Federal Trade Commission v. Church & Dwight Co.
665 F.3d 1312
D.C. Cir.2011Background
- FTC investigates Church & Dwight for potential monopoly in condom distribution via exclusionary practices, including bundling rebates with other products.
- Church & Dwight sells Trojan condoms and other products; it reportedly accounts for at least 70% of latex condoms sold in the U.S.
- FTC issued a Resolution Authorizing Use of Compulsory Process to conduct a nonpublic investigation.
- FTC issued a subpoena duces tecum seeking documents including condoms and other products; CID sought cost, pricing, production, and sales data for condoms in U.S. and Canada.
- Church & Dwight produced condom-related documents with non-condom product information redacted; petitioned to limit or quash the subpoena and CID; district court enforced the subpoena and CID.
- The district court held the information on non-condom products was reasonably relevant to the investigation and not unduly burdensome; Church & Dwight appealed on scope and relevance
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of Resolution encompasses non-condom products | Church & Dwight argues scope limited to condoms and would not include other products | FTC contends Resolution covers bundling of rebates for condoms and other products | Yes; Resolution encompasses investigation into bundling of rebates involving condoms and other products |
| Relevance standard for information sought | Church & Dwight claims the court used only plausibility, not reasonable relevance | FTC argues information must be reasonably relevant to the investigation | Yes; information must be reasonably relevant; district court's finding upheld |
| Proper interpretation of the materials sought | Church & Dwight contends materials sought were narrowly defined to condoms | FTC maintains broader scope; seeks all documents relevant to bundled rebates across products | District court not required to detail every document; breadth of scope upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Invention Submission Corp. v. FTC, 965 F.2d 1086 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (relevance standard for investigative subpoenas; deference to agency's authority)
- Texaco, Inc. v. FTC, 555 F.2d 862 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (subpoena enforceability when information is reasonably relevant and not unduly burdensome)
- Ken Roberts Co. v. FTC, 276 F.3d 583 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (courts defer to agency interpretations of investigative authority)
- Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Servs., Inc., 504 U.S. 451 () (tying and bundling concepts in antitrust context)
- LePage's, Inc. v. 3M, 324 F.3d 141 (3d Cir. 2003) (bundling rebates as potential exclusionary practice)
- FTC v. Carter, 636 F.2d 781 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (limits of agency’s scope under its authority)
- U.S. Int'l Trade Comm'n v. ASAT, Inc., 411 F.3d 245 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (legal standard for enforcement of investigative subpoenas)