preempted by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act, or impliedly preempted by various actions taken by the Federal Trade Commission.  Respondents alleged that, by describing two brands of cigarettes petitioners sold as “Lights” and “Lowered Tar and Nicotine,” petitioners falsely claimed that those brands were less harmful.  In the brief, the agencies argue that respondents’ lawsuit would not undermine the Commission’s policies.  The brief further explains that neither through industry guidance nor through consent agreements has the Commission ever required the disclosure of a brand’s tar and nicotine yields, or authorized the use of descriptors such as “Lights,” or “Lowered Tar and Nicotine.”

In re Ciprofloxacin Hydrochloride Antitrust Litigation, No. 08-1097 (Fed. Cir.) (January 25, 2008)
Amicus brief before the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in support of appellants and urging reversal of a decision by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York dismissing plaintiffs-appellants' federal antitrust claims on the ground that defendants' challenged patent settlement agreement was immunized by the patent laws. The case, filed by direct and indirect purchasers of the wide-spectrum antibiotic drug ciprofloxacin hydrochloride (“Cipro”), involves agreements between defendants Bayer AG and its U.S. subsidiary Bayer Corporation – manufacturer of Cipro and assignee of U.S. Patent No. 4,670,444 which claims the active ingredient in Cipro – and generic manufacturers Barr Laboratories, Inc., The Rugby Group, Inc., Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., and Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Under the terms of those agreements (executed in January 1997), Bayer paid the generic companies approximately $398 million in exchange for their agreements not to manufacture any form of Cipro and for Barr’s agreement to terminate its challenge to Bayer's patent by converting its Abbreviated New Drug Application for a generic form of Cipro to permit Barr to market its generic drug only upon expiration of the ‘444 patent in December 2003. In its amicus brief, the Commission argues that the district court's ruling is not compelled by the patent laws, and it conflicts with fundamental antitrust principles.

2007

In re DDAVP Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation, No. 06-5525 (2nd Cir.) (May 25, 2007)
Joint brief of the United States and the Federal Trade Commission, as amici curiae before the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in support of plaintiffs-appellants, who were direct purchasers of the prescription brand-name drug DDAVP. Plaintiffs had brought this putative class action under Section 4 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 15, alleging that defendants Ferring B.V. and Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Inc., who owned the patent for desmopressin acetate -- the active ingredient in DDAVP, and Aventis Pharmaceuticals, Inc., the patent's exclusive licensee in the United States, violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2, by maintaining and enforcing a patent procured by intentional fraud on the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO). In their brief, the antitrust agencies urge the court of appeals to reverse the district court's holding that plaintiffs lacked antitrust standing to bring monopolization claims against defendant drug manufacturers arising out of the manufacturers' maintenance and enforcement of a patent allegedly procured through intentional fraud on the PTO (a so-called "Walker Process" antitrust claim).

In re Petition for Review of Committee on Attorney Advertising Opinion 39, No. 60,003 (N.J. S. Ct.) (May 9, 2007)
Brief of the Federal Trade Commission, as amicus curiae, urging the New Jersey Supreme Court to vacate a ruling of the Committee on Attorney Advertising appointed by that Court, which had ruled that advertisements by attorneys publicizing their designation by organizations as “Super Lawyers,” “Best Lawyers in America,” or the like are impermissible. The Commission pointed to the beneficial effects that non-deceptive advertising by attorneys can have for consumers of legal services and the availability of other means of assuring that attorney ratings are not used deceptively. The Commission further urged the Court to amend its Rules of Professional Conduct to clarify that only false or misleading comparative advertisements by attorneys are prohibited.

Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc. d/b/a Kay's Kloset ... Kay's Shoes, No. 06-480 (S. Ct.) (January 22, 2007)
Joint brief of the United States and the Federal Trade Commission, as amicus curiae, urging the Supreme Court to reverse a court of appeals ruling that declared unlawful per se a minimum resale price maintenance (RPM) agreement between defendant manufacturer and its plaintiff-retailer, in reliance on Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. John D. Park & Sons Co., 220 U.S. 373 (1911). In the brief, the agencies argue that the rule of Dr. Miles -- the only remaining per se prohibition against vertical restraints -- should be overturned in light of the Supreme Court's modern antitrust jurisprudence, which employs the rule of reason as the primary analytical framework in Section 1 cases, and the current economic teaching, which recognizes the potentially mixed competitive effects of RPM agreements.

Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC v. Billing, No. 05-1157 (S. Ct. January 22, 2007).
Joint brief of the United States, the Federal Trade Commission, and the Securities and Exchange Commission, as amicus curiae, addressing the application of the antitrust laws to activities subject to SEC regulation. The brief argues that collaborative underwriting activities occurring during the initial public offering of securities that are expressly or implicitly authorized under the securities laws, as well as conduct inextricably intertwined with such activities, are immune from the antitrust laws. It also cautions that antitrust claims in the securities context must be carefully scrutinized to ensure that legitimate underwriting activities are not chilled by vague or conclusory allegations of impermissible conduct. At the same time, the brief cautions that not all underwriting activities occurring in connection with an initial public offering enjoys a blanket antitrust exemption. The brief urges the Court to vacate the lower court rulings, neither of which struck the appropriate balance between the interests of both the antitrust and securities laws.

2006

Safeco Ins. Co. v. Burr; GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. v. Edo, Nos. 06-84, 06-100 (S. Ct. November 13, 2006)
Joint brief of the United States and the Federal Trade Commission, as amici curiae in these consolidated cases, urging vacatur and remand in Safeco, and reversal in GEICO. The brief argues that, under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the phrase “willful noncompliance” encompasses both knowing violations and reckless disregard for the law. The brief also argues that an insurance company must provide an applicant with an adverse action notice whenever that company offers a consumer a higher rate than it would have offered if the consumer’s report had been more favorable.

Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Ross-Simmons Hardwood Lumber Co., No. 05-381 (S. Ct.) (August 25, 2006)
Joint brief of the United States and the Federal Trade Commission, as amici curiae, urging the Supreme Court reverse a court of appeals ruling that the standard for a predatory pricing claim articulated by the Supreme Court in Brooke Group Ltd v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 509 U.S. 209 (1993), did not apply to a case in which the plaintiff alleged “predatory bidding” in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, and approved instructions that allowed a jury to find a violation based on subjective assessments of factors such as “fairness” and “necessity.” The brief argues that the economic and prudential concerns that underlie the Supreme Court’s decision in Brooke Group also apply to claims of predatory bidding, and that the court of appeals therefore erred in holding that a plaintiff need not show that the defendant suffered a loss in the short term or that it had a dangerous probability of recouping its losses in the long term.

Latino Quimica-Amtex S.A., et al. v. Atofina S.A. et al., No. 05-5754-cv (2d Cir.) (June 2, 2006)
Joint brief of the United States and the Federal Trade Commission, as amici curiae, addressing the proper application of the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act where a foreign plaintiff's claimed injury from an alleged antitrust conspiracy does not arise from the effects of that conspiracy on U.S. commerce. This brief was provided in response to an order from the Second Circuit. It argues that the district court properly dismissed plaintiffs' complaint for lack of jurisdiction, and that plaintiffs' claims represent an attempt to expand the Sherman Act's scope that is contrary to the FTAIA.

Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Ross-Simmons Hardwood Lumber Co., No. 05-381 (S. Ct.) (May 26, 2006)
Joint brief of the United States and the Federal Trade Commission, as amici curiae, urging the Supreme Court to grant certiorari in this case, in which the court of appeals held that the standard for a predatory pricing claim articulated by the Supreme Court in Brooke Group Ltd v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 509 U.S. 209 (1993), did not apply to a case in which the plaintiff alleged “predatory bidding” in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, and approved instructions that allowed a jury to find a violation based on subjective assessments of factors such as “fairness” and “necessity.” The brief argues that the economic and prudential concerns that underlie the Supreme Court’s decision in Brooke Group also apply to claims of predatory bidding, and that the court of appeals therefore erred in holding that a plaintiff need not show that the defendant suffered a loss in the short term or that it had a dangerous probability of recouping its losses in the long term.

