# U n i t

e d S t at e s C o u r t o f A p p e al s F OR T HE D IS TRICT OF C OLUM BIA C IRCUI T

____________ 

## No. 24-5054 September Term, 2023 1: 23-c v-035 62-RDM Filed O n: March 29 , 20 24 Meta Platf orms, Inc. ,

App ellant

v
. Fede ral T rade Com mission , etal.,

App ellees

BEFORE: Mill ett, Pillard, a nd W ilkins, Circuit Jud ges O R D E R Upon con siderat ion o fthe em ergency motio n f or an injun ction pen ding ap pea l, the op positio n th ereto , an d th e rep ly ; an d th e a dm inistrative stay ente red o n March 18, 202 4, it is ORDERED tha t th e a dm inistrative stay be d issolv ed. It is FURTHER ORDEREDtha t th e m otion f or an injun ction pen ding ap pea l be den ied. Meta Plat f orms, Inc. (“Meta”) has notsatisf ied t he “stringent requirem ent s f or an injunct ion p end ing app eal.” Archdio cese of W ash. v. W

ashin gto n Met

ro. Are a Transit A uth

. , 87 7 F.3 d 1 066 , 10 66 (D.C. Cir. 2017 ); see W inter v. Natu ral Res. De f. Coun cil, Inc. , 55 5 U.S . 7, 20 (200 8); D.C. Circuit Han dbo ok o fPractice an d In terna l Proced ures 3 3 (20 21). For m any ofthe reaso ns well ex plaine d in the district co urt’s th orou gh opin ion belo w , see Meta Platf

orms, In c. v. FTC, No. 23-cv-03562 , 20 24 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4 545 2 (D.D.C. Mar. 14 , 20 24), Meta has notm et its hea vybu rden ofsho w ing entitle me nt t o a n injunct ion p end ing app eal. On t he me rits, Meta presse s f ive co nstitu tiona l challen ges. Non e h as a likelihood ofsucce ss given bind ing preced entan d th e u nusu al reco rd be f ore u s.

# U n i t

e d S t at e s C o u r t o f A p p e al s F OR T HE D IS TRICT OF C OLUM BIA C IRCUI T

____________ 

## No. 24-5054 September Term, 2023

First, Meta argues th at t he Fede ral T rade Com mission ’s com bina tion of investig ative and ad judicat iv e f unct ions within a single agency v iolate s Meta ’s due proce ss rig ht n ot t o h ave a d ecisionm aker t hatis institu tiona lly biase d a gainst it. Butun der lo ngstand ing preced ent , it is se ttled tha t an agency generally can const itution allyun derta ke b oth investigative a nd adju dicative f unct ions. See W ithrow v. Larkin , 42 1 U.S . 35 , 55 –58 (197 5); In re Zdravko vich , 63 4 F.3 d 5 74, 57 9 (D.C. Cir. 201 1). I n a dditio n, b oth Fed eral T rade Com mission regulation s an d th e A dm inistrative Proced ure A ct require som e stru ctural se para tion bet w een the ad judicat iv e a nd investig ative ope ration s off ede ral agencie s, see 16 C.F.R. § 4.7 ; 5 U.S.C. § 554 (d)(2), and Meta do es n ot su gg est t hatthe Com mission ’s orde r-to-show- cause proce ss f ails to com ply w ith th ose statu tory and regulatory req uirem ent s. Evi den ce o factu al bia s, ofcou rse, would trigg er con stitutio nal co ncern s. B ut Meta has notpo inted to any obje ctiv e ind icia tha t th e Com mission is biase d o r closemin ded in th is proce edin g. See W illiams v. Penn sylvania , 57 9 U.S . 1, 8– 9 (20 16). Meta’s ref eren ce to the Com mission ’s supp osed inte rnal su ccess rat e is unsu bsta ntiat ed, an d a t lea st on e stu dy tells a very dif f eren t sto ry

