As the dust settles from the Supreme Court’s decision in AMG Capital Management, LLC v. FTC, 141 S. Ct. 1341 (2021), which gutted the Federal Trade Commission’s authority to obtain equitable monetary relief in court, the contours of the FTC’s remedial authority continue to be shaped by the lower courts.

Most recently, the Eleventh Circuit weighed in on whether Section 19 of the FTC Act authorizes the FTC to obtain an asset freeze and impose a receiver. Prior to AMG, the FTC routinely obtained such preliminary relief against companies and individuals the FTC believed were engaging, or about to engage, in unfair deceptive business practices. In doing so, the FTC would rely on its authority under Section 13(b) of the FTC Act. However, after AMG, the FTC can only use Section 13(b) to obtain forward-looking injunctive relief.

In an published opinion, the Eleventh Circuit denied a motion to dissolve a preliminary injunction that was entered in 2018 against a company, Simple Health Plans LLC, and its owner. At the time, the FTC invoked Section 13(b) as the basis for the injunction, asset freeze, and receivership. About a year after the lawsuit was filed, the FTC amended its complaint and added Section 19 as an alternative basis for relief.

In denying the motion, the Court concluded that even though Section 19 does not explicitly authorize preliminary measures of relief, the statute gives courts broad authority to grant remedies that are “necessary to redress injury to consumers.” Where, as here, an asset freeze and receivership are necessary to preserve funds for a future monetary judgment, such measures are authorized by Section 19. The Court also reaffirmed that Section 19 applies to the Telemarketing Sales Rule.

This means we can expect the FTC to ramp up its use of ex parte temporary restraining orders and other forms of draconian preliminary relief against companies and individuals who are already under a consent order or who are accused of violating a regulation, such as the TSR.

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Alexandra Megaris

Alex Megaris focuses on complex regulatory investigations and government enforcement matters involving state attorneys general, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), state regulatory agencies, and the U.S. Congress. Alex also works closely with Venable’s government affairs team in…

Alex Megaris focuses on complex regulatory investigations and government enforcement matters involving state attorneys general, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), state regulatory agencies, and the U.S. Congress. Alex also works closely with Venable’s government affairs team in advocating for clients before these agencies. She has extensive experience with consumer protection laws, such as state unfair, deceptive and abusive practices (UDAAP) laws, the FTC Act, the Consumer Financial Protection Act, the FTC’s Telemarketing Sales Rule, and product-specific regulations, including those regulating credit reporting, loan servicing, and debt collection.

Photo of Leonard L. Gordon Leonard L. Gordon

Len Gordon, chair of Venable’s Advertising and Marketing Group, is a skilled litigator who leverages his significant experience working for the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to help protect his clients’ interests and guide their business activity. Len regularly represents companies and individuals in…

Len Gordon, chair of Venable’s Advertising and Marketing Group, is a skilled litigator who leverages his significant experience working for the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to help protect his clients’ interests and guide their business activity. Len regularly represents companies and individuals in investigations and litigation with the FTC, state attorneys general, the Department of Justice (DOJ), and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). Len also represents clients in business-to-business and class action litigation involving both consumer protection and antitrust issues. He also counsels clients on antitrust, advertising, and marketing compliance issues.