Search:
  Contents    Legal Resources - Amicus Briefs
Edward H. Phillips v. AWH Corporation, Hopeman Brothers, Inc. and Lofton Corporation, , Case No. 97-MK-212 (CBS)
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Colorado.

Allen and Sharon Schneider v. Citicorp Mortgage, Inc. and Citicorp, CV 97-837 (NG)(CLP) (Eastern District of New York)
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.
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.

George Carter, et al. v. ICR Services, Inc., d/b/a National Credit Repair
(Northern Dist. Of Ala.)
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.

Spano v. Shannon Massey, and Charles Burr
, No. 04-35313 (9th Cir.)
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.

Cole v. U.S. Capital, Inc. et al.
, No. 03-3331(7th Cir.)
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.
 
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.
 
Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Pfizer, Inc. No. 04-1186 (Fed. Cir.)
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.
 
Willes v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co., No. 03-35848 (9th Cir.)
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.
 
Rausch v. The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc., No. 03-35695 (9th Cir.)
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.
 
Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Ass’n, No. 03-5245 (6th Cir.)
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.

 
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.
 
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.

 
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.

 
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]
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]
 
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]
 
Toby Nelson v. Chase Manhattan Mortage Corporation, et al. No. 00-15946
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]
 
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]
 
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]
 
TRW Inc., Petitioner v. Adelaide Andrews No.00-1045
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]
 
In Re: American Homestar of Lancaster, Inc. and Nationwide Housing Systems, Inc. No. 00-0722
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]
 
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]
 
Armstrong Surgical Center, Inc., Petitioner v. Armsrong County Memorial Hospital, et al. No. 99-905
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]
 
Alex Campos et al., v Ticketmaster Corporation No. 98-127
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]
 
State of Minnesota v. Fleet Mortgage No. 01-CV-48 ADM/AJB
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]
 
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 Updated: Thursday, September 30, 2004