Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914

Last updated

The Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914 is a United States federal law which established the Federal Trade Commission. The Act was signed into law by US President Woodrow Wilson in 1914 and outlaws unfair methods of competition and unfair acts or practices that affect commerce. [1]

Contents

Background

The inspiration and motivation for this act started in 1890, when the Sherman Antitrust Act was passed. There was a strong antitrust movement to prevent manufacturers from joining price-fixing cartels. [1] After Northern Securities Co. v. United States , a 1904 case that dismantled a J. P. Morgan company, antitrust enforcement became institutionalized. [1] Soon, US President Theodore Roosevelt created the Bureau of Corporations, an agency that reported on the economy and businesses in the industry. [1] The agency was the predecessor to the Federal Trade Commission.

In 1913, President Wilson expanded on the agency by passing the Federal Trade Commissions Act and the Clayton Antitrust Act. [1] The Federal Trade Commission Act was designed for business reform. Congress passed the act in the hopes of protecting consumers against methods of deception in advertisement and of forcing the business to be upfront and truthful about items being sold. [2]

The act was part of a bigger movement in the early 20th century to use special groups like commissions to regulate and oversee certain forms of business. [3] The Federal Trade Commission Act works in conjunction with the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act. [4] Any violations of the Sherman Act also violates the Federal Trade Commission Act and so the Federal Trade Commission can act on cases that violate either act. [4] The Federal Trade Commission Act and both antitrust laws were created for the sole objective to "protect the process of competition for the benefit of consumers, making sure there are strong incentives for businesses to operate efficiently, keep prices down, and keep quality up." [4] The acts are considered the core of antitrust laws and are still very important in today's society.

This commission was authorized to issue "cease and desist" orders to large corporations to curb unfair trade practices. In addition, the Federal Trade Commission Act is also considered a measure that protects privacy since it allows the FTC to penalize companies that violate their own policies by false advertising and other actions that can harm consumers. [5] Some of the unfair methods of competition that were targeted include deceptive advertisements and pricing.

The act passed the Senate by a 43-5 vote on September 8, 1914 and the House on September 10 without a tally of yeas and nays. It was signed into law by President Wilson on September 26.

Summary

Frame of an animation by the Federal Trade Commission intended to educate citizens about phishing tactics Phish.jpg
Frame of an animation by the Federal Trade Commission intended to educate citizens about phishing tactics

The Federal Trade Commission Act does more than create the Commission:

Under this Act, the Commission is empowered, among other things, to (a) prevent unfair methods of competition, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce; (b) seek monetary redress and other relief for conduct injurious to consumers; (c) prescribe trade regulation rules defining with specificity acts or practices that are unfair or deceptive, and establishing requirements designed to prevent such acts or practices; (d) conduct investigations relating to the organization, business, practices, and management of entities engaged in commerce; and (e) make reports and legislative recommendations to Congress. [7]

The FTC Act prohibits unfair methods of competition, unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce. [8] The Commission is empowered to enforce the act's provisions against all persons, partnerships or corporations, with several exceptions, including banks, savings and loans institutions, federal credit unions—each as described in the FTC Act. [9] Banks, savings and loans institutions, federal credit unions and certain other financial entities are instead under the jurisdiction of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

The Commission enforces the FTC Act through its federal rulemaking authority to issue industry-wide rules and regulations, [10] adjudicatory powers, [11] and statutory authority to file civil actions in certain circumstances. [12] The FTC Act does not give consumers the right to sue for violations of the act, but consumers may complain to the Commission about acts or practices they believe to be unfair or deceptive. [13] Consumers may, however, be authorized to sue under a state "UDAP" (unfair, deceptive and abusive practices) statute, sometimes called a "Little FTC Act." [14]

Deception

An act or practice is "deceptive" under the FTC Act when there is a representation, omission or practice that is likely to mislead a consumer acting reasonably in the circumstances. [15] The representation, omission or practice must also be material, in that it is likely to affect the consumer's conduct or decision regarding the product or service. [16] If the representation or practice is directed to a particular group, the Commission will consider reasonableness from that targeted group's perspective. [16] Notably, there is no requirement that the actor intend for their acts to be misleading.