. See

MetaPlatforms , 202 4 U.S . Dist. L EXIS 45 452 , at*50 –51 (explaining tha t a stud y f oun d th at “b etween 197 7 a nd 201 6, t he Com mission dism issed 2 9% o fthe ad min istrativ e ca ses b ef ore it, includin g 16% o n th e m erits”) (citing Mauree n K . Oh lhau sen, Administrative Litigation at the FTC: Ef

fective Too l for Deve loping

the La w or Rub ber S tamp?, 12 J. C O M P E TI TI O N L. & E C O N

. 623 , 62 6 (20 16)). B eside s, whatever the true nu mb er, a “rawstat istic cann ot ofitselfsho wbias in a particu lar case .” Singh v. Garlan d , 20 F.4t h 1 049 , 10 55 (5th Cir. 202 1); cf. S out

h P ac. Co mm c’

ns Co. v. A m erican Tel. & Tel. Co. , 74 0 F.2 d 9 80, 99 5 (D.C. Cir. 1984 ) (“[T]h e sta tistical on e-sided ness ofthe trial cou rt’s evi den tiary , f actu al and legal rulings simply cann ot b e u sed to su ppo rt an inf eren ce o fjudicial b ias.”). Meta’s ch erry -picked lawrevi ew q uot es a re on ly m arginally

relevant a t be st. See Meta Motion 12 –13 . A nd not hing in th e Com mission ’s show-cause o rder—w hich b y its te xt and by law is only prelimina ry (like all sho w -cause orde rs)—sugg ests t hatthe Com mission ha s preju dged Me ta’s ca se. See 16 C.F.R. § 3.7 2(b); see also Nu clear Info . & Res. S erv. v. Nuclear Regul. Com m ’ n , 50 9 F.3 d 5 62, 57 1 (D.C. Cir. 20 07). On t op oftha t, th is is the third roun d in a lon g- runn ing intercha nge involv ing conse nt o rders agreed to by Meta a nd the Com mission tha t ad dress Met a’s privacy policies. In 201 2, Me ta a nd the Com mission agreed to the en tryofa co nsen t ord er resolvi ng allegation s ofun lawf ul trad e p ractices. Mot. to Dism iss Ex. B, Meta Platf orms, Page 2

# U n i t

e d S t at e s C o u r t o f A p p e al s F OR T HE D IS TRICT OF C OLUM BIA C IRCUI T

____________ 

## No. 24-5054 September Term, 2023

Inc. v. FTC, No. 23-cv-03562 (D.D.C. Dec. 1 3, 2 023 ), ECF No. 18-3 ; Mot. to Dismiss Ex. C, Meta Platf

orms, In c. v. FTC, No. 23-cv-03562 (D.D.C. Dec. 1 3, 2 023 ), ECF No. 18-4 . A s pa rt oftha t agreem ent , th e co nsen t ord er be cam e a f inal a dm inistrative order, and Meta w aived “any f urthe r proced ural ste ps” an d “all rights to seek judicial reviewor oth erw ise to cha llenge or co nte st th e validityofthe orde r[.]” Mot. to Dismiss Ex. B a t 1, Meta Platf

