Chapter 5: Federal and State Regulators and Enforcement of Privacy Law
FTC Enforcement Tools and the AMG Decision
The FTC uses Section 5(l) for administrative cease-and-desist enforcement and Sections 13(b) and 19 for judicial relief. The Supreme Court in AMG Capital Management v. FTC (2021) held the FTC cannot obtain monetary relief under Section 13(b).
| Provision | Type | What it does |
|---|---|---|
| Section 5(l) | Administrative | Complaint, then proceeding; cease-and-desist order, with civil penalties for later violations |
| Section 13(b) | Judicial | Historically sought equitable money relief (restitution, disgorgement) without a prior cease-and-desist order |
| Section 19 | Judicial | Courts grant necessary relief, but only after a final cease-and-desist order |
The AMG hole
In AMG Capital Management v. FTC (2021) the Supreme Court held the FTC is not authorized to obtain monetary relief (damages) under Section 13(b). This pushed the FTC toward other routes for consumer redress.
Key terms - quick answers
What is “Section 5(l)”?
FTC Act provision for administrative enforcement: the FTC issues a complaint, finds violations, and issues a cease-and-desist order, pursuing civil penalties for later breaches.
What is “Section 13(b)”?
FTC Act provision historically used to seek equitable money relief (restitution, disgorgement) without first issuing a cease-and-desist order.
What is “Section 19”?
FTC Act provision allowing courts to grant relief once the FTC has issued a final cease-and-desist order.
What is “AMG Capital Management v. FTC”?
2021 Supreme Court case holding the FTC may not obtain monetary relief or damages under Section 13(b).