In AMG Capital Management, LLC, et al. v. Federal Trade Commission, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the FTC does not have the authority under Section 13(b) ("Temporary restraining orders; preliminary injunctions") of the Federal Trade Commission Act (the "Act") to seek equitable monetary relief.
Justice Breyer delivered the Opinion for a unanimous Court, in which the Court stated that the FTC - in seeking restitution and disgorgement pursuant to Section 13(b) - acted in accordance "with its increasing tendency to use Section 13(b) to seek monetary awards without prior use of the Commission's traditional administrative process."
The Court found the FTC's arguments "unavailing," stating that Porter v. Warner Holding Co. and Mitchell v. Robert DeMario Jewelry, Inc. do not "automatically" grant the authority to seek equitable monetary relief because of a statutory authority to grant an injunction. Additionally, the Court said that Congress would not have enacted Section 19 of the Act, which "expressly" authorizes monetary relief, if Section 13(b) had already "implicitly" allowed the FTC to obtain that same monetary relief.
Primary Sources
- AMG Capital Management, LLC, et al. v. Federal Trade Commission
- FTC Press Release: Statement by FTC Acting Chairwoman Rebecca Kelly Slaughter on the U.S. Supreme Court Ruling in AMG Capital Management LLC v. FTC
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
