Mary M. Gardner

Subscribe to Mary M. Gardner's Posts

Mary M. Gardner helps clients identify, evaluate, and prioritize their risks; implement practices to minimize, monitor, and control those risks; and find satisfactory outcomes when those risks turn into potential liabilities. Mary is a versatile counselor, litigator, and negotiator, representing companies in all aspects of risk management, including litigation, arbitration, mediation, and counseling.

Contact:Read more about Mary M. Gardner

In February 2024, a New York federal jury returned a split verdict in the New York attorney general’s lengthy battle against Quincy Bioscience, finding that certain of Quincy’s efficacy and establishment claims for a dietary supplement called Prevagen were materially misleading. Quincy advertises that Prevagen improves memory through an active ingredient derived from jellyfish.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the New York AG jointly brought the case against Quincy in 2017, alleging its marketing of Prevagen was unfair, deceptive, or false advertising in violation of Sections 5 and 12 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, and New York General Business Law Sections 349 and 350, and for repeated fraudulent acts under New York Executive Law section 63(12). The New York AG sought injunctive relief and restitution from Quincy, and the FTC sought injunctive relief. The FTC’s claim is still pending and was not a part of the New York jury trial. The FTC/AG tag team has become common after the AMG decision, and the FTC recently discussed this in its report to Congress on cooperation with AGs.Continue Reading Unraveling a Tangled Net of Claims: Jury Split on a Jellyfish-Derived Supplement Product

In late January, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Justice Department (DOJ) announced a collaborative effort to update their instructions regarding preservation of electronic communications to targets of pre-litigation information requests in antitrust investigations. The agencies’ new instruction makes clear that targets must preserve ephemeral messages and threatens civil or criminal sanctions for failure to do so.

A number of popular messaging platforms—both text and email—allow users to send messages that are erased and permanently disappear either immediately or shortly after the recipient reads the message. SnapChat and Slack are common examples of apps that give users the option of ephemeral messaging. Some of these apps use end-to-end encryption to prevent third-party providers from accessing the communications. For example, Signal and Proton Mail are prevalent messaging and email platforms used for their ephemeral messaging capabilities.Continue Reading The FTC’s and DOJ’s New Magic Act: Vanished Messages Will Reappear in Discovery

In recent years, independent agencies have continued to face a number of constitutional and statutory challenges before the Supreme Court. AMG Capital Management struck down the Federal Trade Commission’s authority to obtain equitable monetary relief under Section 13(b). Seila Law severed the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau (CFPB) commissioner’s for-cause removal protections. This term, the Supreme Court will determine whether the CFPB’s funding structure is constitutional in CFPB v. CFSA. And, as we’ve previewed earlier this year, the Court will weigh three constitutional challenges to the SEC in SEC v. Jarkesy.

A quick primer: The Supreme Court will review three constitutional infirmities that the Fifth Circuit determined that the SEC suffered. First, the Fifth Circuit held that when the SEC brought claims for civil penalties in administrative proceedings, it deprived Jarkesy of its Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial. Second, the Fifth Circuit held that Congress unconstitutionally delegated legislative powers to the SEC without an “intelligible principle” by providing it with the discretion to choose whether to bring an enforcement action for monetary penalties in Article III courts or before an administrative law judge (ALJ). Finally, the Fifth Circuit determined that the statutory removal restrictions for SEC ALJs are unconstitutional.Continue Reading Tracking the Impact of Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy and Other Constitutional Challenges Against the FTC

Last week, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) won a large battle in its extended war with Intuit, the makers of TurboTax tax-preparation software. An administrative law judge (ALJ) issued a lengthy initial decision, ruling that Intuit’s advertisement of a TurboTax offering as “free” was deceptive, ordering Intuit to cease and desist future advertising related…

As we recently previewed, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) published its Proposed Rule that would codify its updated guidance on the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The TCPA regulates calls and text messages sent using automated technology and is frequently litigated. Below are the major proposed rule changes on which the FCC seeks comment.Continue Reading FCC Releases Proposed Rule for Codifying Updates to the TCPA

Last week, the Federal Trade Commission issued a Notice of Penalty Offense regarding substantiation for product claims to 670 companies in the health-related marketing space. This new Notice is yet another signal from the FTC that it intends to aggressively pursue its enforcement agenda using all available tools, including previously long-dormant avenues, like its Penalty Offense Authority.

