United States: The Uncertain Reach Of Section 5 Of The Federal Trade Commission Act

Compliance with US antitrust laws requires firms to consider not only conduct that falls within the scope of the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act, but also conduct that may violate the Federal Trade Commission Act (the "Act"), particularly Section 5. This task is complicated by the fact that the outer scope of Section 5 remains largely undefined, leading to uncertainty as to what conduct is permissible and impermissible. In the absence of further legislative or judicial oversight, it is unclear just how far Section 5 reaches.

Established almost a century ago, the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") shares enforcement responsibilities for US competition laws with the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice. The FTC derives its enforcement powers from the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Clayton Act,1 and its enforcement mission is to halt conduct deemed harmful to competition, including practices barred by the Sherman Act, such as price fixing, bid rigging, customer allocation and other per se antitrust violations.2 Although not expressly authorized to enforce the Sherman Act, the FTC reaches such conduct through Section 5, which states that "[u]nfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, are hereby declared unlawful."3 But a question going back to when the Act first became law still remains unanswered: beyond conduct that is already prohibited by the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act, precisely what falls within Section 5's prohibition on "unfair methods of competition?"

There are some who have argued that Section 5 is "coterminous" with the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act—a "vehicle by which the [FTC] challenges" traditional antitrust violations.4 Yet it seems clear that Congress intended something else. The legislative history shows that Congress purposefully passed a vague statute to avoid the "endless task" of legislatively drawing the line between fair and unfair practices in all cases and intended that the reach of Section 5 be developed over time.5 As the Supreme Court observed, "[i]t would not have been a difficult feat of draftsmanship to have restricted the operation of [Section 5] to those methods of competition in interstate commerce which are forbidden at common law or which are likely to grow into violations of the Sherman Act, if that had been the purpose of the legislation."6

The more widely accepted argument is that Section 5 "was intended from its inception to reach conduct that violates not only the antitrust laws, but also the policies that those laws were intended to promote"7 and that Congress "adopted a phrase which ... does not admit of precise definition, [because] the meaning and application [would] be arrived at by ... the gradual process of judicial inclusion and exclusion."8 However, while the Sherman Act's equally vague ban on any "contract, combination ... or conspiracy, in restraint of trade" now incorporates a vast body of case law interpreting its meaning, Section 5 jurisprudence did not develop the same way.

Sperry & Hutchinson was the Supreme Court's last comprehensive analysis of the FTC's Section 5 powers. That opinion, however, is 40 years old and has been described as controversial.9 In Sperry, the FTC entered a cease-and-desist order against Sperry & Hutchinson Co. (S&H) for attempting to "suppress the operation of trading stamp exchanges and other 'free and open' redemption of stamps."10 The Fifth Circuit vacated the order, finding that S&H's conduct had not "violated either the letter or the spirit of the antitrust laws," and thus the order exceeded the scope of Section 5.11 Without reaching the question of whether S&H's conduct did, in fact, violate the letter or spirit of existing antitrust laws, the Supreme Court found that Section 5 empowers the FTC to define and proscribe unfair competitive practices, even if not an infringement of other antitrust laws.12 The Supreme Court concluded that the FTC "does not arrogate excessive power to itself if, in measuring a practice against the elusive, but congressionally mandated standard of fairness, it, like a court of equity, considers public values beyond simply those enshrined in the letter or encompassed in the spirit of the antitrust laws."13

