Ninth Circuit Judges Call for En Banc Review of the Federal Trade Commission’s Authority to Obtain Monetary Relief

January 15, 2019

Click for PDF

With increasing regularity, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) is seeking and obtaining large monetary remedies as “equitable monetary relief” pursuant to Section 13(b) of the FTC Act.  Indeed, FTC settlements and judgments exceeding $100 million, and even $1 billion, are becoming commonplace.

The Supreme Court, however, has never held that Section 13(b) of the FTC Act empowers the FTC to obtain monetary relief.  Although multiple federal circuit courts have held that Section 13(b) provides the agency with this power, several weeks ago two Ninth Circuit judges issued a concurrence in FTC v. AMG Capital Management, LLC et al. calling for the full Ninth Circuit to reconsider this issue en banc in light of the Supreme Court’s 2017 decision in Kokesh v. SEC.

Gibson Dunn partners Sean Royall, Blaine Evanson, and Rich Cunningham, and associate Brandon J. Stoker recently published an article discussing the AMG Capital Management concurrence in the Washington Legal Foundation’s The Legal Pulse blog.  The article describes the concurrence and how it fits into the broader legal landscape around this issue, which is clearly poised for further attention from the federal appellate courts, including the Supreme Court.

Ninth Circuit Judges Call for En Banc Review of the Federal Trade Commission’s Authority to Obtain Monetary Relief (click on link)

© 2019, Washington Legal Foundation, The Legal Pulse, January 15, 2019. Reprinted with permission.

Gibson Dunn’s lawyers are available to assist in addressing any questions you may have regarding these developments. Please contact the authors of this Client Alert, the Gibson Dunn lawyer with whom you usually work, or one of the leaders and members of the firm’s Antitrust and Competition or Privacy, Cybersecurity and Consumer Protection practice groups:

Washington, D.C.
Scott D. Hammond (+1 202-887-3684, [email protected])
D. Jarrett Arp (+1 202-955-8678, [email protected])
Adam Di Vincenzo (+1 202-887-3704, [email protected])
Howard S. Hogan (+1 202-887-3640, [email protected])
Joseph Kattan P.C. (+1 202-955-8239, [email protected])
Joshua Lipton (+1 202-955-8226, [email protected])
Cynthia Richman (+1 202-955-8234, [email protected])
Jeremy Robison (+1 202-955-8518, [email protected])

New York
Alexander H. Southwell (+1 212-351-3981, [email protected])
Eric J. Stock (+1 212-351-2301, [email protected])

Los Angeles
Daniel G. Swanson (+1 213-229-7430, [email protected])
Debra Wong Yang (+1 213-229-7472, [email protected])
Samuel G. Liversidge (+1 213-229-7420, [email protected])
Jay P. Srinivasan (+1 213-229-7296, [email protected])
Rod J. Stone (+1 213-229-7256, [email protected])
Eric D. Vandevelde (+1 213-229-7186, [email protected])

Orange County
Blaine H. Evanson (+1 949-451-3805, [email protected])

San Francisco
Rachel S. Brass (+1 415-393-8293, [email protected])

M. Sean Royall (+1 214-698-3256, [email protected])
Olivia Adendorff (+1 214-698-3159, [email protected])
Veronica S. Lewis (+1 214-698-3320, [email protected])
Mike Raiff (+1 214-698-3350, [email protected])
Brian Robison (+1 214-698-3370, [email protected])
Robert C. Walters (+1 214-698-3114, [email protected])

Richard H. Cunningham (+1 303-298-5752, [email protected])
Ryan T. Bergsieker
(+1 303-298-5774, [email protected])

© 2019 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
Attorney Advertising:  The enclosed materials have been prepared for general informational purposes only and are not intended as legal advice.