orms, In c. v. FTC, No. 23-cv-03562 (D.D.C. Dec. 1 3, 2 023 ), ECF No. 18-3

. Seven years late r, the Depa rtme nt o fJustice sue d Met a in f ede ral cou rt f or v iolating th e 2 012 ad min istrativ e o rder. Me ta re solved tha t case by stipulat ing to th e ent ry ofa se cond ad min istrativ e o rder requiring protect ive p rivacy policies. See Mot. t o Dismiss Ex. F, Meta Platf orms, In c. v. FTC, No. 23-cv-03562 (D.D.C. Dec. 1 3, 2 023 ), ECF No. 1 8-7. As p art o ftha t stipu lation , Meta agreed to reop en the 20 12 proce edin gs and w aived its right to challen ge the m odif ied a dm inistrative order. See id. T hen , in 2 023 , th e Com mission orde red Met a to sho wcau se why it sho uld n ot mo dif ythe stipu lated orde r due to Meta’s a lleged f ailure t o inst itute an d im plem entan ef f ective privacy program a s required b ythe 20 12 and 20 20 stipula ted orde rs. See Mot. t o Dism iss Ex. H, Meta Platf orms, In c. v. FTC, No. 23-cv-03562 (D.D.C. Dec. 1 3, 202 3), ECF No . 18 -9. Meta now com plains tha t th e Com mission ’s proce sses d eny it du e p rocess. Yet Meta f ails to explain ho w du e p rocess requires n on-e nf orcem entofan orde r Meta agreed to h ave ent ered against it. Nor h as it e x plaine d h ow the o rder to w hich it conse nte d is so me how exemptf rom this e nf orcem entproce edin g. Im porta ntly, the Fede ral T rade Com mission Act allows the Com mission to “reope n a nd alter, mo dif y , or set a side, in whole or in pa rt an yrepo rt or ord er” throu gh an adm inistrative procee ding. 15 U.S.C. § 45 (b). Most relevantlyhe re, a regulation requires tha t “[e] veryagreem ent in set tlem entofa Co mm ission co mp laint” p rov ide t hatthe resultin g order “ma ybe altere d, m odif ied, or setaside ” throu gh the Act’s a dm inistrative procee dings. 1 6 C.F.R. § 2 .32 (c). So w hen Meta con sent ed to t he Com mission ’s 202 0 o rder, it se em s it also ma yha v e co nsen ted to the esta blished proce dure s f or m odif y ing thatorde r, includ ing the orde r to sh ow cause t hatit asks this co urt to en join. Cf. Unite d S tate s Tr. Co. v. New Jersey , 43 1 U.S . 1, 19 n.1 7 (19 77); Ion ics, Inc. v. E lm wo od Sen sors , 11 0 F.3 d 184 , 18 8 (1stCir. 199 7); Building &Lo an Ass’ n v. Blaisde ll

, 29 0 U.S . 39 8, 4 29– 30 (193 4).

Page 3

# U n i t

e d S t at e s C o u r t o f A p p e al s F OR T HE D IS TRICT OF C OLUM BIA C IRCUI T

____________ 

## No. 24-5054 September Term, 2023

Yet Meta of f ers no explana tion as to ho w , given 16 C.F.R. § 2.3 2(c), its agreem entto the en tryofthe 20 20 orde r doe s no t en tail con sentto the Com mission ’s enf orcem entoftha t ord er. Ne ither d oes Meta provide reaso n to ho ld th at its prior w aivers ofcha llenges to the orde rs do notap ply to the ir enf orcem ent . P erha ps Met a has a good argume nt o n th ese f ronts. Bu t it h as n ot sh ared the m w ith th is court, even tho ugh th ese issues were raised in d istrict court, and tha t silence f urthe r dimin ishes a ny likelihood ofsucce ss—or even o fa co urt rea ching the con stitutio nal cla ims it presse s. Seco nd, Metaclaim s tha t th e Fe dera l T rade Com mission Act likely vi olate s Article II by limiting the Preside nt’s p ower to rem ove the Com mission ers. T he Sup reme Court a lready answered th is question ad v ersely to Meta

. See Hum phrey’ s Ex’ r v. United Sta tes , 29 5 U.S . 60 2, 6 29– 32 (193 5). T he Sup reme Court has notdistu rbed tha t pre cede nt. See Seila Law LL C v. CFPB , 14 0 S . Ct. 2 183 , 21 98– 220 0 (20 20); Seve rino v. Bide n , 71 F.4t h 1 038 , 10 47– 48 (D.C. Cir. 2023 ). In a dditio n, a s w ith th e d ue proce ss claim , Meta f ails to explain ho wan yalleged app ointm entprob lem w as n ot su rrende red in the two prior conse nt o rders. Me ta’s app ointm entargume nt im plies th at t he Com mission lacked legal au tho rity to ent er tho se co nsen t ord ers in t he f irst place . Yet Met a e x pressly g ave up legal challen ges to the 20 20 conse nt o rder, which is w hatthe Com mission see ks to enf orce h ere. See Mot. t o Dism iss Ex. F, Meta Platf orms, In c. v. FTC, No. 23-cv-03562 (D.D.C. Dec. 1 3, 202 3), ECF No . 18 -7. T hird, Met a h as n ot d em onst rated tha t th e A ct likely v iolate s the no nde legation doct rine. W hen Congress crea tes a stat uto ry rig ht, Congress also de term ines t he opt ions f or its a djud ication

