AMG Capital Management, LLC v. Federal Trade Commission, 593 U.S. ___ (2021)
The FTC filed a complaint against Tucker alleging deceptive payday lending practices in violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act Section 5(a). The district court entered a permanent injunction to prevent Tucker from committing future violations and relied on the same authority to direct Tucker to pay $1.27 billion in restitution and disgorgement. The Ninth Circuit rejected Tucker’s argument that section 13(b) does not authorize the award of equitable monetary relief.
The Supreme Court reversed. Section 13(b) does not authorize the Commission to seek, or a court to award, equitable monetary relief such as restitution or disgorgement. The Commission has authority to enforce the Act’s prohibitions on “unfair or deceptive acts or practices,” 15 U.S.C. 45(a)(1)–(2), by commencing administrative proceedings under Section 5. Section 5(l) authorizes the Commission, following completion of the administrative process and the issuance of a final cease and desist order, to seek civil penalties, and permits district courts to “grant mandatory injunctions and such other and further equitable relief.” Section 19 authorizes district courts to grant “such relief as the court finds necessary,” in cases where someone has engaged in unfair or deceptive conduct with respect to which the Commission has issued a final cease and desist order.
In Tucker's case, the Commission sought equitable monetary relief directly in district court under Section 13(b)’s authorization to seek a “permanent injunction” without having used the Commission’s traditional administrative proceedings. Section 13(b) does not explicitly authorize the Commission to obtain court-ordered monetary relief, and such relief is foreclosed by the structure and history of the Act. It is unlikely that Congress, without mentioning the matter, would grant the Commission authority to circumvent traditional Section 5 administrative proceedings. In enacting Section 19 two years after Section 13(b), Congress did not create an alternative enforcement path with similar remedies.
Federal Trade Commission Act Section 13(b) does not authorize the Commission to seek, or a court to award, equitable monetary relief such as restitution or disgorgement.
NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321, 337.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Syllabus
AMG Capital Management, LLC, et al. v. Federal Trade Commission
certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit
No. 19–508. Argued January 13, 2021—Decided April 22, 2021
The Federal Trade Commission filed a complaint against Scott Tucker and his companies alleging deceptive payday lending practices in violation of §5(a) of the Federal Trade Commission Act. The District Court granted the Commission’s request pursuant to §13(b) of the Act for a permanent injunction to prevent Tucker from committing future violations of the Act, and relied on the same authority to direct Tucker to pay $1.27 billion in restitution and disgorgement. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit rejected Tucker’s argument that §13(b) does not authorize the award of equitable monetary relief.
Held: Section 13(b) does not authorize the Commission to seek, or a court to award, equitable monetary relief such as restitution or disgorgement. Pp. 3–15.
(a) Congress granted the Commission authority to enforce the Act’s prohibitions on “unfair or deceptive acts or practices,” 15 U. S. C. §§45(a)(1)–(2), by commencing administrative proceedings pursuant to §5 of the Act. Section 5(l) of the Act authorizes the Commission, following completion of the administrative process and the issuance of a final cease and desist order, to seek civil penalties, and permits district courts to “grant mandatory injunctions and such other and further equitable relief as they deem appropriate in the enforcement of such final orders of the Commission.” §45(l). Section 19 of the Act further authorizes district courts (subject to various conditions and limitations) to grant “such relief as the court finds necessary to redress injury to consumers,” §57b(b), in cases where someone has engaged in unfair or deceptive conduct with respect to which the Commission has issued a final cease and desist order applicable to that person, see §57b(a)(2). Here, the Commission responded to Tucker’s payday lending practices by seeking equitable monetary relief directly in district court under §13(b)’s authorization to seek a “permanent injunction.” In doing so, the Commission acted in accordance with its increasing tendency to use §13(b) to seek monetary awards without prior use of the Commission’s traditional administrative proceedings. The desirability of the Commission’s practice aside, the question is whether Congress, by enacting §13(b) and using the words “permanent injunction,” granted the Commission authority to obtain monetary relief directly from courts and effectively bypass the requirements of the administrative process. Pp. 3–6.
(b) Section 13(b) does not explicitly authorize the Commission to obtain court-ordered monetary relief, and such relief is foreclosed by the structure and history of the Act. Section 13(b) provides that the “Commission may seek . . . a permanent injunction.” §53(b). By its terms, this provision concerns prospective injunctive relief, not retrospective monetary relief. Section 13(b) allows the Commission to go directly to district court when the Commission seeks injunctive relief pending administrative proceedings or when it seeks only a permanent injunction. Other statutory provisions, in particular the conditioned and limited monetary relief authorized in §19, confirm this conclusion. It is highly unlikely that Congress, without mentioning the matter, would grant the Commission authority to circumvent its traditional §5 administrative proceedings. Pp. 6–10.
(c) The Commission’s contrary arguments are unavailing. First, Porter v. Warner Holding Co., 328 U.S. 395, and Mitchell v. Robert DeMario Jewelry, Inc., 361 U.S. 288, did not adopt a universal rule that statutory authority to grant an injunction automatically encompasses the power to grant equitable monetary remedies. Instead, the text and structure of the particular statutory scheme at issue can limit a court’s jurisdiction in equity. Second, in enacting §19 two years after §13(b), Congress did not simply create an alternative enforcement path with similar remedies. The Court does not believe Congress would have enacted §19’s provisions expressly authorizing monetary relief if §13(b) already implicitly allowed the Commission to obtain that same monetary relief without satisfying §19’s conditions and limitations. Third, §19’s saving clauses—preserving “any authority of the Commission under any other provision of law” and “any other remedy or right of action provided by State or Federal law,” §57b(e)—do not help answer whether §13(b) gave the Commission the authority to obtain equitable monetary relief directly in court in the first place. Fourth, the Act’s 1994 and 2006 amendments, which did not modify the specific language at issue here, do not demonstrate congressional acquiescence to lower court rulings that favor the Commission’s interpretation of §13(b). Fifth, policy arguments that §5 and §19 are inadequate to provide redress to consumers should be addressed to Congress. Pp. 10–14.
