Supreme Court Case Can FTC Make Businesses Pay for Cheating Consumers?
Supreme Court Case: Can FTC Make Businesses Pay for Cheating Consumers? 2020 Supreme Court Preview
(9th Cir. 2018),
cert. granted, 2020 WL 3865250 (U.S. July 9, 2020).
(7th Cir. 2019),
cert. granted, 2020 WL 3865251 (U.S. July 9, 2020). Oral Argument not yet scheduled. Issue: Whether Section 13(b) of the authorizes the Federal Trade Commission to seek an injunction that includes the defendant returning all unlawfully obtained money. The Supreme Court has agreed to hear two consumer protection cases about the remedies available to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) under the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC Act). The mission is to protect consumers by preventing unfair or deceptive business practices as well as unfair methods of competition. Section 13(b) of the FTC Act gives the agency the authority to seek a permanent injunction to stop these practices. . For more than 30 years, the FTC has argued, and federal courts have agreed, that an injunction under Section 13(b) can include restitution and other forms of monetary relief. See, e.g., . Indeed, disgorging ill-gotten gains from companies that violate the FTC Act is one of the FTC’s primary remedies. Thus, the Supreme Court’s decision will have profound implications for both the agency and consumers. The first case, AMG Cap. Mgmt., LLC v. Fed. Trade Comm’n, involves one of the largest payday lenders in the United States. In 2012, the FTC sued AMG Services, Inc. (AMG) under Section 13(b) for falsely claiming they would charge borrowers a loan amount plus a one-time finance fee. . Instead, AMG piled undisclosed fees onto their loan and then by threatening borrowers with arrest and lawsuits. A Nevada district court granted summary judgment to the FTC, enjoined AMG from engaging in similar conduct in the future, and ordered AMG to pay $1.3 billion in equitable monetary relief. 910 F.3d at 422. On appeal, AMG argued that Section 13(b) did not permit an award of equitable monetary relief. Id. at 426. The Ninth Circuit disagreed with AMG, holding that Section 13(b) carries with it the right to grant “ancillary” relief, including restitution and other equitable monetary relief. Id. AMG appealed that decision to the Supreme Court. The companion case, Fed. Trade Comm’n v. Credit Bureau Ctr., came to the Supreme Court through a contrasting Seventh Circuit decision. In 2017, the FTC sued Credit Bureau Center, LLC, and others for luring people to its website with bogus Craigslist rental ads. . When consumers responded to the ads, the defendants impersonated property owners, offering property tours to consumers if they first obtained free credit reports and scores from the defendants’ websites. Id. at 857. Instead of providing tours, the defendants signed consumers up for a credit-monitoring service with continuing $30 monthly charges. Id. An Illinois district court awarded the agency $5.2 million in restitution. Id. at 869-70. The Seventh Circuit reversed that decision, holding the FTC Act does not expressly allow the FTC to seek restitution. . The FTC appealed that decision to the Supreme Court. Although the FTC normally depends on the U.S. Solicitor General to represent it at the Supreme Court, the Solicitor General decided not to represent the FTC in its petition. This signals that the Administration is at odds with the FTC.
Money Back Not Guaranteed Consumer Redress and the Federal Trade Commission
iStockAMG Cap Mgmt LLC v Fed Trade Comm n
No. 19-508,(9th Cir. 2018),
cert. granted, 2020 WL 3865250 (U.S. July 9, 2020).
Fed Trade Comm n v Credit Bureau Ctr LLC
No. 19-825,(7th Cir. 2019),
cert. granted, 2020 WL 3865251 (U.S. July 9, 2020). Oral Argument not yet scheduled. Issue: Whether Section 13(b) of the authorizes the Federal Trade Commission to seek an injunction that includes the defendant returning all unlawfully obtained money. The Supreme Court has agreed to hear two consumer protection cases about the remedies available to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) under the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC Act). The mission is to protect consumers by preventing unfair or deceptive business practices as well as unfair methods of competition. Section 13(b) of the FTC Act gives the agency the authority to seek a permanent injunction to stop these practices. . For more than 30 years, the FTC has argued, and federal courts have agreed, that an injunction under Section 13(b) can include restitution and other forms of monetary relief. See, e.g., . Indeed, disgorging ill-gotten gains from companies that violate the FTC Act is one of the FTC’s primary remedies. Thus, the Supreme Court’s decision will have profound implications for both the agency and consumers. The first case, AMG Cap. Mgmt., LLC v. Fed. Trade Comm’n, involves one of the largest payday lenders in the United States. In 2012, the FTC sued AMG Services, Inc. (AMG) under Section 13(b) for falsely claiming they would charge borrowers a loan amount plus a one-time finance fee. . Instead, AMG piled undisclosed fees onto their loan and then by threatening borrowers with arrest and lawsuits. A Nevada district court granted summary judgment to the FTC, enjoined AMG from engaging in similar conduct in the future, and ordered AMG to pay $1.3 billion in equitable monetary relief. 910 F.3d at 422. On appeal, AMG argued that Section 13(b) did not permit an award of equitable monetary relief. Id. at 426. The Ninth Circuit disagreed with AMG, holding that Section 13(b) carries with it the right to grant “ancillary” relief, including restitution and other equitable monetary relief. Id. AMG appealed that decision to the Supreme Court. The companion case, Fed. Trade Comm’n v. Credit Bureau Ctr., came to the Supreme Court through a contrasting Seventh Circuit decision. In 2017, the FTC sued Credit Bureau Center, LLC, and others for luring people to its website with bogus Craigslist rental ads. . When consumers responded to the ads, the defendants impersonated property owners, offering property tours to consumers if they first obtained free credit reports and scores from the defendants’ websites. Id. at 857. Instead of providing tours, the defendants signed consumers up for a credit-monitoring service with continuing $30 monthly charges. Id. An Illinois district court awarded the agency $5.2 million in restitution. Id. at 869-70. The Seventh Circuit reversed that decision, holding the FTC Act does not expressly allow the FTC to seek restitution. . The FTC appealed that decision to the Supreme Court. Although the FTC normally depends on the U.S. Solicitor General to represent it at the Supreme Court, the Solicitor General decided not to represent the FTC in its petition. This signals that the Administration is at odds with the FTC.