Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Federal Trade Commission v. Qualcomm Incorporated [1] was a noted American antitrust case, in which the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) accused Qualcomm's licensing agreements as anticompetitive, mainly because their practices excluded competition and harmed competitors in the modern chip market, which according to the FTC, violated both Section 1 and Section 2 of the Sherman Act.
FTC v. Actavis, Inc., 570 U.S. 136 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court decision in which the Court held that the FTC could make an antitrust challenge under the rule of reason against a so-called pay-for-delay agreement, also referred to as a reverse payment patent settlement.
The Federal Trade Commission said that Meta's actions prevent consumers from enjoying the benefits of competition. [ 5 ] On December 8, 2020, the Federal Trade Commission , along with 46 US states (all excluding Alabama , Georgia , South Carolina , and South Dakota ), the District of Columbia and the territory of Guam , launched the antitrust ...
In 2012, the FTC reaffirmed the regulation. [5] The effect of the so-called "FTC Holder Rule" is to make "the holder of a consumer credit contract, whether it be a loan company, a bank or other concern, responsible for honoring all the obligations of the merchant who originally sold the goods". [3]
The Federal Trade Commission issued the rule in August banning the sale or purchase of online reviews. The rule, which went into effect Monday, allows the agency to seek civil penalties against ...
Two other Amway rules serve to prevent inventory loading and encourage the sale of Amway products to consumers. The "70 percent rule" provides that "[every] distributor must sell at wholesale and/or retail at least 70% of the total amount of products he bought during a given month in order to receive the Performance Bonus due on all products ...
The investigation marks another high-profile effort to rein in technology companies by the FTC's progressive chair, Lina Khan, days after the agency suffered a big loss in court in its fight to ...
Redemption page of an S&H Green Stamps booklet. Note the language on the lower right admonishing the consumer not to buy or sell the stamps. Federal Trade Commission v. Sperry & Hutchinson Trading Stamp Co., 405 U.S. 233 (1972), is a decision of the United States Supreme Court holding that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) may act against a company's “unfair” business practices even ...