Whitfield v. Radian Guaranty, Inc., No. 05-5017 (3d Cir.) (March 14, 2006)
In this amicus brief supporting consumers a case under Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"), the The Commission argues that the district court erred in holding that a mortgage insurance company was not required to provide a consumer with an FCRA adverse action notice even though, as a result of information in a consumer report, the insurance company charged a higher premium for mortgage insurance, and that premium was paid by the consumer. The brief explains that the FCRA requires such a notice because the insurance company's action relates to the consumer, even though the consumer is not the beneficiary of the policy. The brief further explains that a balancing test applied by the district court is contrary to the FCRA's requirements.

Chavez v. Netflix, Inc., No. CGC-04-434884 (Super. Ct. San Francisco County, Cal.) (Jan. 5, 2006)
In this amicus brief opposing a proposed settlement of a class action by Netflix customers, the Commission raises two concerns. First, because the settlement involves limited-time free service or service upgrades that automatically continue at the consumer’s expense unless cancelled, it would serve more as a promotional vehicle for Netflix than a means of providing redress to consumers, and could leave some consumers in a worse position than if they had decided not to participate. Second, the notice to class members does not adequately inform them about the existence of the negative option, and the settlement agreement does not require disclosure of the terms of the negative option plan and fails to specify how consumers can cancel.

2005

In re Tamoxifen Citrate Antitrust Litigation, No. 03-7641 (2nd Cir.) (Nov. 30, 2005)
An amicus brief in support of plaintiffs-appellants’ petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc. The case concerns a decision by a divided panel of the appeals court upholding the dismissal, pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6), of an antitrust challenge to a Hatch-Waxman patent settlement between AstraZeneca, the manufacturer of a branded drug, and Barr Labs., an FDA applicant for a generic counterpart. The Commission argues that the panel did not properly consider the Hatch-Waxman Act, which encourages challenges to pharmaceutical patents to facilitate the early entry of generic drugs, and that, if not corrected, the panel decision would permit the holder of a challenged drug patent to harm competition, and thus consumers, substantially by impermissibly paying a would-be generic rival to stay off the market.

Texaco, Inc. v. Dagher, No. 04-805 (S. Ct.) (Sept. 12, 2005)
Joint brief of the United States and the Federal Trade Commission, as amici curiae, urging the Supreme Court to reverse a ruling of the court of appeals, which had held that an agreement between two owners of a joint venture, regarding the prices of products to be sold by the joint venture, in markets in which the partners themselves no longer participated, could constitute a per se violation of the Sherman Act.

Illinois Tool Works, Inc. v. Independent Ink, Inc., No. 04-1329 (S. Ct.) (Aug. 4, 2005)
Joint brief of the United States, the Federal Trade Commission, and the Patent and Trademark Office, as amici curiae, urging the Court to reverse the ruling of the court of appeals, which was based on a presumption that the possession of a patent conveys market power for purposes of adjudicating a claim of tying.

Texaco, Inc. v. Dagher, No. 04-805 (S. Ct.) (May 26, 2005)
Joint brief of the United States and the Federal Trade Commission, as amici curiae, urging the Supreme Court to grant certiorari in this case, in which the court of appeals held that an agreement between two owners of a joint venture, regarding the prices of products to be sold by the joint venture, in markets in which the partners themselves no longer participated, could constitute a per se violation of the Sherman Act.

Volvo Trucks North America, Inc. v. Reeder-Simco GMC, Inc., No. 04-905 (May 20, 2005)
Joint brief of the United States and the Federal Trade Commission, as amici curiae, urging the Supreme Court to reverse the judgment of the court of appeals, which upheld a verdict of unlawful price discrimination, despite the fact that plaintiff lost sales not to ostensibly favored Volvo dealers, but to dealers for other brands.

