Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

FTC Requests Congress to Restore Consumer Redress After AMG Capital Management Decision

By Timothy Butler, Keith J. Barnett, Carlin McCrory, Matthew White & Troy Jenkins on April 28, 2021
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is acting swiftly to restore its authority to obtain consumer redress under Section 13(b) of the FTC Act after the Supreme Court’s recent decision in AMG Capital Management, LLC v. FTC, discussed in our blog post here, rejecting the agency’s longstanding position that Section 13(b) authorizes monetary remedies.

In testimony before the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Consumer Protection on April 27, the FTC asked Congress to pass legislation to re-establish its ability to obtain monetary remedies via Section 13(b). In addition, the FTC’s testimony noted that two other recent decisions in the Third Circuit have hampered the FTC’s ability to protect consumers. In one case, the Third Circuit held that the FTC could bring enforcement actions under Section 13(b) only when a violation is either ongoing or “impending” at the time the suit is filed. In another ruling, the court held that the FTC cannot sue under Section 13(b) unless conduct is imminent or ongoing.

Acting FTC Chairwoman Rebecca Kelly Slaughter stated, “[t]hese recent decisions have significantly limited the Commission’s primary and most effective tool for providing refunds to harmed consumers, and, if Congress does not act promptly, the FTC will be far less effective in its ability to protect consumers and execute its law enforcement mission.”

Historically, seven of the 12 courts of appeal interpreted Section 13(b) of the FTC Act to authorize district courts to award equitable remedies necessary to provide relief to consumers. In 1994, Congress ratified its intent to enable the FTC to obtain monetary remedies by expanding the venues available for FTC enforcement cases. However, a shift in judicial decisions over recent years concluded in last week’s Supreme Court ruling that Section 13(b) does not authorize returning money to harmed consumers.

The FTC has relied on Section 13(b) of the FTC Act to secure consumer redress in a multitude and variety of cases. Notably, the FTC has returned $11.2 billion to consumers in the past five years. It is now up to Congress to pass legislation to restore the FTC’s authority to provide consumer redress and clarify other wavering enforcement abilities, such as the ability to receive an injunction.

Photo of Timothy Butler Timothy Butler
Email
Photo of Keith J. Barnett Keith J. Barnett

Keith’s experience representing clients in the financial services industry as a litigation, compliance, regulatory, investigations (internal and regulatory), and enforcement attorney spans 20 years. Keith represents clients against government regulators (CFPB, FTC, SEC, CFTC), industry regulators (FINRA), and private litigants in federal courts…

Keith’s experience representing clients in the financial services industry as a litigation, compliance, regulatory, investigations (internal and regulatory), and enforcement attorney spans 20 years. Keith represents clients against government regulators (CFPB, FTC, SEC, CFTC), industry regulators (FINRA), and private litigants in federal courts, state courts, and before arbitration and administrative law panels in the financial services industry.

Read more about Keith J. BarnettEmailKeith's Linkedin Profile
Show more Show less
Photo of Carlin McCrory Carlin McCrory

A seasoned regulatory and compliance attorney, Carlin brings extensive experience representing financial institutions, fintechs, lenders, payment processors, neobanks, virtual currency companies, and mortgage servicers.

Read more about Carlin McCroryEmailCarlin's Linkedin Profile
Photo of Matthew White Matthew White
Email
Photo of Troy Jenkins Troy Jenkins
EmailTroy's Linkedin Profile
  • Posted in:
    Administrative and Regulatory, Antitrust, Competition and Trade, Government and Public Policy
  • Blog:
    Regulatory Oversight
  • Organization:
    Troutman Pepper Locke
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo