With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". “fell squarely within the jurisdiction of the Commission’s law enforcement responsibilities” under § 5 of the FTC Act. Id. This Court can find no reason to depart from the Abbott Labs holding. Defendants attempt to distinguish Abbott Labs on the ground that it involved a per se antitrust violation (i.e. a price fixing agreement), instead of a “rule of reason” antitrust violation, but this argument is unconvincing. Although the permanent injunction proviso speaks of “proper cases,” there is nothing in the statute, regulations or case law restricting the statutory term “proper cases” to per se violations of the antitrust laws. Indeed, several courts have explicitly rejected such narrowing constructions. See, e.g., FTC v. Evans Products Company, 775 F.2d 1084, 1087 (9th Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>); FTC v. H.N. Singer, 668 F.2d 1107, 1111 (9th

A: holding that the state must prove criminal negligence for its homicide by vehicle statute even though the statute specifically states that any traffic violation is sufficient
B: holding that the ftc may proceed under  13b for any violation of a statute administered by the ftc
C: recognizing there is no authority to proceed against unknown persons in the absence of statute
D: holding that each mailing of a simulated check was a separate violation of an ftc order under the federal trade commission act
B.