Empagran, S.A. v. Hoffmann-LaRoche, Ltd., No. 01-7115 (D.C. Cir.) (Feb. 16, 2005)
Joint brief of the United States and the Federal Trade Commission, as amici curiae, addressing the proper application of the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act. This brief, which was filed after the case was remanded by the Supreme Court, argues that plaintiff's so-called “alternative theory” of liability is legally insufficient to establish jurisdiction, and that the plaintiff’s complaint should be dismissed. The brief also argues that, even if there were jurisdiction, the case should be dismissed because plaintiff lacks standing.

Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Pfizer, Inc., No. 04-1186 (Fed. Cir.) (Feb. 8, 2005)
In this amicus brief in support of Teva’s combined petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc, the Commission argues that the court erred in affirming the district court’s dismissal of Teva’s complaint in this Hatch-Waxman Act case. The brief argues that the court applied the wrong test to assess jurisdiction under the Declaratory Judgment Act. The court only considered the likelihood that Teva would face a patent infringement suit, but failed to take account of the injury Teva will suffer. The brief argues that Teva will face injury even in the absence of a patent infringement suit because the FDA cannot approve Teva’s generic sertraline hydrochloride drug unless Teva can obtain a court decision regarding Pfizer’s patent.

2004

Edward H. Phillips v. AWH Corporation, No. 03-1269, 1286 (Fed. Cir.) (en banc) (Sept. 20, 2004)
Amicus Brief of the United States and the Federal Trade Commission addressing the proper methodology for construing the claims of a patent. This brief was filed in response to an order of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit taking the case en banc and inviting the government to submit its views on the questions of the en banc order. The brief argues that in construing patent claims a court should primarily rely on a patent’s intrinsic evidence (its description of the invention and its prosecution history) rather than dictionaries and other external sources. This approach is more likely to result in claim constructions that are closer to those used by the Patent Office in issuing patents and that reflect the inventions as described and enabled.

Ashby v. Farmers Group, Inc., No. 04-35394 (9th Cir.) (Sept. 7, 2004)
FTC amicus brief arguing that the district court erred in its interpretation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act when it held that an insurance company cannot take “adverse action” against a consumer, as that term is defined in the FCRA in connection with an initial offer of insurance. The brief points out that the district court’s interpretation of the Act is at odds with the most natural reading of the statutory language, as well as with both the central purpose and legislative history of the FCRA.

Empagran, S.A. v. F. Hoffmann-LaRoche, Ltd., No. 01-7115 (D.C. Cir.) (Sept. 9, 2004)
Joint brief of the United States and the Federal Trade Commission, as amici curiae, addressing the proper application of the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act. This brief is in response to an order issued by the D.C. Circuit, which called for supplemental briefing regarding what action that court should take upon remand of the case to it by the Supreme Court. At issue is whether there is jurisdiction to proceed on the so-called “alternative theory” of liability described by the Supreme Court. The brief argues that, in lieu of remanding the case to the district court, the D.C. Circuit should hold that the “alternative theory” is legally insufficient to establish jurisdiction, and that the plaintiff’s complaint should be dismissed.

American Bankers Ass’n v. Lockyer, No. 04-16334 (9th Cir.) (Aug. 12, 2004)
Joint amicus brief of the Federal Trade Commission, the Office of Thrift Supervision, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, and the National Credit Union Administration, arguing that the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act preempts provisions of a California statute.

Spano v. SAFECO Insurance Co, No. 04-35313 (9th Cir.) (Aug. 5, 2004)
The Commission argued that the district court erred in its interpretation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act when it held that an insurance company cannot take “adverse action” against a consumer, as that term is defined in the FCRA in connection with an initial offer of insurance. The brief points out that the district court’s interpretation of the Act is at odds with the most natural reading of the statutory language, as well as with both the central purpose and legislative history of the FCRA.

Cleveland Bar Ass’n v. Compmanagement, Inc., No. 04-0817 (Ohio S. Ct.) (Aug. 3, 2004)
Brief of the FTC as amicus curiae, in private action regarding whether non-lawyers who participate in the workers’ compensation process before the Industrial Commission of Ohio are engaged in the unauthorized practice of law.