. See Crow ell v. B enso n , 28 5 U.S . 22 , 50 –51 (193 2). Met a iden tif ies no thing in t his case tha t involv es a con gression al de legation oftha t legislativ e f unct ion. Once prese nte d with statu tory option s, it is th en the Executive Branch ’s Article II prerogative to ch oose w here an d h ow to en f orce t hatrig ht in a p articular ca se. See Sp ringer v. Gove rnm ent of Philipp ine Island

s , 27 7 U.S . 18 9, 2 02 (192 8); cf. Unite d Sta tes v. Ba tche lder

, 44 2 U.S . 11 4, 1 24– 26 (197 9). Furthe r, as with the prior con stitutio nal ch allenges, Meta f ails to explain ho wit did n ot re linquish an ysuch objection by f orgoing any challen ges to t he orde rs and , by regulation , agreein g to th e Com mission ’s aut hority to e nf orce t hem

. See 15 U.S.C. § 4 5(b); 1 6 C.F.R. §§ 2.3 2(c), 3.7 2. It a lso do es n ot a ddre ss ho wits prior e ndo rseme nt

Page 4

# U n i t

e d S t at e s C o u r t o f A p p e al s F OR T HE D IS TRICT OF C OLUM BIA C IRCUI T

____________ 

## No. 24-5054 September Term, 2023

ofthe Com mission ’s aut hority in district cou rt w hen see king entry ofthe 20 20 stipula ted orde r leaves it f ree t o d isavow the Com mission ’s aut hority now. Meta’s f ourth an d f if th co nstitu tiona l challen ges—thatthe ad min istrative adju dicatio n a llow ed und er th e A ct violates th e S eventh Am end me nt a nd Article III—likewise do n ot a ppe ar likelyto succee d. W ith resp ect t o th e S eventh Am end me nt ju ry trial claim , th e Com mission in th is case has issued an orde r to sh ow cause re garding the prop osed equitab le m odif ication ofits con sent ed-to ad min istrativ e o rder. T he Com mission is no t see king pen alties o r any f orm ofreliefarguab ly an alogous to d am ages or o the r reliefavailable a t law. It seeks only Meta’s resp onse to asserte d f ailings in its privacy po licies. So the Se v ent h Am end me nt’s guara nte e o fa ju ry trial f or “Suits at co mm on law” has no app lication here . U.S . C O N ST

. A M E N D . VI I.; see Granf inan ciera v. Nordbe rg, 49 2 U.S . 33 , 53 –55 (198 9); Atlas Roofin g Co. v. Occu pat iona l Saf ety &Health

Review Comm ’ n , 43 0 U.S

. 442 , 44 9–5 1 (19 77). Contra st Pet ition f or W rit ofCertiorari at I , SEC v. Jarkesy , No. 22-8 59 (Mar. 8, 2 023 ) (presen ting the question ofw het her t he Seventh Am end me nt allows the S EC to imp ose “civ il pen alties” via adm inistrative procee dings). As to the Article II I claim , Meta is cha llenging the f ede ral gov ernm ent ’s atte mp t to hold a h earing to de cide wheth er th e Com mission sho uld a me nd, f or th e se cond tim e, its own adm inistrative order t o o bta in equita ble re lieff or po ssible sta tuto ry vi olatio ns perta ining to p roph y lactic con sum er-prote cting limitat ions o n th e co mp any’s com me rcial ma rketing ofuse r’s person al da ta. Meta ha s provided no persu asive reason to believe tha t such a sh ow- cause proce edin g would ad judicat e a nything othe r tha n p ublic rights. See Ste rn v. Marsh all, 56 4 U.S . 46 2, 4 93– 95 (201 1); see also O il States E nerg y Se rvs., LLC v. Gree ne’

s En ergy G rp ., LLC, 58 4 U.S . 32 5, 3 44 (201 8); Granf inan ciera , 49 2 U.S

