Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 11 JANUARY 2022

The FTC's Magnuson-Moss Rulemaking Process – Still An Uphill Climb

Kelley Drye & Warren LLP
Kelley Drye & Warren LLP
Contributor
Kelley Drye & Warren LLP

Kelley Drye & Warren LLP

About Kelley Drye We’re focused—in key areas of the law and on the nuances of each matter—to help...

View firm profile
Explore more from Kelley Drye & Warren LLP

We've been hearing a lot lately about the FTC's rulemaking procedures under Section 18 of the FTC Act.

United StatesConsumer Protection

We've been hearing a lot lately about the FTC's rulemaking procedures under Section 18 of the FTC Act (also known as "Mag-Moss" rulemaking). Long decried as too burdensome and difficult to use on a regular basis, this tool is now being celebrated for its enormous, untapped potential to establish industry-wide standards and enable the FTC to get monetary relief in its cases, post-AMG. (AMG didn't affect the FTC authority to obtain monetary relief when it's enforcing a rule.)

Is the old view or the new one correct? Is Mag-Moss rulemaking really so cumbersome, as many FTC staff and observers have long claimed? Have those burdens been overstated, warranting the enthusiasm we're now seeing among FTC Commissioners, consumer groups, and Congress? Did the FTC's changes to its internal rules last July (see below) really "streamline" the process as the FTC claimed?

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

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.

See more popular content from