Analogizing the FTC's powers to those of a court of equity signals the Supreme Court's view, at the time, that Section 5 powers were quite broad, perhaps not even constrained by precedent. But circuit courts later found that Section 5 has its limits. For example, in E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. F.T.C.,14 although conceding that a definition of "unfair" methods of competition is "elusive," the court vacated the FTC's finding that competing firms in an oligopoly violated Section 5 by unilaterally and non-collusively adopting practices that included: (1) the sale of a product by all four firms at a delivered price, which included transportation costs; (2) providing "extra" advance notice of price increases; and (3) the use of "most favored nation" clauses in contracts with customers. The court explained its view on the outer reach of Section 5, holding that, when a practice is not "collusive, coercive, predatory or exclusionary in character, the standards for determining whether it is 'unfair' ... must be formulated to discriminate between normally acceptable business behavior and conduct that is unreasonable or unacceptable."15 Otherwise the "door would be open to arbitrary or capricious administration" of Section 5, because "the FTC could, whenever it believed that an industry was not achieving its maximum competitive potential, ban certain practices in the hope that its action would increase competition."16

The last time a circuit court evaluated a pure Section 5 claim was 1992, and the standards for determining what is "unfair" continue to remain obscure.17 Recognizing this obscurity, Commissioner Joshua Wright recently advocated that the FTC should focus its Section 5 efforts on "plainly anticompetitive conduct"—meaning a practice that "(1) harms or is likely to harm competition significantly and that (2) lacks cognizable efficiencies."18 Making clear that his position is a starting point for further dialogue, the Commissioner explained this definition would permit the FTC to prosecute conduct that, while falling outside the Sherman or Clayton Act, would not be

controversial, because it is already deemed anticompetitive. Citing modern concepts of antitrust harm, Section 5 would, for example, reach "invitation[s] to collude" or the acquisition of too much market power, falling short of a monopoly.19 It remains to be seen whether this approach, or one like it, will be formally adopted or pursued. Still, such a definition might sweep within its scope conduct that, in and of itself, does not violate other antitrust laws and lead to potential penalties for legitimate, non-collusive conduct. For example, one might argue that, under such a definition, an oligopoly like the one at issue in du Pont could be deemed a violation of Section 5.

Proponents of expansive Section 5 powers note that the FTC is an expert agency that Congress intended to have a central role in policing business conduct. They further note that, unlike the Sherman Act, there is no private right of action under Section 5—which, in theory, limits exposure to damages for conduct that does not, standing alone, violate other antitrust laws. However, while there may be no express private right of action at the federal level, numerous states have enacted their own versions of Section 5 that permit private actions and, in some cases, trebled or punitive damages.20

In addition, the FTC has previously sought and obtained significant monetary penalties in the form of disgorgement and restitution. For example, in FTC v. Mylan Laboratories, Inc.,21 the court accepted the FTC's argument that it could seek monetary relief for violations of Section 5, because doing so is a "natural extension of the remedial powers authorized under § 13(b)."22 The case was later resolved when the defendants agreed to pay $100 million into a fund, that included compensation for indirect purchasers who allegedly were injured.23 At the time, certain Commissioners recognized the significant federal antitrust policy implications of the settlement, in light of the decisions in Hanover Shoe, Inc. v. United Shoe Machinery Corp. and Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois.24

More recently, in July 2012, the FTC withdrew its existing Policy Statement on Monetary Remedies in Competition Cases that had been in place since 2003. The Statement outlined those circumstances where the FTC would seek monetary penalties. In withdrawing it, the FTC explained that "the practical effect of the Policy Statement was to create an overly restrictive view of the Commission's options for equitable remedies."25 This may signal the likelihood that US businesses will see more FTC attempts to impose monetary penalties in future competition cases.

Further, private plaintiffs regularly cite enforcement proceedings to demonstrate the plausibility of their claims and evade dismissal motions. An expert agency's determination that certain conduct constitutes an "unfair method of competition," even if not falling within the strict contours of a traditional Sherman Act claim, could be an element relied upon by private plaintiffs to successfully plead a Sherman Act claim, opening the door to the expense of antitrust discovery and the potential for trebled damages. For example, a private plaintiff might rely upon Section 5 proceedings based on so-called "invitations to collude," or the exchange of commercially sensitive information, to demonstrate a plausible Sherman Act Section 1 claim.26 Indeed, a jury might be permitted to infer the existence of a tacit agreement based on this type of conduct.27

