In a summary judgment, the District Court upheld the FTC’s motion for an injunction and financial appeal, ordering Tucker to pay $ 1.27 billion in refunds and levies to be used by the commission to “direct.” Consumer remedies “to provide. In 2012, the commission filed a complaint in federal court against Scott Tucker and his companies, citing Section 13 (b), alleging that their short-term lending practices were deceptive and unfair and in violation of Section 5 (a) of the FTC Act. ![]() And along the way, the Commission has received billions of dollars in discharge and has secured $ 11.2 billion in consumer refunds in the last five years alone. ”For over four decades, the Commission has relied on this section to bring consumer and antitrust lawsuits directly to federal courts for interim relief Obtaining rulings and financial relief, such as reimbursement and levy, and brings “far more cases to court than through the administrative process”. in appropriate cases, the commission may seek an injunction and, upon proper evidence, the court may issue an injunction. ![]() Section 13 (b) of the FTC Act provides that if the Commission “has reason to believe that any person, partnership, or corporation is violating, or about to violate, any law enforced by the Federal Trade Commission. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that Section 13 (b) of the Federal Trade Commission Act does not give the Commission the power to evade administrative procedures and seek fair monetary relief directly in the federal courts.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |