To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
In April 2021, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) emphasized its commitment to protecting consumers from unsubstantiated claims of products advertised to prevent, treat or cure COVID-19. On April 29, 2021, the FTC announced an additional set of warning letters related to these types of claims. The FTC has now sent nearly 400 warning letters in ten sets to companies and individuals. According to the agency, “In the letters, the FTC states that one or more of the efficacy claims made by the marketers are unsubstantiated because they are not supported by scientific evidence, and therefore violate the FTC Act. The letters advise the recipients to immediately stop making all claims that their products can prevent or treat COVID-19, and to notify the Commission within 48 hours about the specific actions they have taken to address the agency’s concerns. Letters issued this year warn the recipients of the FTC’s new au
Posts were previously published in the ABA Business Law Section s
Business Law Today April Month-In-Brief.
Maryland Commissioner of Financial Regulation Asserts Action against Non-Maryland State Bank for Lending Without State License
By: Latif Zaman
On January 21, 2021, the Maryland Commissioner of Financial Regulation filed an administrative charge letter against an FDIC-insured, out-of-state, state chartered bank and its non-bank service providers in connection with the bank s consumer lending platform. Among other allegations, the Commissioner asserted that the bank was required to hold state lending licenses to originate loans to Maryland residents, despite the fact that Maryland law apparently prohibits the Commissioner from licensing banks. The defendants recently removed the case from the Maryland Office of Administrative Hearings to the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.
To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
On April 22, 2021, the Supreme Court issued its decision in the closely watched AMG Capital v. FTC case. The Court held unanimously that § 13(b) of the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914 (“FTC Act”), which provides that the “Commission may seek . . . a permanent injunction,” does not authorize the FTC to seek, or a court to award, equitable monetary relief such as restitution or disgorgement.
The AMG Capital opinion upends the FTC’s decades-long practice of seeking monetary relief directly in district courts under § 13(b) without first conducting administrative proceedings. While AMG Capital involved a consumer protection action, the FTC has used § 13(b) to obtain substantial monetary remedies in high profile antitrust cases as well. This decision forecloses that avenue, at least for now.
To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
The U.S. Supreme Court dealt a blow to the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) in a recent decision that eliminated the agency’s ability to seek monetary remedies in enforcement actions in federal court. This new ruling has significant implications for the FTC’s enforcement efforts, particularly in pharmaceutical antitrust cases involving “pay for delay” and similar practices. Following this sudden halt to an enforcement tool used for decades, Congress is considering legislation explicitly granting the FTC power to obtain equitable monetary remedies in federal court.
Jody Godoy
3 minute read
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp (FDIC) logo is seen at the FDIC headquarters as Chairman Sheila Bair announces the bank and thrift industry earnings for the fourth quarter 2010, in Washington, February 23, 2011. The banking industry continues to recover from the 2007-2009 financial crisis but lending will need to pick up if progress is to continue, Bair said on Wednesday. REUTERS/Jason Reed (UNITED STATES - Tags: POLITICS BUSINESS)
Bank of America has urged a federal judge in Washington, D.C., to apply a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling to limit the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp s claims in a case alleging the bank underpaid its deposit insurance by $1.1 billion.