Unfairness

An act or practice is "unfair" under the FTC Act if it "causes or is likely to cause substantial injury" to consumers when the injury is "not reasonably avoidable by consumers themselves." [17] Further, for an act or practice to be unfair, the injury cannot be outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or competition. [17] An example of an injury that rises to the level of "substantial" for unfairness purposes would be the coercion of consumers into purchasing defective goods or services on credit without the ability to assert creditor claims or defenses against the transaction. [18] Although public policy is not a specific criterion, it may be considered in determining how substantial an injury might be. [17]

Enforcement

Administrative adjudication

If after investigating, [19] the Commission has reason to believe an actor has violated the FTC Act's prohibition on unfair methods of competition or unfair or deceptive acts or practices, and that a proceeding against the actor is in the public's best interest, the Commission is authorized to commence administrative proceedings against the actor in administrative court. [11] Other parties may apply to intervene and appear at the hearing. [11] If, after the administrative hearing, the Commission determines the actor has violated the FTC Act's prohibitions on unfair and deceptive acts, it must provide the actor with findings of fact and issue and serve a cease and desist order against the violation. [11] The enjoined party may appeal the FTC's cease and desist order to the U.S. Court of Appeals in "any circuit where the method of competition or act or practice in question was used or where such person, partnership or corporation resides or carries on business . . . ." [20]

Civil actions against parties subject to administrative cease and desist order

When a cease and desist order against a person's act or practice of unfair and deceptive practices becomes final, the Commission may then seek relief for the violation in either a U.S. district court or "in any competent jurisdiction of a State." [21] If the court determines that the act or practice in question is "one in which a reasonable man would have known under the circumstances was dishonest or fraudulent," the court may grant relief that the "court finds necessary to redress injury to consumers or other persons, partnerships, and corporations" resulting from the violation or unfair or deceptive act or practice. [22] The statute provides a non-exhaustive list of relief available, including rescission or reformation of contracts, refunds or returns of property, damages, or public notice of the violation. [23]

In addition, if an actor subject to a cease and desist order violates the Commission's final and in-effect order to cease and desist engaging in an unfair or deceptive act or practice, the enjoined actor is automatically liable for a civil penalty up to $10,000 per violation, the amount of which is to be determined by a district court. [24] In such circumstances, the FTC Act gives U.S. district courts the power to grant mandatory injunctions and "such other and further equitable relief as they deem appropriate" in order to enforce the Commission's final order. [24]

Other civil actions

The Commission is also authorized to commence civil actions in a U.S. district court—without first adjudicating the matter in administrative court—against actors it finds to be in violation of the Commission's promulgated rules [25] prohibiting deceptive and unfair practices. [26] It may do so, however, only in certain circumstances, including if it determines that the actor had actual knowledge or "knowledge fairly implied on the basis of objective circumstances" that the act is unfair or deceptive. [27]

If the Commission issued a final and in-effect cease and desist order through its administrative proceedings with regard to an unlawful act or practice, it may initiate civil proceedings against another actor for engaging in the same unlawful act or practice, even when the new actor was not subject to the initial cease and desist order. [28] However, the Commission may do so only if the actor had engaged in the act or practice with "actual knowledge" that the act or practice was both "unfair or deceptive" and unlawful. [28]

Actual knowledge can be established with a showing that the Commission provided the actor with a copy of its determination or a synopsis of such determination that led to the relevant cease and desist order. [29] Both types of actions will result in an up to $10,000 civil penalty to be determined by the court. [30]

The FTC Act also authorizes the Commission in particular cases to obtain a permanent injunction through a civil action in federal court against any actor under the Commission's jurisdiction if it believes the actor "is violating, or is about to violate, any provision of law" enforced by the Commission. [31] The U.S. Supreme Court has determined that the provision providing the Commission with its power to seek a permanent injunction does not give it the extra power to seek an award of "equitable monetary relief such as restitution or disgorgement." [32]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sherman Antitrust Act</span> 1890 U.S. anti-monopoly law

The Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 is a United States antitrust law which prescribes the rule of free competition among those engaged in commerce. It was passed by Congress and is named for Senator John Sherman, its principal author.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914</span> US federal law

The Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914, is a part of United States antitrust law with the goal of adding further substance to the U.S. antitrust law regime; the Clayton Act seeks to prevent anticompetitive practices in their incipiency. That regime started with the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, the first Federal law outlawing practices that were harmful to consumers. The Clayton Act specified particular prohibited conduct, the three-level enforcement scheme, the exemptions, and the remedial measures. Like the Sherman Act, much of the substance of the Clayton Act has been developed and animated by the U.S. courts, particularly the Supreme Court.

