We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. Learn more here.Close Me
Last week, the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") announced that CVS Caremark Corporation
("CVS") will pay $5 million to settle claims that it
misrepresented the actual prices of certain Medicare drugs.
The FTC alleged that CVS advertised prescription drug prices on
its own websites and other Medicare- and Medicaid-sanctioned
websites that were as much as ten times less than what consumers
were actually charged.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services offers a web
tool that calculates an individual's estimated drug costs based
on Medicaid-sanctioned prescription drug providers' advertised
prices. The FTC alleged that consumers chose to buy from CVS based
on the competitive pricing advertised through this web tool, but
then were ultimately forced to pay higher prices at the
register.
FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz said, "With the cost of health
care on the rise, the FTC is especially focused on protecting
consumers from any deceptive claims that would cause them to pay
more than they should." Significantly, the allegations
affected older and disabled Americans – classes of
individuals of whom the FTC is particularly protective.
The proposed settlement (which will be open for public comment
until February 13, 2012) requires CVS to pay $5 million to the FTC.
The FTC will mail checks to eligible harmed consumers.
As demonstrated in this case, health-related issues, as well as
consumers' financial health, continue to be a key focus of the
FTC's enforcement efforts. The FTC's allegations about
deceptive pricing practices are also a powerful reminder for
advertisers to ensure that offer terms are accurate and fully
disclosed both in their own advertising as well as in partner
advertising.
This alert provides general coverage of its subject area. We
provide it with the understanding that Frankfurt Kurnit Klein &
Selz is not engaged herein in rendering legal advice, and shall not
be liable for any damages resulting from any error, inaccuracy, or
omission. Our attorneys practice law only in jurisdictions in which
they are properly authorized to do so. We do not seek to represent
clients in other jurisdictions.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
Last week, by virtue of a 63-30 procedural vote, the Senate moved forward with a bill called the Marketplace Fairness Act, with a final Senate vote set for May 6, according to The Wall Street Journal.
Corporate tweeters or bloggers – employees who post promotional and often entertaining commentary on behalf of their employers’ businesses – add much of their own personal brand – their voice, their opinions, their snarky remarks – to the information they are disseminating on the company’s behalf.
No blog can really take itself seriously unless it's written about Lindsay Lohan. Plus our Marketing Department claims she'll do wonders for our search rankings.
In a First Report and Order, Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Notice of Inquiry released at the end of March in a proceeding begun in 2003, the Federal Communications Commission continued its comprehensive review of its rules, policies and procedures governing radiofrequency radiation and limits on exposure to human beings.
