Monday, April 26, 2021
On Thursday, the Supreme Court ripped away from the Federal Trade Commission’s preferred method of obtaining restitution and disgorgement from bad marketplace actors, ruling that § 13(b) of the Federal Trade Commission Act did not permit the FTC to directly seek court orders for monetary relief. Instead, the Court ruled in
AMG Capital v. FTC, the FTC must first go through the administrative procedures set forth in § 5 of the Act. Only once the administrative procedures have been satisfied can the FTC seek civil penalties, or other monetary relief under the consumer redress provision at § 19 of the Act.
The FTC has long used § 13(b), which authorizes the Commission to apply directly to a district court for a permanent injunction, to obtain court orders for restitution and other kinds of equitable monetary relief without first using the administrative procedures set forth in § 5 of the Act. The Supreme Court’s unanimous decision ended a ci
[co-author: Daniela Manzi]
On April 22, 2021, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision prohibiting the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) from using its preferred tool for regulating marketplace misconduct. The Court held that Section 13(b) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTCA), which allows the FTC to seek injunctive relief in federal court, does not extend to monetary relief in the form of restitution or disgorgement.
Sections 5 and 19 of the FTCA have long been used by the FTC to seek monetary damages through administrative proceedings. Section 13(b) gives the FTC the power to seek injunctive relief in federal court to halt deceptive practices that harm consumers. Since the late 1990s, the FTC has increasingly used Section 13(b) to pursue monetary awards against defendants.
U S Supreme Court Limits the FTC s Authority to Seek Monetary Relief in Deceptive Practices Enforcement Cases | Insights gtlaw.com - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from gtlaw.com Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.
Oops, watchdog doesn t actually have the power to do so, panel unanimously point out
Katyanna Quach Fri 23 Apr 2021 // 22:52 UTC Share
Copy
The US government s consumer watchdog cannot force scammers to return the money they cheated out of their victims, the Supreme Court declared unanimously this week.
All nine justices on America’s highest court ruled [PDF] against the Federal Trade Commission on Thursday and, instead, sided with payday loan firm AMG Capital Management LLC.
The business s founder Scott Tucker was criminally convicted in 2017 of setting illegal interest rates to extract hundreds of millions of dollars from people.
Specifically, Tucker and his lawyer were convicted of racketeering, wire fraud, and money laundering after setting up chains of payday lending companies charging up to 1,000 per cent interest on loans. Tucker is serving a 16 year, eight month prison sentence, with his lawyer Tim Muir getting eight years. The FTC also went
After the U.S. Supreme Court's Thursday decision hobbling the Federal Trade Commission's power to force fraudsters to quickly cough up illicit gains, the FTC and lawmakers are gearing up to restore the agency's authority though new legislation.