ARTICLE
28 June 2021

This Week's Podcast: How The FTC Is Responding To SCOTUS's April 2021 AMG Capital Management Decision: A Conversation With Special Guest Bikram Bandy, FTC Chief Litigation Counsel, Bureau Of Consumer Protection

BS
Ballard Spahr LLP

Contributor

Ballard Spahr LLP—an Am Law 100 law firm with more than 750 lawyers in 18 U.S. offices—serves clients across industries in litigation, transactions, and regulatory compliance. A strategic legal partner to clients, Ballard goes beyond to deliver actionable, forward-thinking counsel and advocacy powered by deep industry experience and an understanding of each client’s specific business goals. Our culture is defined by an entrepreneurial spirit, collaborative environment, and top-down focus on service, efficiency, and results.
In AMG, SCOTUS ruled that Sec. 13(b) of the FTC Act does not give the FTC authority to seek equitable monetary relief (e.g. restitution or disgorgement).
United States Consumer Protection

In AMG, SCOTUS ruled that Sec. 13(b) of the FTC Act does not give the FTC authority to seek equitable monetary relief (e.g. restitution or disgorgement).  After reviewing AMG's  history and SCOTUS's analysis, we discuss the reasons for the FTC's infrequent use of administrative hearings, AMG's implications for pending and settled cases, the FTC's current authority to seek civil money penalties, efforts to amend the FTC Act, and the FTC's approach to new cases, including potential partnering with state AGs, the CFPB, and plaintiff's attorneys.

Ballard Spahr Senior Counsel Alan Kaplinsky hosts the conversation.

Click here to listen to the podcast.

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.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More