Andrx Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Kroger Co., No. 03-779 (S. Ct.) (July 8, 2004)
Joint brief of the United States and the Federal Trade Commission, urging the Court to deny a writ of certiorari in this case, regarding private patent litigation and the legal standards applicable to “reverse payment” patent litigation settlements in the Hatch-Waxman context.

Jackson, Tennessee Hospital Co. v. West Tennessee Healthcare, Inc., No. 04-5387 (6th Cir.) (June 1, 2004)
Joint brief of the United States and the Federal Trade Commission urging reversal of district court order dismissing private antitrust action on grounds of the state action doctrine.

Cole v. U.S. Capital, Inc. et al., No. 03-3331(7th Cir.) (Apr. 15, 2004)
In this amicus brief, filed at the invitation of the court, the FTC argues that, although the Fair Credit Reporting Act permits a business to obtain a consumer report if it provides the consumer with a firm offer of credit or insurance, the law is not satisfied if the business provides the consumer with an offer that is merely a sham. Accordingly, the brief contends that the district court erred in holding that plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted when her complaint alleged that the offer in the ad she received was a sham. The brief also argues that the court erred when it dismissed, without addressing, plaintiff's allegation that statutorily-mandated disclosures, which were made in tiny type, were not clear and conspicuous.

Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Pfizer, Inc. No. 04-1186 (Fed. Cir.) (March 31, 2004)
The Commission argues that the district court erred by dismissing Teva's complaint against Pfizer in this Hatch-Waxman Act case. Teva sought a declaratory judgment that its generic version of sertraline hydrochloride would not infringe a patent held by Pfizer (or that the patent was invalid). The brief argues that the court applied the wrong test to assess jurisdiction. It failed to take account of the fact that, unless Teva can obtain a court decision regarding Pfizer's patent, the FDA cannot give Teva approval to market its generic drug until 180 days after the first generic applicant (Ivax Pharmaceuticals) enters the market with its version. The brief also explains that the district court’s holding will leave subsequent generic applicants (such as Teva) powerless to prevent brand-name manufacturers and first generic applicants from greatly delaying other generic manufacturers from entering the market.

Allen and Sharon Schneider v. Citicorp Mortgage, Inc. and Citicorp, CV 97-837 (NG)(CLP) (Eastern District of New York) (March 16, 2004)
Amicus brief objecting to a proposed settlement that called for consumers to be compensated with coupons for $100 off their next new mortgage or refinancing within the next two years in a case involving allegations that Citicorp violated the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act. The FTC argued it is extremely doubtful that the case satisfied the legal requirements for class certification, that the coupons were worth much less than their face value, and that the proposed counsel fee appears excessive in light of the likely low value of the settlement.

Willes v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co., No. 03-35848 (9th Cir.) (Feb. 19, 2004)
The Commission argued that the district court erred in holding that an insurance company cannot take “adverse action” against a consumer, as that term is defined in the Fair Credit Reporting Act, in connection with an initial offer of insurance. The brief disputes the district court’s holding, pursuant to which there would be no adverse action, even if, as a result information in a consumer report, the insurance company offered only a higher price or more onerous terms than it would have offered if the information in the report had been more favorable. The brief explains that the district court’s analysis is based on a misinterpretation of both the Act’s wording and its legislative history.

F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd., et al. v. Empagran S.A. No. 03-724 (S. Ct.) (Feb. 3, 2004)
Joint brief of the United States and the Federal Trade Commission, as amici curiae, supporting petitioner Hoffmann-La Roche, and arguing that, under the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act, federal courts lack jurisdiction when a foreign plaintiff's claimed injury from an alleged antitrust conspiracy does not arise from the effects of that conspiracy on U.S. commerce. The brief also argues that prudential considerations support the conclusion that such actions are not properly brought in United States courts.

Rausch v. The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc., No. 03-35695 (9th Cir.) (Jan. 22, 2004)
The Commission argued that the district court erred in holding that an insurance company does not take “adverse action” against a consumer, as that term is defined in the Fair Credit Reporting Act, when, based on information in a consumer report, the insurance company sets a price for insurance that is higher than the price it would have charged if the information had been more favorable. The brief explains that the district court misinterpreted both the wording of the Act and its legislative history when it held that there can be no “increase” in the price that an insurance company charges to a new customer regardless of the price that other customers are charged.

