Supreme Court justices struggled to balance precedent enabling the FTC to follow customer redress from fraudsters against limits when you look at the agencyвЂ™s statute that is governing a case involving a payday lenderвЂ™s $1.3 billion penalty.
The high court heard arguments Wednesday in AMG Capital Management LLC v. FTC, an instance that may constrain the commission from searching for financial relief for fraud victims under part 13(b) associated with Federal Trade Commission Act. Part b that is 13( ended up being a 1973 amendment to your 1914 legislation that created the payment.
The language associated with the statute just states that the FTC could look for injunctive relief, but will not state perhaps the payment can seek equitable relief, including customer redress. Nevertheless, appellate courts for many years have actually upheld the FTCвЂ™s power to look for customer redress until 2019.
Several justices asked whether years of court rulings had been more crucial compared to the current courtвЂ™s more textualist interpretation of statutes.
Why if the Supreme Court вЂњadopt a view that is present today but ended up beingnвЂ™t current then?вЂќ Chief Justice John Roberts stated, talking about the 1973 amendment towards the 191`4 legislation.
Years of Precedent
AMG Capital is wanting to overturn years of appellate court precedent that have supported the FTCвЂ™s quest for restitution alongside court injunctions to straight away stop consumer that is alleged and antitrust violations.