1 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

COMMISSIONERS: Lina M. Khan, Chair 

Rebecca Kelly Slaughter

Alvaro M. Bedoya

In the matter of: 

Intuit Inc., a corporation,

Respondent. 

Docket No. 9408

COMPLAINT COUNSEL’S OPPOSITION TO RESPONDENT’S EXPEDITED 

MOTION TO CONTINUE ORAL ARGUMENT TO ACCOMMODATE THE 

IMPENDING SENATE CONFIRMATION HEARING OF TWO 

COMMISSIONERS

Intuit’s Expedited Motion to Continue Oral Argument to Accommodate the 

Impending Senate Confirmation of Two Commissioners (the “Motion”) should be 

denied because Intuit has not demonstrated good cause for its requested extension. See

Rule 4.3(b), 16 C.F.R. § 4.3(b). 

First, Humphrey’s Executor does not, as Intuit argues, demand waiting for the 

current appointees to the FTC to be confirmed. See Mot. at 2-3. Since 1914, including in 

1935 when Humphrey’s Executor upheld the constitutionality of the FTC’s structure, the 

FTC Act has provided: “A vacancy in the Commission shall not impair the right of the 

remaining Commissioners to exercise all the powers of the Commission.” 38 Stat. 717, 

718 (1914); 15 U.S.C. § 41. Thus, the Supreme Court was aware, in issuing Humphrey’s 

Executor, that there may be times when the Commission did not have a full bipartisan 

complement of Commissioners. Intuit has not identified any law, regulation, or 

precedent that requires the Commission to cease its work pending the confirmation of 

appointees. 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 11/13/2023 OSCAR NO 608911 | PAGE Page 1 of Public 6 * -PUBLIC 
2 

Second, the question before the Commission is not a semantic or academic one—

it has real world consequences to the public interest as the next tax season approaches 

without a final order from the Commission. The Commission should be “mindful of the 

potential harm to consumers from unnecessary delay” in resolving issues before it. See

In re Otto Bock Healthcare North Am., Inc., 2019 FTC LEXIS 35, *3 (F.T.C. May 22, 2019). 

Here, Intuit advertises its tax filing services seasonally, with advertising poised to 

commence at the end of this year or at the latest at the beginning of next year. See, e.g., 

GX288 (Intuit) at CC-00006018. It is in the public interest to resolve this matter 

expeditiously. Complaint Counsel have consistently maintained that Intuit should be 

prevented from engaging in further deceptive advertising. Under Intuit’s proposed 

schedule, oral argument could be delayed through January 2024, pushing a decision in 

the matter even later into (or after the end of) this upcoming tax season. Such a delay is 

not justified.

Moreover, the basis for Intuit’s expedited1 request is speculative because no one 

knows whether the Senate will vote on the nominations to the Commission tomorrow, 

next week, next month, or well after Intuit’s final December 31, 2023 deadline after 

which it would agree to proceed with oral argument. Nor is the result of that vote 

predetermined. Intuit’s only evidence that such votes are imminent, and will lead to a 

confirmation of the appointees, is: (1) a Reuters article documenting the October 18, 

2023 vote of the Senate Commerce Committee sending the nominations out of 

committee for a final vote by the full Senate at some future date, and (2) the fact that 

those nominees are listed on the Senate’s Executive Calendar. These facts alone, 

1 Although Intuit calls its motion an “expedited” one, (Mot. at 1), there is no support 

in the Rules for such motions. While Intuit points to Rules 3.22(d) and (f), these Rules 

are silent on the issue of expedited filings and instead set out a standard deadline by 

which to respond to a motion or, if allowed, to reply (3.22(d)) and a mechanism for 

extending those deadlines (3.22(f)). Compare Mot. at 1 with 16 C.F.R. §3.22(d), (f). Even if 

there were a basis in equity for filing an expedited motion, the underlying facts Intuit 

relies on were knowable on October 18, 2023 (Mot. at 1-2)—almost a month before it 

filed this motion. Intuit’s delay in waiting until 6 business days before oral argument does not justify any special treatment. 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 11/13/2023 OSCAR NO 608911 | PAGE Page 2 of Public 6 * -PUBLIC 
3 

however, do not, as Intuit opines, provide a “strong likelihood that [the Appointees]

will be confirmed in the coming days or weeks.” See Mot. at 2 (emphasis added). As much 

as we all like to read the tea leaves, Intuit’s opinions as to when the Senate might act 

don’t carry water, and surely do not establish good cause to delay holding oral 

argument. 

Because Intuit has not shown good cause to continue for an indeterminate time

oral argument in this matter, its Motion should be denied.

Dated: November 13, 2023

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Sara Tonnesen

Sara Tonnesen, MD Bar No. 1312190241

Roberto Anguizola, IL Bar No. 6270874

Rebecca Plett, VA Bar No. 90988 

James Evans, VA Bar No. 83866 

Federal Trade Commission

600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, CC-6316 

Washington, DC 20580 

(202) 326-3284 / ranguizola@ftc.gov

(202) 326-3664 / rplett@ftc.gov

(202) 326-2026 / james.evans@ftc.gov

(202) 326-2879 / stonnesen@ftc.gov

Counsel Supporting the Complaint

Federal Trade Commission

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 11/13/2023 OSCAR NO 608911 | PAGE Page 3 of Public 6 * -PUBLIC 
4 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on November 13, 2023, I electronically filed the foregoing 

Complaint Counsel’s Opposition to Respondent’s Expedited Motion to Continue Oral 

Argument to Accommodate the Impending Senate Confirmation of Two 

Commissioners electronically using the FTC’s E-Filing system, and I caused the 

foregoing document to be sent via email to: 

April Tabor

Office of the Secretary

Federal Trade Commission

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Suite CC-5610 

Washington, DC 20580 

ElectronicFilings@ftc.gov

Secretary of the Commission

Clerk of the Court

Hon. D. Michael Chappell

Chief Administrative Law Judge

Federal Trade Commission

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Suite H-110 

Washington, DC 20580 

Administrative Law Judge

I further certify that on November 13, 2023, I caused the foregoing document to 

be served via email on: 

David Z. Gringer

Phoebe Silos

Charles Bridge

Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP

7 World Trade Center

250 Greenwich Street 

New York, NY 10007 

David.Gringer@wilmerhale.com

Phoebe.Silos@wilmerhale.com

Charles.Bridge@wilmerhale.com

(212) 230-8800

Howard M. Shapiro

Jonathan E. Paikin

Jennifer Milici

Daniel S. Volchok

Derek A. Woodman

Vinecia Perkins

Andres Salinas 

Jocelyn Berteaud

Benjamin Chapin

Margaret (Molly) Dillaway

Reade Jacob

Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP

2100 Pennsylvania Avenue NW 

Washington, DC 20037 

Howard.Shapiro@wilmerhale.com 

Jonathan.Paikin@wilmerhale.com

Jennifer.Milici@wilmerhale.com

Daniel.Volchok@wilmerhale.com

Derek.Woodman@wilmerhale.com

Vinecia.Perkins@wilmerhale.com

Andres.Salinas@wilmerhale.com

Joss.Berteaud@wilmerhale.com

Benjamin.Chapin@wilmerhale.com

Molly.Dillaway@wilmerhale.com

Reade.Jacob@wilmerhale.com

(202) 663-6000

Shelby Martin

Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP

1225 Seventeenth Street, Suite 2600 

Denver, CO 80202 

Shelby.Martin@wilmerhale.com

(720) 274-3135

Katherine Mackey

Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP

60 State Street 

Boston, MA 02109 

Katherine.Mackey@wilmerhale.com

(617) 526-6000

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 11/13/2023 OSCAR NO 608911 | PAGE Page 4 of Public 6 * -PUBLIC 
5 

Jonathan D. Leibowitz

6313 Kenhowe Drive 

Bethesda, MD 20817 

jondleibowitz@gmail.com

(202) 577-5342

Attorneys for Respondent, Intuit Inc.

/s/ Sara Tonnesen

SARA TONNESEN

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 11/13/2023 OSCAR NO 608911 | PAGE Page 5 of Public 6 * -PUBLIC 
Public

1 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

COMMISSIONERS: Lina M. Khan, Chair 

Rebecca Kelly Slaughter

Alvaro M. Bedoya

In the matter of: 

Intuit Inc., a corporation,

Respondent. 

Docket No. 9408

[Proposed] ORDER DENYING EXPEDITED MOTION TO CONTINUE ORAL 

ARGUMENT TO ACCOMMODATE THE IMPENDING SENATE 

CONFIRMATION HEARING OF TWO COMMISSIONERS

Pursuant to Commission Rule 4.3(b), 16 C.F.R. § 4.3(b), Respondent Intuit Inc.’s 

Expedited Motion to Continue Oral Argument to Accommodate the Impending Senate 

Confirmation Hearing of Two Commissioners is DENIED. 

By the Commission.

April J. Tabor

Secretary 

Seal:

Issued:

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 11/13/2023 OSCAR NO 608911 | PAGE Page 6 of 6 * -PUBLIC