. at 5 3. Meta’s a ttem pt t o rep ackage t he ma tter a s involv ing contra ct law fa ils f or a simp le rea son: the re is no con tract. T he adm inistrative order t hatthe Com mission seeks to m odif yis just t hat—an adm inistrative order. Meta Platf orms , 20 24 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4 545 2, a t *5 8 n .8; see United Sta tes v. Face boo k, In c. , No. 19-cv-02184 , 20 23 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2 100 09, at *10 –11 (D.D.C. Nov. 27, 202 3). W hile Met a co nsen ted to tha t ord er’s en tryan d waived any challen ges to its ado ption , th e a dm inistrative order itselfis no t a cont ract. And w e rece ntly held t hatMeta is un likely to succee d in recastin g the Co mm ission’s act ion a s an ything else

. See United Sta tes v. Face boo k,
Page 5

# U n i t

e d S t at e s C o u r t o f A p p e al s F OR T HE D IS TRICT OF C OLUM BIA C IRCUI T

____________ 

## No. 24-5054 September Term, 2023

Inc. , No. 23-5 280 , 20 24 U.S. A pp. LE XIS 597 9, a t *2 (D.C. Cir. Mar. 12, 20 24) (pe r curiam ). Last ly , as w ith th e o the r const itution al claim s, Meta ha s no t explaine d h ow, unde r 16 C.F.R. § 2.3 2(c), it did notcon sentto the orde r’s enf orcem entby the Com mission in a sh ow- cause proce edin g as pa rt ofits con sentto the orde r’s entry. See W ellness Int’

l Netw ork, L td. v. Sh arif

, 57 5 U.S . 66 5, 6 69 (201 5); Pea se v. Rathb un-Jo nes Eng ’ g Co. , 243 U.S. 273 , 27 8 (19 17); Hiri art v. Ballon , 34 U.S. (9 Pe t.) 15 6, 1 66– 67 (183 5).
W ith resp ect t o th e o the r injunct ion f acto rs, Meta f ares n o b ette r. Meta has notsho w n th at it is likely to suf f er irreparab le ha rm. Meta claims it w ill be “subject [] to a p rocee ding be f ore a n u ncon stitutio nally structured ad min istrativ e agency.” Meta Mo tion 20. Bu t Meta ha s no t sho w n a likelihoo d o fan yun const itution al proce edin g occurring, espe cially given its pa st con sentto ent ry ofthe orde r at issu e and , by regulation , its e nf orcem entthro ugh a show-cause p rocee ding. See Archdio cese of W

ash. , 89 7 F.3 d a t 33 4 (“[T ]he de privation ofcon stitutio nal rights const itute s irreparab le injury only to th e e xten t such de privation is sho w n to be likely .”). Neithe r doe s “the expense an d a nno y ance oflitigation, in cluding in a [ Fed eral T rade Com mission ] pro ceed ing, . . . con stitute irreparab le injury.” Faceb ook , 20 24 U.S. A pp. LEXIS 5 979 , at*2 (citing FTC v. Sta nda rd Oil Co. of Ca l. , 44 9 U.S . 23 2, 2 44 (198 0)). Finally , Meta ’s f ailure t o sh ow a likelihood ofsucce ss on this a ppe al or irreparab le injury tips th e b alan ce o fequities a nd the pu blic inte rest a gainst an injunct ion. See

Face boo k, In c. , 20 24 U.S. A pp. LE XIS 597 9, a t *2 –3; Archdio cese of W ash. , 89 7 F.3 d a t 33 5. Per Curiam

FOR THE COURT: Mark J. La nger, Clerk BY: /s/ Em ily Cam pbe ll Depu ty Cl erk

Page 6