2003

Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Ass’n, No. 03-5245 (6th Cir.) (Nov. 13, 2003)
In this amicus brief, the FTC argues that a district court erred in holding that, because a private association of secondary schools had been deemed a state actor for constitutional purposes, it was protected by the antitrust state action doctrine. The brief explains that, in the antitrust context, “state action” narrowly refers only to actions undertaken in conformity with a policy clearly articulated by the sovereign state itself. The brief further explains that the alleged anticompetitive conduct here is not protected by the state action doctrine, because the state has not clearly articulated any such policy to displace competition.

Pruitt v. Kaufman and Broad Home Corp. et al., No. 5:03-CV-021 (S.D. Tex., Laredo Division) (August 19, 2003)
Amicus brief, requested by the Court, addressing whether a private party has standing as a third party beneficiary to enforce a consent decree between the Federal Trade Commission and the defendant. The amicus brief explains that Supreme Court precedent, and subsequent cases interpreting it, have either foreclosed the possibility of third-party enforcement of government consent decrees or have at least limited third party enforcement to circumstances that are not present in this case. The brief also describes the Federal Trade Commission’s continuing efforts to address the matters pending between the Commission and the defendant.

On Review of UPL Advisory Opinion, No. 2003-2, No. S03U1451 (Ga. S. Ct.) (July 28, 2003)
Joint amicus brief of the United States and the Federal Trade Commission, urging the Georgia Supreme Court to reject a ruling by the Georgia State Bar Standing Committee on the Unlicensed Practice of Law, which had determined that real estate closings must be conducted by licensed attorneys. The brief points out that allowing non-lawyers to conduct closings is likely to lower prices and increase consumer choice, and that there is no indication that such lay closings will harm consumers in any way.

Haese v. H & R Block, Inc., No. CV-96-423 (Tex. 105th Dist., Kleberg Cty.) (June 4, 2003)
Amicus brief addressing proposed class action settlement, advising the court of the Commission's views on the difficulty of assessing the value of class relief based on coupons, and the need to evaluate the high level of attorney's fees requested here ($49 million) in light of the actual benefit to consumers and the likely strength of the consumers' claims.

Dee-K Enterprises, Inc. v. Heveafil Sdn. Bhd., No. 02-649 (S. Ct.) (May 27, 2003)
Joint amicus brief of the United States and the Federal Trade Commission, urging the Court to deny the petition for certiorari. The brief explains that, although the court of appeals applied the wrong test in concluding that the Sherman Act did not apply to a global price-fixing conspiracy, the case is not appropriate for plenary review in light of the insufficient development of the record below and the absence of any conflict in the circuits on the questions presented.

Verizon Communications Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP, No. 02-682 (S. Ct.) (May 23, 2003)
Joint amicus brief of the United States and the Federal Trade Commission, urging reversal of the court of appeals' ruling, which had permitted a case to go forward under Section 2 of the Sherman Act, based on "essential facilities" and "monopoly leveraging" theories, despite the failure of plaintiff to allege exclusionary conduct under general Section 2 principles.

Empagran S.A. v. F. Hoffmann-LaRoche, Ltd., No. 01-7115 (D.C. Cir.) (Mar. 24, 2003)
Joint brief of the United States and the Federal Trade Commission, as amici curiae, addressing the proper application of the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act where a foreign plaintiff's claimed injury from an alleged antitrust conspiracy does not arise from the effects of that conspiracy on U.S. commerce.

SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp., No. 99-CV-4304 (E.D. Pa.) (Jan. 28, 2003)
Memorandum of the Federal Trade Commission, as amicus curiae, addressing the propriety of de-listing a patent from FDA's "Orange Book," as a remedy for patent invalidity. The brief explains that improperly-maintained Orange Book listings may serve as a barrier to competition, and that there may be substantial consumer benefits to a de-listing remedy.

