AMG Capital Management v. FTC - What Happened and What's Nex

AMG Capital Management v. FTC - What Happened and What's Next? | Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner


Summary
In a unanimous ruling, the Supreme Court recently eliminated the ability of the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) to seek monetary relief in district court under § 13(b) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (“FTC Act”) – a power the FTC has been exercising since the 1970s.
What Happened?
In
AMG Capital Management, LLC v. Federal Trade Commission, the FTC filed suit against Petitioner Scott Tucker under § 5(a) of the FTC Act for misleading consumers with certain terms of payday loans. Instead of first using the administrative proceedings available to the FTC under § 5 and § 19, the Commission sought a permanent injunction
and equitable monetary relief (i.e., restitution and disgorgement) in federal court under § 13(b). The FTC did so notwithstanding that the statute expressly authorizes only a “temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction” or a “permanent injunction.”

Related Keywords

Scott Tucker , Supreme Court , Capital Management , Justice Department Or Consumer Financial Protection Bureau , Trade Commission , Petitioner Scott Tucker , Ninth Circuit , Emergency Price Control Act , Fair Labor Standards Act , Acting Commissioner Slaughter , General Counsel , Commissioner Chopra , Justice Department , Consumer Financial Protection Bureau , ஸ்காட் டக்கர் , உச்ச நீதிமன்றம் , மூலதனம் மேலாண்மை , வர்த்தகம் தரகு , ஒன்பதாவது சுற்று , அவசரம் ப்ரைஸ் கட்டுப்பாடு நாடகம் , நியாயமான தொழிலாளர் தரநிலைகள் நாடகம் , ஜநரல் ஆலோசனை , ஆணையர் சோப்ரா , நீதி துறை , நுகர்வோர் நிதி ப்ரொடெக்ஶந் பணியகம் ,

© 2025 Vimarsana