The Robinson–Patman Act (RPA) of 1936 is a United States federal law that prohibits anticompetitive practices by producers, specifically price discrimination.

The Wheeler–Lea Act of 1938 is a United States federal law that amended Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act to proscribe "unfair or deceptive acts or practices" as well as "unfair methods of competition." It provided civil penalties for violations of Section 5 orders. It also added a clause to Section 5 that stated "unfair or deceptive acts or practices in commerce are hereby declared unlawful" to the Section 5 prohibition of unfair methods of competition in order to protect consumers as well as competition.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States antitrust law</span> American legal system intended to promote competition among businesses

In the United States, antitrust law is a collection of mostly federal laws that regulate the conduct and organization of businesses to promote competition and prevent unjustified monopolies. The three main U.S. antitrust statutes are the Sherman Act of 1890, the Clayton Act of 1914, and the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914. These acts serve three major functions. First, Section 1 of the Sherman Act prohibits price fixing and the operation of cartels, and prohibits other collusive practices that unreasonably restrain trade. Second, Section 7 of the Clayton Act restricts the mergers and acquisitions of organizations that may substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly. Third, Section 2 of the Sherman Act prohibits monopolization.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Federal Trade Commission</span> United States government agency

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is an independent agency of the United States government whose principal mission is the enforcement of civil (non-criminal) antitrust law and the promotion of consumer protection. The FTC shares jurisdiction over federal civil antitrust law enforcement with the Department of Justice Antitrust Division. The agency is headquartered in the Federal Trade Commission Building in Washington, DC.

The Hart–Scott–Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976 is a set of amendments to the antitrust laws of the United States, principally the Clayton Antitrust Act. The HSR Act was signed into law by president Gerald R. Ford on September 30, 1976. The context in which the HSR Act is usually cited is 15 U.S.C. § 18a, title II of the original law. The HSR Act is named after senators Philip Hart and Hugh Scott and representative Peter W. Rodino.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fair Debt Collection Practices Act</span> U.S. consumer protection law

The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), Pub. L. 95-109; 91 Stat. 874, codified as 15 U.S.C. § 1692 –1692p, approved on September 20, 1977, is a consumer protection amendment, establishing legal protection from abusive debt collection practices, to the Consumer Credit Protection Act, as Title VIII of that Act. The statute's stated purposes are: to eliminate abusive practices in the collection of consumer debts, to promote fair debt collection, and to provide consumers with an avenue for disputing and obtaining validation of debt information in order to ensure the information's accuracy. The Act creates guidelines under which debt collectors may conduct business, defines rights of consumers involved with debt collectors, and prescribes penalties and remedies for violations of the Act. It is sometimes used in conjunction with the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">False advertising</span> Misleading content in advertisements

False advertising is the act of publishing, transmitting, or otherwise publicly circulating an advertisement containing a false claim, or statement, made intentionally to promote the sale of property, goods, or services. A false advertisement can be classified as deceptive if the advertiser deliberately misleads the consumer, rather than making an unintentional mistake. A number of governments use regulations to limit false advertising.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Packers and Stockyards Act</span> U.S. federal law

The Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921 regulates meatpacking, livestock dealers, market agencies, live poultry dealers, and swine contractors to prohibit unfair or deceptive practices, giving undue preferences, apportioning supply, manipulating prices, or creating a monopoly. It was enacted following the release in 1919 of the Report of the Federal Trade Commission on the meatpacking industry.

Fashion Originators' Guild of America v. FTC, 312 U.S. 457 (1941), is a 1941 decision of the United States Supreme Court sustaining an order of the Federal Trade Commission against a boycott agreement among manufacturers of "high-fashion" dresses. The purpose of the boycott was to suppress "style piracy". The FTC found the Fashion Guild in violation of § 5 of the FTC Act, because the challenged conduct was a per se violation of § 1 of the Sherman Act.