Consider a case like In re Bosley,28 where the FTC found that an exchange of competitively sensitive information could "mutate into a conspiracy" and "[c]ompetition may be unreasonably restrained whenever a competitor directly communicates, solicits, or facilitates exchange of competitively sensitive information with its rivals." Such proscriptions conceivably sweep in a wide variety of completely legitimate conduct. And, although it is clear that such conduct, standing alone, is not enough to plead a traditional antitrust violation—since plaintiffs must

allege more than just an "opportunity" to collude29—the existence of FTC proceedings and/or an adverse FTC finding may nonetheless help plaintiffs get beyond the pleading stage of a Sherman Act claim.30 What is more, the modern enforcement environment makes it unlikely that firms will elect to litigate a Section 5 claim—all but foreclosing the possibility that a robust body of case law may someday develop. As in all types of adversarial proceedings, firms elect to settle Section 5 claims for a variety of reasons, including a desire to avoid protracted costs, inherent uncertainty, bad publicity and potential sanctions that can come from choosing to litigate with the government.

So, what can firms do to avoid running afoul of Section 5? Because the FTC has yet to adopt any specific parameters that define the boundaries of Section 5 power, companies continue to be left in the dark as to precisely what type of conduct amounts to a violation. This uncertainty makes it more important than ever to provide employees with careful guidance on how to limit exposure and avoid sliding into "gray" areas. Also, further guidance from the FTC could be coming soon.

After decades of relative silence on the issue, this past year saw a growing coalition of support for establishing Section 5 guidelines. For instance, in addition to the (albeit vague) limiting principles proposed by Commissioner Wright, several members of Congress also recently encouraged the FTC to specify the scope of its Section 5 authority. Corporate counsel should keep abreast of these developments, because, until the FTC formally clarifies its position on the reach of Section 5, US businesses will be forced to wrestle with how to ensure compliance with an ambiguous law. u


1 See Federal Trade Commission, About the Bureau of Competition, available at http://www.ftc.gov/bc/about.shtm .

2 See id. at http://www.ftc.gov/bc/non-merger.shtm .

3 15 U.S.C. § 45(a)(6).

4 See Section 5 Recast: Defining the FTC's Unfair Methods of Competition Authority, Remarks of Joshua D. Wright, FTC Commissioner, available at http://www.ftc.gov/speeches/wright/130619section5recast.pdf ; Concurring Opinion of Commissioner Jon Liebowitz at 3, In re Rambus, Inc., FTC Docket No. 9302 (Aug. 2, 2006), available at http://www.ftc.gov/os/adjpro/d9302/060802rambusconcurringopinionofcommissionerleibowitz.pdf .

5 See H.R. Rep. No. 63-1142, at 19 (1914).

6 Federal Trade Commission v. R.F. Keppel & Bro., 291 U.S. 304, 310 (1934).

7 See Concurring Opinion of Commissioner Jon Liebowitz at 1-2, In re Rambus, Inc., FTC Docket No. 9302 (Aug. 2, 2006), available at http://www.ftc.gov/os/adjpro/d9302/060802rambusconcurringopinionofcommissionerleibowitz.pdf .

8 See Federal Trade Commission v. R.F. Keppel & Bro., 291 U.S. 304, 311-12 (1934)

9 Although the Supreme Court has not recently revisited this issue, in F.T.C. v. Indiana Federation of Dentists, 476 U.S. 447, 454-55 (1986), the Court signaled its continued adherence to Sperry. In that case, which is now also more than 25 years old, the Court explained: "[t]he standard of 'unfairness' under the FTC Act is, by necessity, an elusive one, encompassing not only practices that violate the Sherman Act and the other antitrust laws, but also practices that the Commission determines are against public policy for other reasons."

10 FTC v. Sperry Hutchinson Co., 405 U.S. 233, 234 (1972). Trading stamps are similar to postage stamps.

11 Id. at 235.

12 Id. at 239.

13 Id. at 244.

14 729 F.2d 128, 130, 137 (2d Cir. 1984).

