AMG Capital Management, LLC v. FTC

The Court is reviewing whether Section 13(b) of the FTC Act lets the Federal Trade Commission go to federal court not just to stop allegedly deceptive conduct, but also to recover money for consumers. The dispute grew out of the FTC's case against Scott Tucker and his payday lending businesses over claims that consumers were misled.

Oral argument has not been scheduled yet. The central fight is whether Section 13(b)'s reference to "injunction[s]" also lets courts order money back to consumers.

The answer could reshape one of the FTC's main tools for policing alleged scams and deceptive business practices. It affects companies facing FTC lawsuits and consumers seeking refunds, such as borrowers who say they were charged unexpected loan costs.

Watch for the Court to schedule oral argument or make another calendar move. No decision window is available yet.

It must decide whether Section 13(b) lets the FTC seek money, not just court orders stopping conduct. The case asks how far that power goes.

Consumers seeking refunds and businesses targeted by FTC lawsuits could both be affected. For example, borrowers claiming they were misled might have a harder path to repayment.

The next big sign is an oral-argument date or another scheduling update. Until then, there is no announced timeline for a Supreme Court decision.