2002

Ryan, Attorney General of Illinois v. Telemarketing Assocs., Inc. No. 01-1806 (Dec. 24 , 2002)
Amicus brief of the United States and the Federal Trade Commission, urging the reversal of a state supreme court order that upheld the dismissal of a state enforcement action against a for-profit telemarketer, where the telemarketer retained 85 percent of the funds ostensibly raised for charitable purposes and the state alleged intentional fraud.

Verizon Communications Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko No. 02-682 (Dec. 16, 2002)
Amicus brief of the United States and the Federal Trade Commission, urging the grant of Supreme Court review in this case, to determine whether the court of appeals incorrectly invoked theories of "essential facilities" and "monopoly leveraging" to reverse dismissal of a claim against an alleged monopolist. [PDF 111K]

Powers v. Harris, No. CIV-01-445-F (Sept. 5, 2002)
Memorandum of the Federal Trade Commission, as amicus curiae, submitted to the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, in a case challenging Oklahoma state restrictions on the sale of caskets. The memorandum does not take a position on the constitutionality of those restrictions, but explains why the policies of the Commission's Funeral Rule do not lend support to restrictions of this sort. [PDF 39K]

George Carter, et al. v. ICR Services, Inc., d/b/a National Credit Repair (Northern Dist. Of Ala.) (Aug. 14, 2002)
Amicus brief objecting to the proposed settlement’s claims process and the size of the proposed counsel fee in a case involving the allegedly deceptive marketing of credit repair services. The Commission argued that the claims process was unfair to certain class members and that the proposed legal fee for class counsel was excessive and would deplete the defendants’ resources and affect the FTC’s ability to obtain redress in its own broader case.

Michael Erikson v. Ameritech Corporation No. 99CH 18873 (Consolidated with 99 CH 11536, 00 L 011474, 00L 00500, 01 CH 3373 (June 2002)
Amicus memorandum for the Federal Trade Commission opposing approval of a class action settlement, which included a large award of attorney's fees while providing no substantial benefits to consumers [PDF 28KB]

In re: Buspirone Antitrust Litigation MDL Docket No. 1410 (JGK) (January 8, 2002)
Amicus brief for the Federal Trade Commission, supporting argument of generic drug manufacturer that allegedly wrongful listing of patents in the FDA's "Orange Book" is not immune from antitrust liability. [PDF 82KB]

Statoil ASA, Petitioner v. HeereMac V.O.F., et al. No. 00-1842 (January 2002)
Amicus brief for the United States and the Federal Trade Commission, urging denial of Supreme Court review in a case raising an issue regarding the extent to which a foreign plaintiff can invoke the Sherman Act for damages flowing from a conspiracy that also has effects on U.S. commerce [PDF 70KB]

In re: First Databank Antitrust Litigation Master File No. 1:01CV00879 (TPJ) (January 2, 2002)
Federal Trade Commission memorandum as amicus curiae (in the alternative to motion to intervene) to oppose grant of fees to private class action counsel, where much of the consumer recovery at issue resulted from the Commission's disgorgement action. [PDF 52K]

2001

State of Minnesota v. Fleet Mortgage No. 01-CV-48 ADM/AJB (Sept. 6, 2001)
Amicus brief for the Federal Trade Commission, supporting the State of Minnesota's authority to bring an action to enforce the Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act against a non-bank subsidiary of a national bank. [PDF 50KB]

TRW Inc., Petitioner v. Adelaide Andrews No.00-1045 (June 30, 2001)
Amicus brief for the United States and the Federal Trade Commission, supporting consumer's argument concerning application of statute of limitations to private action under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. [PDF 99KB]

2000

In Re: American Homestar of Lancaster, Inc. and Nationwide Housing Systems, Inc. No. 00-0722 (Oct. 16, 2000)
Amicus brief of the Federal Trade Commission in support of consumer's argument that claim under Magnuson Moss Warranty Act was not subject to mandatory arbitration. [PDF 45KB]