910 F.3d 417, reversed and remanded.
Breyer, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED. Breyer, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. |
Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED. Breyer, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. |
Argued. For petitioners: Michael Pattillo, Fernandina Beach, Fla. For respondent: Joel R. Marcus, Washington, D. C. |
Reply of petitioners AMG Capital Management, LLC, et al. filed. (Distributed) |
The record from the U.S.C.A. 9th Circuit is electronic and located on PACER. |
CIRCULATED |
Brief amicus curiae of Open Markets Institute filed. (Distributed) |
Brief amicus curiae of American Antitrust Institute filed. (Distributed) |
Brief amici curiae of Remedies, Restitution, Antitrust, and Intellectual Property Law Scholars filed. (Distributed) |
Brief amici curiae of National Consumer Law Center, et al. filed. (Distributed) |
Brief amicus curiae of Public Citizen filed. (Distributed) |
Brief amicus curiae of Truth in Advertising, Inc. filed. (Distributed) |
Brief amici curiae of States of Illinois, et al. filed. (Distributed) |
Brief amici curiae of Former Federal Trade Commission Officials filed. (Distributed) |
Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 9th Circuit. |
Brief of respondent Federal Trade Commission filed. |
SET FOR ARGUMENT on Wednesday, January 13, 2021. |
Application (20A103) granted by Justice Kagan to file respondent's brief on the merits and petitioners' reply brief on the merits in excess of the word limits. Respondent's brief on the merits shall not exceed 15,500 words, and petitioners' reply brief on the merits shall not exceed 7,150 words. |
Application (20A103) to file respondent's brief on the merits and petitioners' reply brief on the merits in excess of the word limits, submitted to Justice Kagan. |
This case is no longer consolidated with No. 19-825, Federal Trade Commission v. Credit Bureau Center. |
Joint motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by the parties GRANTED. VIDED. |
Brief amicus curiae of Surescripts, LLC filed. VIDED. |
Brief amicus curiae of TechFreedom filed. VIDED. |
Brief amici curiae of Washington Legal Foundation, et al. filed. VIDED. |
Brief amicus curiae of The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America filed. VIDED. |
Brief amici curiae of Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, et al. filed. VIDED. |
Brief amicus curiae of SBH A&I filed.(also in 19-825) VIDED. |
Brief amicus curiae of The New Civil Liberties Alliance filed. VIDED. |
Brief amicus curiae of Americans for Prosperity Foundation filed. VIDED. |
Brief of respondents Credit Bureau Center, LLC, et al. filed (in 19-825). |
Brief of petitioners AMG Capital Management, LLC, et al. filed (in 19-508). |
Blanket Consent filed by Petitioners, AMG Capital Management, LLC, et al. VIDED |
Joint motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed. VIDED. |
Blanket Consent filed by Respondent, Federal Trade Commission |
Joint motion for alignment and an extension of time to file the briefs on the merits granted. Petitioners in No. 19-508 and respondents in No. 19-825 have to and including September 25, 2020, within which to file the joint appendix and their opening briefs on the merits. The Federal Trade Commission has to and including November 30, 2020, within which to file its consolidated response brief on the merits. VIDED. |
Blanket Consent filed by Credit Bureau Center, LLC, et al. VIDED. |
Joint motion for alignment and extension of time to file the briefs on the merits filed. |
Petition GRANTED. The petition for a writ of certiorari in No. 19-825 is granted. The cases are consolidated, and a total of one hour is allotted for oral argument. VIDED. |
Because the Court has consolidated these cases for briefing and oral argument, future filings and activity in the cases will now be reflected on the docket of No. 19-508. Subsequent filings in these cases must therefore be submitted through the electronic filing system in No. 19-508. Each document submitted in connection with one or more of these cases must include on its cover the case number and caption for each case in which the filing is intended to be submitted. Where a filing is submitted in fewer than all of the cases, the docket entry will reflect the case number(s) in which the filing is submitted; a document filed in all of the consolidated cases will be noted as “VIDED.” |
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 7/8/2020. |
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 7/1/2020. |
Supplemental brief of petitioners AMG Capital Management, LLC, et al. filed. (Distributed) |
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/25/2020. |
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/15/2020. |
Rescheduled. |
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/17/2020. |
Rescheduled. |
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/10/2020. |
Reply of petitioners AMG Capital Management, LLC, et al. filed. |
Letter waiving the 14-day waiting period for the distribution of the petition under Rule 15.5 filed. |
Brief of respondent Federal Trade Commission filed. |
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including December 20, 2019. |
Brief amici curiae of Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America and National Retail Federation filed. |
Motion to extend the time to file a response from November 20, 2019 to December 20, 2019, submitted to The Clerk. |
Brief amicus curiae of Washington Legal Foundation filed. VIDED. |
Brief amicus curiae of Cause of Action Institute filed. VIDED. |
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 20, 2019) |
Application (19A252) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from September 18, 2019 to October 18, 2019, submitted to Justice Kagan. |
Application (19A252) granted by Justice Kagan extending the time to file until October 18, 2019. |