Plain-English summary
Court unanimously rules FTC lacks authority under Section 13(b) to obtain restitution or disgorgement
In AMG Capital Management v. Federal Trade Commission (2021), the Supreme Court unanimously held that Section 13(b) of the FTC Act does not authorize the Commission to obtain equitable monetary relief such as restitution or disgorgement. The Court reversed the Ninth Circuit and remanded the case.
Why this matters
The decision restricts a major enforcement tool the FTC has relied on for years to recover money for consumers and strip ill-gotten gains from fraudsters. It could reduce the amount of consumer restitution the FTC can obtain quickly via Section 13(b) and force the agency to rely more on other, longer procedures or on Congress to grant clearer authority.
Who may feel it
- Consumers who seek refunds or recoveries from companies accused of fraud or deception
- Businesses and individuals subject to FTC enforcement actions
- The Federal Trade Commission’s enforcement strategies and priorities
- Courts handling FTC cases and lower courts interpreting FTC authority
- Congress, which may be asked to clarify the FTC’s remedial powers
Key questions
- Does Section 13(b) of the Federal Trade Commission Act authorize courts to award equitable monetary relief (restitution or disgorgement) to the FTC?