Using its Penalty Offense Authority, the FTC can seek civil penalties from a company or individual that engages in conduct the FTC has determined was unfair or deceptive in a litigated administrative enforcement proceeding, provided the FTC can prove they had actual knowledge that the conduct was unlawful. The purpose of the notice letter is to allow the FTC to argue that the recipients had the requisite “actual knowledge” to support civil penalties of up to $50,120 per violation.Continue Reading New Notice of Penalty Offenses: Are You in the Danger Zone?

The U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark decision unanimously reversing the Ninth Circuit in Axon Enterprise v. Federal Trade Commission is likely to represent a monumental shift in pre-enforcement challenges to administrative enforcement proceedings brought by federal agencies, including the FTC.

The decision held that agencies, including the FTC, are not empowered to decide whether their own enforcement procedures are constitutional, removing the thumb from federal agencies’ side of the scale. The Supreme Court emphatically ruled that such authority is reserved for the courts, and that collateral challenges to the constitutionality of administrative proceedings are appropriate.

As background, the FTC can elect to litigate a party’s alleged wrongdoing in an administrative proceeding overseen by an FTC-appointed administrative law judge (ALJ) or in a federal district court. Until the Supreme Court’s decision in AMG two years ago, the FTC’s favored enforcement path was to proceed straight to federal district court. With that avenue significantly constrained by AMG, the FTC is more frequently bringing enforcement actions in administrative proceedings before ALJs. Administrative proceedings, however, include several components that heavily favor the FTC. First, the fact finder in an FTC proceeding is appointed by the FTC. Second, the party subject to the enforcement proceeding is forced to wait until the proceeding ends to challenge the result in a federal appeals court. Moreover, the reviewing federal appeals court’s scope of review is limited to the record that the FTC produced.Continue Reading U.S. Supreme Court Justices Thomas and Gorsuch Skeptical of ALJ Proceedings in Axon Enterprise v. Federal Trade Commission Decision

In what could be a seminal case of the Internet age, the U.S. Supreme Court this week heard arguments in Gonzalez v. Google, its first case concerning the hotly debated Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. The case’s potential ramifications might be gleaned from the 70-plus amicus briefs filed by major companies, states, elected officials, and organizations.

Section 230 provides immunity to Internet platforms from liability arising out of third-party content posted to the platform’s websites.  The statute prevents a “provider or user of an interactive computer service” from being treated as “the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” In this case, the Gonzalez family sued YouTube for making targeted recommendations of recruitment videos created by the terrorist organization ISIS. The Gonzalez’s daughter died in an ISIS terrorist attack, and they claim that Section 230 should not shield YouTube from civil liability when its algorithms recommended harmful content such as these videos.Continue Reading For the First Time, Supreme Court Considers Section 230 Immunity for Third-Party Content on Internet Platforms Such as Google and YouTube

Gather your W-2’s and call your CPAs! Tax season is upon us, and that means one thing for the FTC—another flurry of activity in its ongoing action against Intuit, Inc., one of the largest online tax-filing services. Recently, the FTC issued an order denying complaint counsel’s motion for summary decision in the case, concluding that the matter will proceed to a full evidentiary hearing—the FTC’s administrative version of a trial.

As we previously reported, the FTC initially brought its case against Intuit in March 2022, alleging that the marketing of TurboTax as free was misleading because the free service applies only to those customers filing “simple” tax returns, while the service charges many other customers at the end of the filing process. Two months later, we wrote about the states’ investigation of Intuit, which overlapped with the FTC case, and the resulting $141 million settlement with all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Along with the restitution payment, Intuit was required to cease its “free” advertising campaign as part of the settlement.Continue Reading FTC’s Case Against Intuit Isn’t Won—Yet

On December 27, 2022, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) released an Order on Reconsideration and Declaratory Ruling clarifying the express consent requirements for calls placed to residential landlines under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and the Telephone Robocall Abuse Criminal Enforcement and Deterrence Act (TRACED Act).

First, a little background: The TCPA restricts a caller’s ability to place telephone calls to a residential landline using artificial or prerecorded voice messages without the prior express consent of the called party, unless exempted by statute or FCC rule or order.Continue Reading FCC Clarifies Express Written Consent Requirement for Exempt Callers under TCPA and TRACED Act