There is no established court finding that Martin Shkreli violated his lifetime pharmaceutical-industry ban. On January 20, 2023, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and state co-plaintiffs asked the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to issue an order to show cause why he should be held in civil contempt. Regulators said he had not supplied documents or agreed to an interview during a compliance investigation involving the ban and Druglike, Inc. A contempt request is an allegation and a request for judicial action, not a judgment that contempt occurred.
What the FTC and states alleged
The FTC said Shkreli failed to comply with requests made while regulators were checking whether he obeyed a February 2022 order. That order permanently barred him from participating in the pharmaceutical industry. The agency and state plaintiffs asked the court to require him to explain the alleged noncompliance and to consider civil-contempt relief.
| # | Preview | Product | Price | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
|
Shoemaker Martin | $19.15 | Buy on Amazon |
| 2 |
|
Once Upon a Time in Shaolin | $11.29 | Buy on Amazon |
| 3 |
|
Pharma: Greed, Lies, and the Poisoning of America | $25.96 | Buy on Amazon |
| 4 |
|
The Stokes Purple Martin Book: The Complete Guide to Attracting and Housing Purple Martins (Stokes... | $16.55 | Buy on Amazon |
| 5 |
|
The Prince: a ChatGPT story | $19.99 | Buy on Amazon |
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
The FTC announcement described two categories of requested cooperation: production of documents and participation in an interview. It associated the compliance inquiry with Druglike, Inc. The announcement did not report that a judge had already ruled Shkreli in contempt.
“Martin Shkreli’s failure to comply with the court’s order demonstrates a clear disregard for the law,” FTC Bureau of Competition Director Holly Vedova said in the agency’s January 20, 2023 announcement. She also said the FTC would use its authority to investigate potential misconduct. Those are the regulator’s characterizations, not findings by a court.
#1 Best Overall
Allegation versus a court finding
An order-to-show-cause request starts a process. The requesting parties must identify the order they say was violated and the conduct they contend breached it. The defendant can respond, contest the facts, and raise legal objections. Only after the court considers the filings and evidence can it decide whether civil contempt occurred and what remedy, if any, is appropriate.
| Issue | What the available record establishes |
|---|---|
| FTC and states’ position | They asked for a civil-contempt process on January 20, 2023, alleging that Shkreli did not provide requested information or sit for an interview. |
| Underlying legal order | A February 4, 2022 order imposed a lifetime pharmaceutical-industry ban and $64.6 million in disgorgement after the Daraprim antitrust case. |
| Court finding on contempt | Not established by the materials available here; the FTC announcement itself was not a contempt judgment. |
| Separate 2026 filing | No distinct 2026 contempt filing is verified in the sources reviewed. |
How the lifetime ban arose
The contempt request concerned the remedy in a broader antitrust case, not a new Daraprim price-fixing trial. The FTC, New York and six other states sued Vyera Pharmaceuticals, Shkreli and other defendants beginning in January 2020 over conduct involving Daraprim, a drug whose price increase became a central part of the case.
Rank #2
The district court found Shkreli liable and ordered $64.6 million in disgorgement. The operative FTC case order is dated February 4, 2022 and permanently prohibits him from participating in the pharmaceutical industry. The New York Attorney General later described the Daraprim increase as more than 4,000 percent. That percentage and the disgorgement amount relate to the underlying antitrust judgment; they do not measure the contempt allegation.
Recommended Free Tools
Timeline of the case and appeals
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| January 2020 | The FTC, New York and six additional states brought the antitrust action concerning Daraprim against Vyera, Shkreli and others. |
| January 2022 | The district court found Shkreli liable and imposed the lifetime industry ban and monetary relief; the operative order is dated February 4, 2022. |
| January 20, 2023 | The FTC and state co-plaintiffs announced their request for an order to show cause in a civil-contempt matter, citing missing documents and an interview they said Shkreli had not provided. |
| January 23, 2024 | The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district-court judgment and lifetime ban. |
| October 7, 2024 | The New York Attorney General reported that the Supreme Court declined to hear Shkreli’s appeal, leaving the lower-court ruling in place. |
What is known—and not known—about the contempt matter
What is documented
- Regulators publicly sought a civil-contempt process on January 20, 2023.
- The alleged noncompliance involved information requests and an interview during monitoring of the lifetime ban.
- The inquiry was linked in the FTC announcement to Druglike, Inc.
- The lifetime ban itself survived appellate review: the Second Circuit affirmed it in January 2024, and the Supreme Court declined review in October 2024.
What should not be inferred
- The contempt request does not prove that Shkreli actually violated the ban.
- It does not show that a judge held him in contempt or imposed a contempt sanction.
- The available materials do not establish the final disposition of the 2023 contempt request.
- There is no verified separate 2026 contempt filing in the materials cited for this report.
Why the wording matters
“The FTC and states say” accurately describes a litigant’s allegation. “A judge found” or “Shkreli was held in contempt” would require a later judicial order. The appellate decisions and Supreme Court action addressed the underlying antitrust judgment and lifetime ban; they did not, by themselves, resolve every issue raised by the 2023 compliance request.
Rank #3
Readers looking for a final contempt outcome should consult the Southern District of New York docket or a later official FTC, state or court filing. Until such a document establishes the result, the careful conclusion is that regulators sought a contempt proceeding while investigating possible noncompliance, not that contempt was proven.
Quick Recap
Best Value
Rank #4
- Thorough work providing you information on caring for purple martins
- Paperback binding makes it convenient to take the book out with you
- Written by birding experts Lillian and Donald Stokes, along with Justin L. Brown
- Plenty of full color photos enhance the information
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
