OMITTED

What the news leaves out.

← Omitted front page

FTC Seeks Contempt Ruling Against Pharma Bro Martin Shkreli

4 sources · updated 2026-10-14
Left 75% Center 0% Right 25%
3 left · 0 center · 1 right

What happened

The Federal Trade Commission and seven states — New York, California, Illinois, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia — asked a federal judge in Manhattan to hold Martin Shkreli in contempt of a February 2022 civil injunction that permanently barred him from the pharmaceutical industry. That order followed a trial finding that Shkreli, through Vyera Pharmaceuticals, had blocked generic competition for the antiparasitic drug Daraprim after raising its price from $17.50 to $750 per tablet; he was also ordered to pay more than $64 million, a judgment the 2nd Circuit upheld in January 2024 and the Supreme Court left standing by declining review in October 2024. The filing alleges that after Shkreli’s May 2022 release from prison on a separate 2017 securities-fraud conviction, he traded shares in at least 60 pharmaceutical companies and publicly discussed the industry on YouTube, X, and Reddit. The FTC and states asked the court to order him to divest any remaining pharmaceutical stocks, pay a fine equal to profits from those trades without offsetting losses, and face escalating penalties including possible incarceration, and they asked his sister, Leonora Izerne, and his partner, Chelsea Voss, to preserve related evidence.
Sourcing check · Fully on the record · 4 articles

4 of 4 articles cite a named source for the story. It was on the record from the first report.

What these terms mean and how they're counted
On the record · names a source 4 of 4
On the record means the article cites a source by name for the story's main claim: a person, or an institution speaking officially, such as a company statement or a named agency's spokesperson. The opposite is an unnamed source. The count is how many of the counted articles cite at least one such source; the names are everyone named across them, each once however the articles spell it. Here: Federal Trade Commission, Daniel Guarnera, FTC, U.S. District Court in Manhattan, Supreme Court and 2nd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals
Primary evidence · cites a document or data 4 of 4
Primary evidence means the article cites a record you could check yourself: a court filing or ruling, a dataset or report, a recording or transcript, an official statement or press release, market data. A quote is not a document. The count is how many articles cite one. Here: court filing, court order, court ruling, Supreme Court action
Credits another outlet 0 of 4
The article says the story comes from another outlet's reporting (“first reported by Reuters”). Those articles relay the story; they are not independent confirmation. Here: Each article presents its own reporting.
Unnamed sources 0 of 4
The main claim is attributed to people who are not identified: “people familiar with the matter”, “officials said”. The count is how many articles do this.
How it developed
When the first report landed and whether it named anyone; when the first named source and the first document appeared. Here: First report Oct 13, 15:21 UTC by Business Insider, naming its source. First document in the first report, from Business Insider (court filing).
Not counted 0
Opinion, analysis and video pieces, and articles too short to assess. Every count above is out of the counted articles. An article republished under a new headline is one article.
This is about who is cited, not whether the story is true. Each source below says what it names. How we count
Omitted — what each side leaves out

Unpacked

Left-leaning coverage omits the named short campaigns and claimed price moves that right-leaning coverage puts at the center of the contempt case. A public warning on Capricor Therapeutics was followed by a 17 percent drop, the New York Post reports. The same filing is described on the left as trading in pharmaceutical stocks and broadcasting opinions, so a reader of only CNBC never sees an allegation that his commentary moved a stock. The two sides attach the ban to different underlying cases. Right-leaning coverage folds it into the criminal file, with the New York Post tying that ban to his "notorious fraud conviction." Left-leaning coverage keeps the matters apart, and CNBC treats the civil Daraprim order as separate from that prosecution. None of the coverage quotes the 2022 injunction itself, so it is unclear whether personal trading and livestream stock talk were barred on the order's face.
Bottom line

CNBC never names the Capricor short; the New York Post does, and also pins the lifetime ban on his fraud conviction rather than the Daraprim civil order.

The receipts — 6 facts one side's coverage lacks
  • A public warning against Capricor Therapeutics was followed by a 17% drop in the stock numberin New York Post · absent from left-leaning coverage
  • Shkreli's brokerage account rose from $138,200 to $841,000 shortly before a Cassava Sciences trial announcement numberin New York Post · absent from left-leaning coverage
  • The $64.6 million Daraprim judgment remains unpaid numberin New York Post · absent from left-leaning coverage
  • The civil case that produced the lifetime ban is unrelated to the criminal securities-fraud case contextin CNBC · absent from right-leaning coverage
  • Regulators asked for a sworn accounting of all pharmaceutical trades since February 2022 and a financial audit at Shkreli's expense legal rulingin New York Post · absent from left-leaning coverage
  • FTC Commissioner Mark Meador said a lifetime industry ban is only effective if breaches are met with consequences commensurate with the seriousness of the order official statementin CNBC · absent from right-leaning coverage
The Left View
Left-leaning outlets present the motion as a test of whether a lifetime industry ban has force, quoting FTC competition director Daniel Guarnera that the agency “will not hesitate to enforce violations of court orders” and Commissioner Mark Meador that such a ban “is only effective if breaches are met with consequences commensurate with the seriousness of the order.” They tie the request to the original finding that Shkreli’s conduct “drove up prescription drug costs for American patients and blocked the entry of lower-cost generics,” describe the alleged trading and livestreaming as “flagrant” and “repeated,” and treat disclosed trades as “likely just the tip of the iceberg,” including his on-stream remark that he would not show other accounts because “feds are watching.”
The Right View
The New York Post frames the same filing around Shkreli’s public persona and on-camera bravado rather than consumer-protection doctrine, highlighting boasts that he is “the GOAT of binary events,” a claim that “[t]he last time I shorted a stock, I made $20 million bucks,” and a remark that a biotech stock “dropped a bunch since I recommended the short.” It dwells on specific alleged bets — including Cassava Sciences, around which an account is said to have risen from about $138,200 to $841,000, and a Capricor Therapeutics short that the filing says preceded a 17% drop, then a more than 370% rally that wiped out a Schwab account — and on personal color such as his son’s name, Torque “EZMONEY$TAXX” Shkreli. The Post also notes the request that Voss and Izerne preserve evidence and that Shkreli submit a sworn accounting and pay for a financial audit.
Our Take (balanced)
The left’s strongest argument is that the injunction is empty unless the court polices it: the ban followed a full trial on an anti-competitive Daraprim scheme, survived appeal through the Supreme Court’s denial of review, and Shkreli’s own livestreams of pharma trades and industry commentary are offered as open, repeated breaches. Right-leaning coverage does not contest those allegations; its strongest contribution is granular evidence of willful defiance — named shorts, boasts about moving markets, a reported $10 million trading challenge, and comments about concealing accounts — which, if credited, make the same breaches easier to prove while casting the case as character spectacle. The central unresolved tension is how far the 2022 ban reaches: into public stock trading and social-media commentary, as the FTC contends, versus what a judge will treat as actually “participating in” the pharmaceutical industry.

4 sources

More stories

The week's bottom lines, in your inbox

One email a week: the five stories that mattered and what they actually mean. Free.