Consumer protection is the practice of safeguarding buyers of goods and services, and the public, against unfair practices in the marketplace. Consumer protection measures are often established by law. Such laws are intended to prevent businesses from engaging in fraud or specified unfair practices to gain an advantage over competitors or to mislead consumers. They may also provide additional protection for the general public which may be impacted by a product even when they are not the direct purchaser or consumer of that product. For example, government regulations may require businesses to disclose detailed information about their products—particularly in areas where public health or safety is an issue, such as with food or automobiles.

<i>FTC v. Sperry & Hutchinson Trading Stamp Co.</i> 1972 United States Supreme Court case

Federal Trade Commission v. Sperry & Hutchinson Trading Stamp Co., 405 U.S. 233 (1972), is a decision of the United States Supreme Court holding that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) may act against a company's “unfair” business practices even though the practice is none of the following: an antitrust violation, an incipient antitrust violation, a violation of the “spirit” of the antitrust laws, or a deceptive practice. This legal theory is termed the "unfairness doctrine."

The unfairness doctrine is a doctrine in United States trade regulation law under which the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) can declare a business practice "unfair" because it is oppressive or harmful to consumers even though the practice is not an antitrust violation, an incipient antitrust violation, a violation of the "spirit" of the antitrust laws, or a deceptive practice.

This report is the result of a student task force exploration of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), completed over the course of a summer job led by Ralph Nader. The seven law student volunteers began their evaluation of the FTC in June 1968, and published a revised and expanded version of the report as a book in January 1969.

The Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act is a federal law in the United States aimed at protecting consumers from telemarketing deception and abuse. The act is enforced by the Federal Trade Commission. The act expanded controls over telemarketing and gave more control to prescribe rules to the Federal Trade Commission. After the passage of the act, the Federal Trade Commission is required to (1) define and prohibit deceptive telemarketing practices; (2) keep telemarketers from practices a reasonable consumer would see as being coercive or invasions of privacy; (3) set restrictions on the time of day and night that unsolicited calls can be made to consumers; (4) to require the nature of the call to be disclosed at the start of any unsolicited call that is made with the purpose of trying to sell something.

The franchise rule defines acts or practices that are unfair or deceptive in the franchise industry in the United States. The franchise rule is published by the Federal Trade Commission. The franchise rule seeks to facilitate informed decisions and to prevent deception in the sale of franchises by requiring franchisors to provide prospective franchisees with essential information prior to the sale. It does not, however, regulate the substance of the terms that control the relationship between franchisors and franchisees. Also, while the franchise rule removed the regulation of the sale of franchises from the purview of state law, placing it under the authority of the FTC to regulate interstate commerce, the FTC franchise rule does not require franchisors to disclose the unit performance statistics of the franchised system to new buyers of franchises. The FTC franchise rule was originally adopted in 1978. This followed a lengthy FTC rulemaking proceeding that began in 1971. A substantial revision of the FTC franchise rule was adopted by the FTC in 2007.

In addition to federal laws, each state has its own unfair competition law to prohibit false and misleading advertising. In California, one such statute is the Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), Business and Professions Code §§ 17200 et seq. The UCL "borrows heavily from section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act" but has developed its own body of case law.

FTC v. Motion Picture Advertising Service Co., 344 U.S. 392 (1953), was a 1953 decision of the United States Supreme Court in which the Court held that, where exclusive output contracts used by one company "and the three other major companies have foreclosed to competitors 75 percent of all available outlets for this business throughout the United States" the practice is "a device which has sewed up a market so tightly for the benefit of a few [that it] falls within the prohibitions of the Sherman Act, and is therefore an 'unfair method of competition' " under § 5 of the FTC Act. In so ruling, the Court extended the analysis under § 3 of the Clayton Act of requirements contracts that it made in the Standard Stations case to output contracts brought under the Sherman or FTC Acts.

