STRIKING THE PROPER BALANCE: REDRESS UNDER SECTION 13(b) OF THE FTC ACT

This article proceeds in three parts. First, the authors discuss the legislative history surrounding the enactment of Sections 13(b), 19, and 5(m)(1)(B) of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Act. Second, the authors discuss the Section 13(b) fraud program. Third, the authors explain why expansion of...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inAntitrust law journal Vol. 79; no. 1; pp. 1 - 45
Main Authors Beales, J. Howard, Muris, Timothy J.
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Chicago American Bar Association 22.06.2013
Subjects
Antitrust
Cease and desist orders
Commercial law
Consumer protection
Consumers
Deceptive advertising
Defendants
Dishonesty
Federal district courts
Federal legislation
Fines (Penalties)
Fraud
Injunctions
Jurisdiction
Law
Laws, regulations and rules
Permanent injunctions
Petitions
Preliminary injunctions
Public policy
Remedies
State court decisions
Statutory law
United States > US
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

More Information
Summary:This article proceeds in three parts. First, the authors discuss the legislative history surrounding the enactment of Sections 13(b), 19, and 5(m)(1)(B) of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Act. Second, the authors discuss the Section 13(b) fraud program. Third, the authors explain why expansion of Section 13(b) beyond the fraud program is both wrong as a matter of law and troubling as a matter of policy. Specifically, the authors argue that the FTC and the courts should give meaning to the text of Section 13(b), which provides that the FTC may seek injunctive relief only in "proper cases." Limiting the availability of consumer redress under Section 13(b) to cases consistent with the Section 19 standard strikes the balance Congress thought necessary and ensures that the FTC's actions benefit those that it is their mission to protect: the general public.
ISSN:0003-6056
2326-9774