United States Leading Case grounds illegalityabuse of dominance

AMG Capital Management LLC v FTC

593 US 67 (2021)

JurisdictionUnited States

CourtUS Supreme Court

Year2021

StatusBinding authority

Summary

Section 13(b) of the FTC Act authorises only injunctive relief, not equitable monetary relief such as restitution or disgorgement.

Key Principle

Section 13(b) of the FTC Act does not authorise the FTC to seek equitable monetary relief (restitution or disgorgement); the FTC's authority under §13(b) is limited to injunctive relief.

Area of Law

consumer

Related Cases

Google LLC v ACCC (2021) 391 ALR 346

Google was not liable for misleading or deceptive conduct under Australian consumer law in respect of sponsored search results created and placed by third-party advertisers.

Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Kobelt (2019) 267 CLR 1

HCA held 4:3 that a book-up system with Indigenous customers was not unconscionable under ASIC Act s.12CB; unconscionability requires more than a poor bargain.

ACCC v Valve Corporation (No 3) [2016] FCA 196

Valve Corporation made false representations to Australian consumers that no refund rights existed for Steam game purchases, breaching consumer guarantee provisions of the ACL.

Ask CommonBench about this case

Get a detailed analysis of AMG Capital Management LLC v FTC and how it applies to your situation.

Explain AMG Capital Management LLC v F...