15 Id. at 138-39

16 Id. at 138-39.

17 See James Campbell Cooper, Working Paper No. 13-20, The Perils of Excessive Discretion, The Elusive Meaning of Unfairness in Section 5 of the FTC Act (November 2013), available at http://mercatus.org/publication/perils-excessive-discretion-elusive-meaning-unfairness-section-5-ftc-act.

18 Section 5 Recast at 15.

19 Section 5 Recast at 19-20.

20 Hakala, Justin J., Follow-On State Actions Based on the FTC's Enforcement of Section 5, 7-9 (Wayne State Univ. Law Sch., Working Paper Grp., Oct. 9, 2008), available at http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/section5workshop/537633-00002.pdf .

21 62 F.Supp.2d 25, 37 (D.D.C. 1999).

22 15 U.S.C. § 53(b).

23 See FTC Press Release, available at http://www.ftc.gov/es/node/64092.

24 See id. ("[a] particularly serious spillover effect of the federal court decisions in this case is the potential conflict with federal policy established by the decisions in Hanover Shoe, Inc. v. United Shoe Machinery Corp. and Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, and consistently maintained since that time.")

25 See FTC Press Release, available at http://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2012/07/ftc-withdraws-agencys-policy-statement-monetary-remedies .

26 See, e.g., Thomas Dahdouh, Section 5, The FTC and Its Critics: Just Who Are the Radicals Here?, 20 No. 2, J. Antitrust & Unfair Comp. Law of Cal. 1, 20-21 (Fall 2011).

27 Monsanto Co. v. Spray–Rite Service Corp., 465 U.S. 752, 764 n. 12 (1984)

28 See ANALYSIS OF AGREEMENT CONTAINING CONSENT ORDER TO AID PUBLIC COMMENT, In re Bosley, Inc., File No. 121-0184 at 2 (2013) available at http://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/cases/2013/04/130408bosleyanal.pdf .

29 See, e.g., Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.544, 567 (2007); In re Citric Acid Litig., 191 F.3d 1090, 1098 (9th Cir. 1999); Cosmetic Gallery, Inc. v. Schoeneman Corp., 495 F.3d 46, 53 (3d Cir. 2007); Williamson Oil Co. v. Philip Morris USA, 346 F.3d 1287, 1319 (11th Cir. 2003).

30 Indeed, some courts have allowed Sherman Act claims to proceed past the pleading stage even though the alleged practice was "not illegal in itself," because the conduct purportedly "facilitate[d] price fixing." In re Text Messaging Antitrust Litigation, 630 F.3d 622, 627–29 (7th Cir. 2010).

Originally published Spring 2014

Visit us at mayerbrown.com

Mayer Brown is a global legal services provider comprising legal practices that are separate entities (the "Mayer Brown Practices"). The Mayer Brown Practices are: Mayer Brown LLP and Mayer Brown Europe – Brussels LLP, both limited liability partnerships established in Illinois USA; Mayer Brown International LLP, a limited liability partnership incorporated in England and Wales (authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority and registered in England and Wales number OC 303359); Mayer Brown, a SELAS established in France; Mayer Brown JSM, a Hong Kong partnership and its associated entities in Asia; and Tauil & Chequer Advogados, a Brazilian law partnership with which Mayer Brown is associated. "Mayer Brown" and the Mayer Brown logo are the trademarks of the Mayer Brown Practices in their respective jurisdictions.

© Copyright 2014. The Mayer Brown Practices. All rights reserved.

This Mayer Brown article provides information and comments on legal issues and developments of interest. The foregoing is not a comprehensive treatment of the subject matter covered and is not intended to provide legal advice. Readers should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to the matters discussed herein.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Global Advertising Lawyers Alliance (GALA)
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Global Advertising Lawyers Alliance (GALA)
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions