From: "Smith, Kevin L" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2017 13:47:43 +0000

The full ruling in this case is interesting.  For one thing, the standard
the Court used in deciding to issue a preliminary injunction is quite low.
They acknowledge that they are using a standard that is more deferential to
the FTC than would be the case if the plaintiff seeking the PI was not a
federal agency.  Essentially they accepted the assertions made by the FTC
as fact, which would not be the case in any similar action involving a
private plaintiff.  So OMICS had very little room to defend itself.



Then, the preliminary injunction that was issued is very rigorous.  I dare
say that many traditional publishers would be in rough shape if they were
required to live up to the business practices and standards imposed by this
injunction.  I wonder if it has left the subscription publishers gleeful
(because a pesky competitor has been hamstrung) or worried?



Kevin



Kevin L. Smith, J.D.

Dean of Libraries

University of Kansas




*From:* LibLicense-L Discussion Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
*On Behalf Of *LIBLICENSE
From: Ann Shumelda Okerson <[log in to unmask]>

Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2017 23:12:22 -0500
Subject: US Federal Trade Commission & journals



Another government action related to journal publishing:


"A federal court has granted a preliminary injunction requested by the
Federal Trade Commission, temporarily halting the deceptive practices
of academic journal publishers charged by the agency with making false
claims about their journals and academic conferences, and hiding their
publishing fees, which were up to several thousand dollars.

"The preliminary injunction against OMICS Group Inc., iMedPub LLC,
Conference Series LLC, and their CEO, director, and owner, Srinubabu
Gedela stems from a complaint the FTC filed last year that names
Gedela and his three companies as defendants."

[SNIP]

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2017/11/
ftc-halts-deceptive-practices-academic-journal-publishers