AMG Capital Management v. FTC

Allegations & issues

The FTC challenged deceptive payday-lending practices. The appeal concerned its statutory power to obtain money in federal court. [1, pp. 2–4]

Key rulings & findings

The provision’s injunction power did not itself authorise retrospective monetary relief. Other statutory mechanisms were distinguished. [1, pp. 6–10]

Admissions

This was a ruling on statutory authority, not a settlement admission.

Disposition

Ninth Circuit judgment reversed; case remanded for proceedings consistent with the opinion. [1, p. 15]

Penalties, damages & redress

The approximately $1.27 billion monetary award could not rest on Section 13(b). The Court did not award replacement compensation. [1, pp. 3, 15]

Restrictions & obligations

The ruling did not abolish the FTC’s prospective injunction power. [1, pp. 7–10]

The remedy the Supreme Court examined

The FTC had obtained a permanent injunction and approximately $1.27 billion in restitution and disgorgement following its payday-lending action. The defendants challenged the use of Section 13(b) as authority for that monetary relief. The Supreme Court considered the meaning of the statute, rather than retrying the allegations about the loan practices. [1, pp. 1–4]

The Court read Section 13(b)’s injunction language in its statutory context as directed at stopping ongoing or future conduct. It distinguished other provisions through which Congress authorised financial relief subject to conditions. Reading the injunction provision to permit the same monetary recovery without those conditions would bypass that statutory structure. [1, pp. 6–10]

A successful appeal about powers, not vindication of the conduct

The unanimous decision reversed the Ninth Circuit judgment and returned the case for further proceedings. It ruled out Section 13(b) as the basis for the monetary award; it did not declare deceptive lending lawful or eliminate every other statutory enforcement route. [1, pp. 14–15]

The FTC publicly disagreed with the result and called on Congress to restore its ability to obtain consumer redress. Its response emphasised the agency’s historical reliance on Section 13(b). That is the regulator’s policy position, distinct from the Court’s interpretation of the statute and the disposition of the appeal. [2]

THE UNDERLYING RECORD

Primary sources

Read the full documents for their precise wording and context. Regulator summaries are identified separately from court records.