TorF The Federal Trade Commission is responsible for the regulation of deceptive advertising.
TorF Ads by members of professional groups can be regulated by the state.
TorF A disclaimer of liability for personal injuries caused by a breach of warranty would be unconscionable.
TorF These dresses are 100% cotton" is an example of an express warranty.
The Supreme Court issued a ruling Thursday that will significantly limit the Federal Trade Commission’s ability to extract monetary relief for consumers when companies are found to use deceptive practices. The decision will significantly hamper the FTC’s ability to return money to consumers duped by deceptive business practices, ...
The case at hand involved a payday loan scheme, for which the court ruled in favor of the FTC, ordering the defendant to pay $1.3 billion in monetary relief. The defendant argued that the FTC lacked the authority to seek such a remedy, ultimately leading to Thursday’s decision.
Justices of the United States Supreme Court will meet via teleconference and not at the court building on April 19, 2021 in Washington, DC. The Supreme Court issued a ruling Thursday that will significantly limit the Federal Trade Commission’s ability to extract monetary relief for consumers when companies are found to use deceptive practices.
The ruling could have far-reaching impacts in cases where the FTC has invoked Section 13 (b). Facebook, for example, argued in its motion to dismiss the FTC’s ongoing antitrust lawsuit that it lacks statutory authority under 13 (b). While the issue isn’t directly about monetary relief, Facebook argued the FTC should not be able to claim authority under that law to remedy past conduct, since it only allows the FTC to stop ongoing or imminent legal violations.
The decision will significantly hamper the FTC’s ability to return money to consumers duped by deceptive business practices, as the four sitting commissioners testified to Congress on Tuesday. The two Democrats and two Republicans all advocated for a legislative fix should the Supreme Court rule against its authority to grant monetary relief under Section 13 (b), though Republican Commissioner Noah Phillips suggested a more narrow approach focused on restitution rather than additional repayment for ill-gotten gains. The House Energy and Commerce Committee had already slated a hearing for next week to discuss legislative fixes to reaffirm the FTC’s power to provide redress to consumers.
In a unanimous opinion delivered by Justice Stephen Breyer, the court said that Section 13 (b) of the FTC Act does not authorize the agency to seek monetary relief for violations of the law, as it has commonly been used. The court noted that 13 (b) doesn’t explicitly authorize the agency to obtain such a remedy, ...
While the issue isn’t directly about monetary relief, Facebook argued the FTC should not be able to claim authority under that law to remedy past conduct, since it only allows the FTC to stop ongoing or imminent legal violations. A spokesperson for the FTC declined to comment on how the ruling could impact that case.
Home » The Supreme Court Rules That Disgorgement Is Not an Available Remedy Under the FTC Act – What Comes Next?
We blogged last October (here) about the Third Circuit’s decision in FTC v. AbbieVie Inc ., holding that Section 13 (b) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, which expressly gives the FTC authority to obtain injunctive relief, does not allow a district court to order disgorgement or restitution.