Scotus crimps FTC right to restitution, other equitable relief - AMG Capital Management v. FTC

 In a unanimous opinion for the court in AMG Capital Management v. FTC Justice Stephen Breyer has stripped the Federal Trade Commission of a prefered tool: using its statutory power to seek a permanent injunction to compel restitution for anti-competitive and unfair trade practices.  The Court finds that the FTC lacks "explicit" power to go to directly to court for restitution and equitable relief. 

Reversing the Ninth Circuit, the Syllabus explains that the FTC must first go through the ordinary administrative law process:

The Federal Trade Commission filed a complaint against Scott Tucker and his companies alleging deceptive payday lending practices in violation of §5(a) of the Federal Trade Commission Act. The District Court granted the Commission’s request pursuant to §13(b) of the Act for a permanent injunction to prevent Tucker from committing future violations of the Act, and relied on the same authority to direct Tucker to pay $1.27 billion in restitution and disgorgement. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit rejected Tucker’s argument that §13(b) does not authorize the award of equitable monetary relief.

Held: Section 13(b) does not authorize the Commission to seek, or a court to award, equitable monetary relief such as restitution or disgorgement. Pp. 3–15. (a) Congress granted the Commission authority to enforce the Act’s prohibitions on “unfair or deceptive acts or practices,” 15 U. S. C. §§45(a)(1)–(2), by commencing administrative proceedings pursuant to §5 of the Act. Section 5(l) of the Act authorizes the Commission, following completion of the administrative process and the issuance of a final cease and desist order, to seek civil penalties, and permits district courts to “grant mandatory injunctions and such other and further equitable relief as they deem appropriate in the enforcement of such final orders of the Commission.”