Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 27 APRIL 2021

The FTC's Enforcement Power: How AMG Reshapes The Landscape

Proskauer Rose LLP
Proskauer Rose LLP
Contributor
Proskauer Rose LLP

Proskauer Rose LLP

Firm Overview Proskauer is an elite global law firm with more than 900 lawyers across key financial...

View firm profile
Explore more from Proskauer Rose LLP

In a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Breyer, the U.S. Supreme Court held that Section 13(b) of the FTC Act ("Act") does not authorize the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC")

United StatesLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration

In a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Breyer, the U.S. Supreme Court held that Section 13(b) of the FTC Act ("Act") does not authorize the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") to seek monetary relief in the form of restitution or disgorgement, despite the agency's redoubled practice of seeking such relief under the Act since 2012.  The Court's opinion significantly reshapes the FTC's process for obtaining money judgments from defendants.  The FTC will now most likely turn to Section 19 of the Act as its enforcement mechanism for obtaining monetary remedies, which requires the FTC to undertake several additional steps prior to commencing an action.

The FTC Act

The Act gives the FTC a variety of tools to enforce the federal antitrust laws, including administrative enforcement actions under Section 5(l) and judicial enforcement actions under Sections 13 and 19.  But Sections 5(l) and 19 both entail more demanding processes than Section 13.  With Section 13(b) now

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