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