Michael A. Munoz

Subscribe to Michael A. Munoz's Posts
Contact: Read more about Michael A. Munoz

In the wake of AMG Capital Management v. FTC and Liu v. SEC, uncertainty has loomed as to how courts should measure the consumer redress available to the FTC under Section 19 of the FTC Act. Earlier this month, a court in the District of Arizona squarely addressed this issue.

Before AMG, the FTC used its ability to obtain injunctive relief in federal court under Section 13(b) of the FTC Act for violations of Section 5 of the FTC Act to also obtain equitable monetary relief. As we’ve previously discussed, the Supreme Court’s decision in AMG put an end to that. As a result, the FTC turned to its authority under Section 19 to obtain redress for rule violations.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Liu, which we also previously covered, held that equitable monetary relief cannot exceed a defendant’s gains after legitimate business expenses. This results in the quandary of how to reconcile this with the text of Section 19, which provides for “such relief as the court finds necessary to redress injury to consumers.”…

Continue Reading Addressing the Redress: District Court Limits the Scope of FTC Consumer Redress for Rule Violations

The Supreme Court’s opinion last week in National Pork Producers Council v. Ross raises more questions than it answers regarding what state laws might violate the dormant Commerce Clause. California prohibits the in-state sale of pork that comes from pigs raised in “cruel” conditions—even though nearly all the pork sold in California is raised in other states. The Court upheld that law in the face of a dormant Commerce Clause challenge. But the Court’s fractured reasoning makes it hard to predict how other laws might fare.

As a refresher, the Dormant Commerce Clause stems from Congress’s Article 1, Section 8 authority to regulate commerce “among the several States.” In contrast to preemption, which limits states’ authority in an area where Congress has acted, the Dormant Commerce Clause limits states’ ability to regulate even when there is no relevant congressional action. …

Continue Reading Could Texas Ban the Sale of Union-Made Goods? After National Pork Producers, We Still Don’t Know

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

FTC investigations require companies to act quickly. Failure to do so can have draconian consequences. Read more for recent case examples.
Continue Reading Spoliation and Failure to Disclose: What Gets Swept Under the Rug in FTC Investigations Lands in a Dangerous Pit

For those embroiled in Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) class action litigation, the sum of the damages may not necessarily equal the whole.

In Wakefield v. ViSalus, Inc., the plaintiff and certified nationwide class obtained a jury verdict that defendant made 1,850,440 prerecorded message calls without the then-heightened prior express consent to make such calls. Because the TCPA’s minimum statutory damages are $500 per unlawful prerecorded message call, the damages award was a whopping $925,220,000.

After trial, ViSalus challenged, among other things, the damages award as unconstitutionally excessive. Specifically, ViSalus did not argue that the TCPA’s $500 per violation statutory penalty is unconstitutional in a vacuum, but, rather, that the “aggregate award” is so “severe and oppressive” that it violated ViSalus’s due process rights. Last Thursday, the Ninth Circuit agreed.…

Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Rules That TCPA Aggregated Statutory Damages Might Be Unconstitutionally Punitive

The FTC’s ears must have been burning. Yesterday, just hours after we finished a webinar discussing the latest developments in the FTC’s push for more rulemaking, the FTC announced an upcoming open meeting where it will propose issuing three advanced notices of proposed rulemaking (ANPR).

First, the FTC will consider whether to initiate rulemaking to…

On Monday the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission issued a cease-and-desist order to Kim Kardashian for failing to disclose that she received $250,000 to promote EthereumMax’s digital tokens, “EMAX tokens,” on social media.

The SEC considers the EMAX token to be an investment contract, a type of security under the SEC’s jurisdiction. EMAX tokens are available for public trading on cryptocurrency exchanges, and the SEC found that purchasers would have had a reasonable expectation of profits from their investment in EMAX tokens as a result of the efforts of the company behind the token.…

Continue Reading Keeping Up with Disclosures: SEC Punishes Kim Kardashian for Crypto Promotion

The buzz around gig economy protections continued as the Federal Trade Commission took yet another action to safeguard gig workers. Last week, the FTC adopted a policy statement asserting its authority to address unfair and deceptive practices and anticompetitive conduct that harms workers in the gig economy.

The statement highlights data from several studies concerning the gig economy, including that it is expected to generate $455 billion in annual sales by 2023, and that 16% of Americans report earning income through an online gig platform. The statement also reports that, while gig work has already established itself in food delivery and transportation, it is now expanding into healthcare, retail, and other segments of the economy. The FTC noted that the decrease in demand for transportation during the COVID-19 pandemic illustrates “the precarious nature of gig work.”

The FTC statement focuses on three features of the gig economy “that implicate the Commission’s consumer protection and competition missions:”…

Continue Reading New FTC Policy Statement: Agency Continues to Ramp Up Gig Worker Protections

We recently discussed the various ways in which the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is focusing on worker protections in the gig economy. Though we didn’t have a crystal ball to foresee it, the FTC announced that it is furthering those efforts through a new partnership with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). On July 19, 2022, FTC Chair Lina Khan and NLRB General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on behalf of their respective agencies to “promote interagency collaboration,” to enhance enforcement efforts, and to “better root out practices that harm workers.”

The NLRB is an independent federal agency that enforces federal labor regulations—namely, regulations prohibiting unfair labor practices—through investigations, administrative proceedings, and lawsuits. The NLRB also engages in rulemaking and conducts elections concerning the formation or decertification of unions. FTC Chair Khan stated that the agencies’ agreement will advance their “shared mission to ensure that unlawful business practices aren’t depriving workers of the pay, benefits, conditions, and dignity that they deserve.”…

Continue Reading FTC Joins Forces with NLRB to Further Its Gig Economy and Worker Protection Agenda

The FTC is off to the races with another proposed rulemaking. On June 23, the FTC, by a 4-1 vote, issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) to combat what it perceives as “junk fees” and “bait-and-switch advertising tactics” in the auto sales industry. Congress gave the FTC the authority to write rules governing the retail sale of automobiles, using APA rulemaking and not the more cumbersome Magnuson Moss rulemaking that the FTC normally must follow in consumer protection rulemakings. This authority is no small matter, as on June 30, the Supreme Court issued its decision in West Virginia v. EPA, which will make rulemakings by the FTC and other government agencies more challenging.

The FTC’s proposed rule would prohibit certain misrepresentations, require certain disclosures, prohibit certain “add-ons,” and require more thorough recordkeeping. First, among a whole host of potential misrepresentations, the proposed rule includes prohibiting misrepresenting regarding vehicle costs; terms of purchasing, financing, or leasing; and the availability of vehicles at an advertised price.…

Continue Reading FTC Starts the Engine on Car Sales Fees and Advertising Rulemaking, but Other Rulemaking Faces Major Questions