FTC Pauses Adjudication Against Caremark as Parties Pursue Consent Agreement in PBM Case

Key Takeaways 

• The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Caremark have jointly moved to pause administrative litigation to allow review of a proposed consent agreement that could fully resolve the claims against Caremark.
• The case will continue against other pharmacy benefit manager (PBM) respondents, including OptumRx, signaling ongoing FTC enforcement across the sector.
• If accepted, the consent agreement could offer an early indication of the remedies and compliance expectations the FTC may pursue in its broader PBM crackdown.

The FTC has moved to temporarily halt administrative proceedings against Caremark Rx, LLC and Zinc Health Services, LLC to allow consideration of a proposed consent agreement that could resolve the agency’s claims against the pharmacy benefit manager (PBM) entities.
The joint motion, filed March 23, 2026, signals a potential early resolution pathway in the FTC’s broader enforcement action targeting several major PBMs and affiliated entities, including Express Scripts and OptumRx.

FTC and Caremark Seek to Resolve Claims Through Consent Agreement

Complaint counsel and the Caremark respondents jointly requested that the matter be withdrawn from adjudication under Docket No. 9437 to permit FTC review of a negotiated consent agreement. The agreement, already executed by both parties and approved by the FTC’s Bureaus of Competition and Consumer Protection, would resolve all claims against Caremark if accepted by the Commission.

Under FTC procedural rules, the administrative proceedings against Caremark would be stayed while the Commission evaluates whether to accept the proposed settlement.

Importantly, the proposed consent agreement remains nonpublic unless and until the Commission formally accepts it.

Proceedings Continue Against Other PBM Respondents

While the motion would pause litigation for Caremark, the FTC’s case remains active against other respondents, including OptumRx, OptumRx Holdings, and Emisar Pharma Services LLC.

This bifurcated posture highlights the FTC’s strategy of pursuing parallel tracks—settlement negotiations with some parties while continuing litigation against others—in its ongoing scrutiny of PBM business practices.

Heightened FTC Scrutiny of PBMs

The underlying FTC complaint (Docket No. 9437) is part of a broader regulatory effort to examine the competitive and consumer protection implications of PBM operations, including pricing, rebate structures, and formulary management practices.

Although details of the proposed consent agreement were not disclosed in the public filing, its approval by both the Bureau of Competition and the Bureau of Consumer Protection suggests that the settlement may address both antitrust and consumer protection concerns.

Implications for PBM Enforcement and Settlement Strategy

The move to withdraw Caremark from adjudication—pending potential settlement—may signal increased willingness among PBMs to resolve FTC allegations through negotiated agreements rather than prolonged administrative litigation.

At the same time, the continuation of proceedings against other major PBMs underscores that the FTC is unlikely to ease its broader enforcement posture in the sector.

If accepted, the consent agreement could provide early insight into the types of remedies or behavioral commitments the FTC may seek to impose on PBMs, potentially shaping compliance expectations across the industry.

Reference

Federal Trade Commission v Caremark Rx, LLC. Docket No. 9437. (FTC March 23, 2026). Joint Expedited Motion to Extend Stay. Accessed March 25, 2026. https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/615086.2026.03.23_joint_motion_to_withdraw_caremark_from_adjudication_public.pdf