AMG Capital Management v. Federal Trade Commission
Overview
Overview
The FTC sought equitable monetary relief, including disgorgement and restitution, against AMG Capital Management for deceptive payday lending practices. The Supreme Court held 9-0 that Section 13(b) of the FTC Act, which authorizes courts to issue injunctions, does not authorize courts to award equitable monetary relief such as restitution or disgorgement.
The Facts
Facts
The FTC sued AMG Capital Management, a payday lending company, under Section 13(b) of the FTC Act, which allows the FTC to seek injunctive relief in federal court. The FTC also sought over one billion dollars in equitable monetary relief for consumers harmed by AMG's deceptive practices. Lower courts had long read Section 13(b) as implicitly authorizing such monetary awards.
The Issue
Issue
Whether Section 13(b) of the FTC Act, which grants courts authority to issue permanent injunctions against unfair or deceptive practices, also authorizes courts to award equitable monetary relief such as restitution and disgorgement.
The Rules
Rule
The text of Section 13(b) authorizes courts to issue injunctions; it does not mention monetary relief. Where Congress separately established a provision for monetary relief with limitations and procedural requirements, courts may not circumvent those limits by finding additional monetary authority implied in the injunction provision. Statutory authorization must be found in the text, not implied from general equitable authority.
The Application
Analysis
The Court examined the text of Section 13(b) and found it authorized only injunctive relief, not the equitable monetary remedies of restitution and disgorgement that the FTC sought from AMG for its deceptive payday lending practices. Because the FTC Act contained separate provisions for monetary relief with distinct limitations and procedures, the Court refused to expand Section 13(b) beyond its plain language to encompass those remedies, rejecting the lower courts' longstanding practice of awarding such relief under the injunction provision. The 9-0 decision eliminated the FTC's primary enforcement mechanism for consumer redress and exposed a significant gap in the agency's statutory authority that would require congressional action to fill.
The Conclusion
Conclusion
AMG Capital limited the FTC's enforcement power by holding that the agency cannot obtain monetary disgorgement or restitution directly under Section 13(b). The ruling eliminated a primary enforcement tool the agency had used for decades, requiring Congress to act if it wanted to restore broad monetary recovery authority. Congress subsequently amended the FTC Act through the COVID-19 Consumer Protection Act and ongoing legislative efforts to address the gap.
Flag an issue
This tracker is maintained by BrynoDC and is free because readers fund it. Support