American Bioscience v. Bristol-Myers Case No. CV-00-08577 WMB (AJWx) (Sept. 2000)
Amicus brief before the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California regarding a proposed settlement between American Bioscience, Inc. (ABI) and Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. regarding the listing of a patent purportedly covering the cancer drug Taxol on the Food and Drug Administration’s Orange Book. The brief advises the court that, because the Commission had just initiated an investigation of the conduct of ABI and Bristol, the Commission was not taking a position with regard to appropriateness of listing the patent. The brief further explains the potential consequences of the proposed settlement on generic entry and the potential harm to consumers of delaying such entry. The brief expresses concern that the judicial finding that the settlement contemplates — that the patent meets the statutory requirements for listing in the Orange Book — will prejudice parties who may later challenge the listing. The brief requests the court to consider the ramifications for generic entry and the pendency of the Commission’s investigation before entering the order proposed by the parties. [PDF 56KB]

Toby Nelson v. Chase Manhattan Mortage Corporation, et al. No. 00-15946 (Jul. 21, 2000)
Amicus brief for the Federal Trade Commission supporting individual consumer's right to maintain a cause of action under the Fair Credit Reporting Act against an entity that furnishes information to a consumer reporting agency. [PDF 51KB]

Armstrong Surgical Center, Inc., Petitioner v. Armsrong County Memorial Hospital, et al. No. 99-905 (June 2, 2000)
Amicus brief for the United States and the Federal Trade Commission urging denial of Supreme Court review in a case raising the issue whether misrepresentations to state agency, in the course of petitioning activity, precludes a claim of immunity from antitrust liability. [PDF 83KB]

1999

Deborah Wilson v. Rental Research Services, Inc. No. 97-4386 (August 12, 1999)
Amicus brief of the Federal Trade Commission in support of consumer's claim against a consumer reporting agency, based on agency's duty to ensure maximum accuracy of credit report and to reinvestigate errors brought to its attention [PDF 59K]

1998

Alex Campos et al., v Ticketmaster Corporation No. 98-127 (Dec. 18, 1998)
Amicus brief for the United States and the Federal Trade Commission urging denial of Supreme Court review in a case raising the question whether individual ticket purchasers were barred, as indirect purchasers, from maintaining an antitrust action against a provider of ticket distribution services [PDF 45KB]

Nynex Corporation, et al., Petitioners v. Discon, Incorporated No. 96-1570 (May 1998)
Amicus brief for the United States and the Federal Trade Commission, urging vactatur of lower court ruling that held that a vertical agreement between a purchaser and a single supplier could constitute a per se unlawful boycott of a competing supplier, or a conspiracy to monopolize [PDF 80KB]

Nynex Corporation, et al., Petitioners v. Discon, Incorporated No. 96-1570 (Feb. 1998)
Amicus brief for the United States and the Federal Trade Commission, urging denial of Supreme Court review in a case raising issue whether seller can maintain antitrust action based on a conspiracy between a rival seller and a single buyer, a regulated monopolist, to raise prices to the monopolist's customers by circumventing regulatory constraints. [PDF 55KB]

Surgical Care Center v. Hospital Service District No. 1, No. 97-30887 (5th Cir.)
Amicus brief for the United States and the Federal Trade Commission as Amici Curiae in support of suggestion of rehearing en banc.

Shweizer v. Trans Union Corp., No. 97-7542 (2nd Cir.)
Amicus brief of the Federal Trade Commission addressing whether a collection letter that allegedly simulates a telegraph violates the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Charles v. Check Rite Ltd., Inc., No. 96-15995 (9th Cir.)

Duffy v. Landberg, No. 97-1560 (8th Cir.)

Snow v. Jesse L. Riddle, P.C., No. 97-4045 (10th Cir.)
Amicus briefs of the Federal Trade Commission addressing whether the Fair Debt Collection Act covers collection of dishonored checks.

State Oil Co. v. Khan, No. 96-871 (S.Ct.)
Amicus brief of the United States and the Federal Trade Commission addressing whether maximum resale price maintenance should be illegal per se.


Last Modified: Tuesday, October 9, 2012