> 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.
But isn’t that exactly what the law (specifically, 15 U.S.C. § 53(b). Section 13(b) of the FTC Act) requires in this case? It’s not like the Court just unilaterally decided to apply a lower standard, is it?
> Essentially they accepted the assertions made by the FTC as fact.
Well, no – the Court’s order (which can be found at http://bit.ly/2AHYA8b) indicates that the FTC provided extensive evidence, not just assertions. Statements to this effect include:
* “The evidence produced by the FTC demonstrates that Defendants engaged in probable misrepresentations regarding journal publishing.”
* “The FTC has provided evidence that Defendants’ peer review practices, in numerous instances, took a matter of days and contained no comments or substantive feedback.”
* “The FTC has also submitted evidence demonstrating that Defendants misrepresent the ‘impact factor’ of their journals (i.e. the number of citations in other reputable journals).”
* “The FTC has submitted evidence that Defendants misleadingly represent that their publications are indexed in well- known, reputable indexing services.”
> So OMICS had very little room to defend itself.
Not so. According to the order, OMICS was given the opportunity to respond to the FTC’s claims and to provide counterevidence on its behalf, and it did so. However, again according to the order, “the FTC has substantively responded to this evidence and demonstrated the numerous flaws and inaccuracies in Defendants’ representations. The Court therefore finds that the evidence in the record is sufficient to support a preliminary conclusion that Defendants made misrepresentations regarding their journal publishing.”
It sounds pretty reasonable to me – but I’m no attorney. What would you say are the flaws in the Court’s reasoning, Kevin?
---
Rick Anderson
Assoc. Dean for Collections & Scholarly Communication
Marriott Library, University of Utah
Desk: (801) 587-9989
Cell: (801) 721-1687
From:
LibLicense-L Discussion Forum <[log in to unmask]
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]
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-