<i>Federal Trade Commission v. Vemma Nutrition Company</i>

Federal Trade Commission v. Vemma Nutrition Company, No. 2:15-cv-01578, was a case heard in United States District Court for the District of Arizona. On August 17, 2015, the Federal Trade Commission for the United States filed a complaint for the preliminary injunction and for other equitable relief of Vemma Nutrition Company.. The FTC, under Section 13(b) of the Federal Trade Commission Act filed for the permanent injunction of Vemma and alleged Vemma in violation of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C § 45 (a) in connection with the advertising, marketing, promotion, and sale of opportunities to sell health and wellness drinks. The FTC alleged Vemma Nutrition Company of running an illegal pyramid scheme dependent on targeting young adults and recruitment tactics that emphasize the importance of becoming an "affiliate" and purchasing "affiliate packs" and monthly auto-delivery supply packs. Vemma further emphasizes the importance of affiliates to recruit others and "teach them to duplicate this process," offering "bonuses" as incentive for doing so. Vemma CEO Benson K. Boreyko claimed in his recruitment presentations that there is a potential for affiliates to "earn up to $50,000 a month working part time." The FTC found that affiliates are unlikely to earn substantial income and suffer, therefore being misled to participate in a deceptive act in violation of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C § 45 (a).

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 Winerman, Marc (2003). "The Origins of the FTC: Concentration, Cooperation, Control, and Competition" (PDF). Antitrust Law Journal. 71: 1–97. Retrieved December 6, 2017.
  2. ↑ "A Brief Overview of the Federal Trade Commission's Investigative and Law Enforcement Authority". Federal Trade Commission. July 2008. Retrieved 18 December 2017.
  3. ↑ "Federal Trade Commission Act". encyclopedia.com.
  4. 1 2 3 "The Antitrust Laws". ftc.gov. 11 June 2013.
  5. ↑ Hutchinson, Eugene E. (2015). "Keeping Your Personal Information Personal: Trouble for the Modern Consumer". Hofstra Law Review. 43 (4): 1149–1173.
  6. ↑ "Consumer Information". ftc.gov.
  7. ↑ "Federal Trade Commission Act". ftc.gov. 19 July 2013.
  8. ↑ 15 U.S.C. § 45(a)(1).
  9. ↑ 15 U.S.C. § 45(a)(2).
  10. ↑ Fed. Trade Comm'n, Enforcement: Rulemaking, https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/rulemaking (2023).
  11. 1 2 3 4 15 U.S.C. § 45(b).
  12. ↑ 15 U.S.C. §§ 45(m)(1)(A), 53(b).
  13. ↑ File a Complaint, Fed. Trad Comm'n, https://www.ftc.gov/media/71268 . [ bare URL ]
  14. ↑ Jeff Sovern, Private Actions Under the Deceptive Trade Practices Acts: Reconsidering the FTC Act as a Model, 52 Ohio St. L.J. 437, 438–39, 448–51 (1991).
  15. ↑ Federal Trade Commission, FTC Policy Statement on Deception, 103 F.T.C. 110, 174 (1984), https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements/410531/831014deceptionstmt.pdf .
  16. 1 2 Federal Trade Commission, FTC Policy Statement on Deception, 103 F.T.C. 110, 174 (1984).
  17. 1 2 3 15 U.S.C. 45(n).
  18. ↑ Fed. Trade Comm'n, FTC Policy Statement on Unfairness, 104 F.T.C. 949, 1070 (1984).
  19. ↑ 15 U.S.C. §§ 46, 49, 57b-1.
  20. ↑ 15 U.S.C. § 45(c).
  21. ↑ 15 U.S.C. § 57-b(a)(2).
  22. ↑ 15 U.S.C. §§ 57-b(a)(2), (b).
  23. ↑ 15 U.S.C. § 57-b(b).
  24. 1 2 15 U.S.C. § 45(l).
  25. ↑ Fed Trade Comm'n, Legal Library: Rules, https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/rules (2023).
  26. ↑ 15 U.S.C. § 45(m).
  27. ↑ 15 U.S.C. § 45(m)(1)(A).
  28. 1 2 15 U.S.C. § 45(m)(1)(B).
  29. ↑ Federal Trade Commission (7 June 2013). "A Brief Overview of the Federal Trade Commission's Investigative, Law Enforcement, and Rulemaking Authority". ftc.gov. Retrieved March 19, 2023.
  30. ↑ 15 U.S.C. §§ 45m(1)(A)–(B).
  31. ↑ 15 U.S.C. § 53(b).
  32. ↑ AMG Capital Mgmt. v. FTC, 141 S.Ct. 1341, 1344 (2021) (interpreting 15 U.S.C. § 53(b)).
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.