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

COMPLAINT COUNSEL’S OPPOSITION TO INTUIT’S EXPEDITED 

MOTION TO EXTEND DEADLINES FOR FILING APPEALS BRIEFS

The primary issues and evidence in this matter are straightforward: Intuit’s 

deceptive “free” ads. After summary decision briefing, nine days of trial, and post-trial 

briefing and findings of fact, both the record and the issues in this matter are clear and 

familiar to both parties. Intuit’s requested delay is not in the public interest, nor has 

Intuit shown good cause for a request for more than double the briefing period 

established by Commission rules. In fact, the requested delay could result in millions of 

consumers being duped by Intuit’s deceptive advertising for yet another tax season. 

Complaint Counsel therefore respectfully requests that Intuit’s Motion be denied in 

large part and granted only to a limited extent.

I. Background

On March 28, 2022, the Commission issued the Complaint in this matter, which

alleged that Respondent, Intuit Inc. (“Intuit”), deceptively marketed TurboTax, its 

online tax preparation service, in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act. At the same time 

the Commission voted to issue this Complaint, it also authorized Bureau of Consumer 

Protection staff to seek a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction in 

the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, which was 

denied after briefing and a hearing before Judge Charles R. Breyer. Order Denying 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 09/06/2023 OSCAR NO. 608517 -PAGE Page 1 of 10 * PUBLIC * 
Public

2

Motion for Emergency Relief, FTC v. Intuit Inc., No. 22-cv-01973-CRB (Apr. 22, 2022), 

ECF No. 66.

On August 22, 2022, Complaint Counsel filed a motion for summary decision 

with the Commission, pursuant to Commission Rule 3.22(a). 16 C.F.R. § 3.22(a). 

Respondent filed an opposition on August 30, 2022. The Commission heard oral 

arguments on October 31, 2022, and issued an Opinion and Order Denying Summary 

Decision on January 31, 2023. In re Intuit Inc., No. 9408, 2023 FTC LEXIS 18 (Jan. 31, 

2023).

After pretrial briefing, the evidentiary hearing in this matter began on March 27, 

2023, and was conducted over three weeks, on nine trial days. Thereafter, the parties 

submitted post-trial briefs, proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, and replies 

to each other’s briefs and proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.

As the year draws to a close, it is important to keep in mind that Intuit’s 

advertising for tax filing is seasonal, with a concentration of its revenue occurring

between November and April. GX288 (Intuit) at CC-00006018. Without resolution of 

this matter, Intuit may run another advertising campaign in the next tax season, 

deceptively advertising “free” tax filing.

II. Argument

For matters pending before the Commission, the Commission “for good cause 

shown, may extend any time limit prescribed by the rules.” 16 C.F.R. § 4.3(b). The time

prescribed by the rules “ordinarily should provide parties enough time to file briefs of 

sufficient quality and detail to present their case and to inform the Commission’s 

decision making.” In re Otto Bock Healthcare North Am., Inc., 2019 FTC LEXIS 35, *2 

(F.T.C. May 22, 2019). The Commission has been reluctant to grant even joint requests 

for extensions of time for appellate briefing. See In re Rambus, Inc., Order Granting 

Extensions of Time to File Appellate Briefs and Increases in Word Count Limits, Docket

No. 9302, at 1 (Mar. 18, 2004) (“reluctant[ly]” granting a joint motion for an extension 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 09/06/2023 OSCAR NO. 608517 -PAGE Page 2 of 10 * PUBLIC * 
Public

3

and stating that “[t]he time periods . . . prescribed by the Commission Rules of Practice 

should afford parties to FTC proceedings sufficient time . . . to file pleadings and briefs 

of sufficient quality and detail to aid in the preparation of Commission opinions and 

orders”).

Here, the requested extension of more than 20 days is striking. And it is not 

warranted, as it is not in the public interest. Intuit advertises its tax filing services 

seasonally, with advertising poised to commence at the end of this year, and 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 to prevent Intuit from engaging in 

yet another season of deceptive advertising. Under Intuit’s proposed schedule, 

appellate briefing in this matter would conclude on December 18, 2023. Giving the 

Commission 45 days to issue its decision, through February 1, 2024, would mean that 

the matter wouldn’t be resolved until the tax filing season, and Intuit’s advertising, are 

well underway. The Commission should be “mindful of the potential harm to 

consumers from unnecessary delay in resolving this appeal.” In re Otto Bock Healthcare 

North Am., Inc., 2019 FTC LEXIS 35, *3 (F.T.C. May 22, 2019).

Intuit has also failed to show good cause as to why the extension it has requested 

is appropriate:

Size of the Record. Intuit points to the volume of the record in this matter, for 

example the roughly 2,400 exhibits submitted. However, of those exhibits, nearly 800

are Intuit’s own advertising or captures of its website and should not require a lengthy 

review. Intuit also points to the twelve trial witnesses and nearly 2,000 pages of trial 

transcript to support its request for additional time. But the Commission has denied 

requests for shorter extensions where the hearing transcripts approached 7,000 pages, 

from 69 witnesses. Id.; see In re Otto Bock Healthcare North Am., Inc., Respondent’s Motion 

For Extension of Time and Increase in Word Limits, Docket No. 9378, at 2 (May 8, 2019).

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 09/06/2023 OSCAR NO. 608517 -PAGE Page 3 of 10 * PUBLIC * 
Public

4

Length of the Initial Decision. Intuit also claims that the length of Judge 

Chappell’s Initial Decision necessitates additional time for briefing. However, 114 

pages, or nearly half, of Judge Chappell’s order consist of findings of fact related to 

Intuit’s own ads, which are neither complex, nor novel, and with which it is intimately 

familiar.

Complexity of the Issues. Intuit further claims that the complexity of the issues 

in this matter require additional time, though Intuit does not explain in what way the 

issues are complex. Contrary to Intuit’s claim, the issues in this one-count case are 

simple, reflect well-established advertising law, and focus on evidence Intuit knows 

well: its ads. In any event, counsel for Intuit has served as counsel throughout the 

investigation, discovery, summary judgment briefing, the federal court action, and 

administrative hearing. Intuit’s counsel further engaged in both pre- and post-trial 

briefing, which addressed every issue in this case in great detail. There is no good cause 

for an extension where counsel is so intimately familiar with the matter.

Prior Examples. Intuit points to two other matters in which the Commission 

granted extensions for the appellate briefing schedule. Those matters are inapposite, 

and in both matters the parties consented to an extension. In the Rambus matter, the 

Commission found that briefing involved novel legal, technological, and patent issues, 

none of which are present in the current matter. See In re Rambus, Inc., Order Granting 

Extensions of Time to File Appellate Briefs and Increase Word Count Limits, Docket 

No. 9302, at 2 (Mar. 18, 2004). Additionally, the Rambus matter involved 54 trial days, 

forty-four witnesses, and over 11,800 pages of trial transcript. Id. As the Commission 

found, there, the “record [was] replete with highly technical evidence relating to 

computer design, memory architectures, and various memory technologies.” Id. Those 

facts are entirely distinct from the current matter, which involves straightforward ads 

and well-established advertising law.

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 09/06/2023 OSCAR NO. 608517 -PAGE Page 4 of 10 * PUBLIC * 
Public

5

Intuit also points to the Altria matter, where the parties agreed to request an 

extension of deadlines for appellate filing, and where the complexity of the case 

required two extensions for Judge Chappell to issue the initial decision. In re Altria 

Group, Request for Extension of Time for Filing Initial Decision Pursuant to Commission 

Rule 3.51, Docket No. 9393, at 1-2 (Jan. 11, 2022). Remarkably, the Altria matter was 

only the second time that Judge Chappell made such a second extension request since 

Rule 3.51(a) was amended in 2009 to regulate the timing of the filing of initial decisions, 

illustrating the complexity of the record in that matter. Id. Here, Judge Chappell was 

able to issue his initial decision without any extension of time, which shows that this 

matter is very different, and significantly less complex, than the Altria matter.

Scheduling Issues. Intuit next points out a scheduling conflict for its lead 

attorney in this matter because he is taking expert depositions. However, a scheduling 

conflict does not show good cause for an extension. First, the schedule in this matter is 

predictable, with the rules prescribing the amount of time for the Administrative Law 

Judge to issue a decision and setting the subsequent briefing schedule. 16 C.F.R. 3.51(a), 

3.52(a). Intuit could have readily anticipated any scheduling challenges, and its failure 

to do so does not constitute good cause. Indeed, Intuit has referred to Judge Chappell’s 

Initial Decision as “anticipated”—though Complaint Counsel strongly disagrees with 

Intuit’s aspersions against the Commission’s administrative process.1 Second, sixteen

attorneys have noticed an appearance on behalf of Intuit in this matter, including a 

1 See Press Release, Intuit Inc., Intuit Responds to U.S. Federal Trade Commission’s 

Anticipated Decision And Reaffirms its Commitment to Free Tax Preparation (Sept. 1, 

2023), available at intuit.com/blog/news-social/intuit-responds-to-u-s-federal-tradecommissions-anticipated-decision-and-reaffirms-its-commitment-to-free-taxpreparation/ (last visited Sept. 5, 2023). In its release, Intuit goes on to refer to the Initial 

Decision as “groundless and seemingly predetermined.” Expressing contempt for the 

Commission’s well-established administrative adjudicative processes, Intuit “is 

confident that when the matter ultimately returns to a neutral body Intuit will prevail, 

as it has previously in this matter.” Id. Further: “The FTC’s ruling was expected given 

the Commission’s flawed and highly questionable process, Chair Lina Khan’s previous 

public and prejudicial statements against Intuit, and the fact that the FTC has ruled in 

its own favor in nearly every consumer protection case for the last two decades.” Id.

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 09/06/2023 OSCAR NO. 608517 -PAGE Page 5 of 10 * PUBLIC * 
Public

6

former Chair of the Commission, the former Chief Trial Counsel for the FTC’s Bureau of 

Competition, the former general counsel for the FBI, and the Vice Chair of 

WilmerHale’s Government and Regulatory Litigation Practice Group. Complaint 

Counsel is confident that Intuit will receive adequate representation under the schedule 

set forth by the Rules.

Finally, Intuit points out a religious holiday that falls within the time set for its 

appellate briefing. As Complaint Counsel expressed to counsel for Intuit, Complaint 

Counsel does not oppose an extension to account for the holiday. Accordingly, 

Complaint Counsel can agree to extend Intuit’s initial deadline by three days, with 

Complaint Counsel extending its own filing deadline by only one day, as shown below.

Opening Briefs September 21, 2023

Answering Briefs October 12, 2023

Reply Briefs October 20, 2023 (includes additional day permitted in the event of 

electronic service)

* * *

For the foregoing reasons, Intuit’s Motion should be denied in part and granted

in part.

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 09/06/2023 OSCAR NO. 608517 -PAGE Page 6 of 10 * PUBLIC * 
Public

7

Dated: September 6, 2023

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Rebecca Plett

Roberto Anguizola, IL Bar No. 6270874

Rebecca Plett, VA Bar No. 90988

James Evans, VA Bar No. 83866

Sara Tonnesen, MD Bar No. 1312190241

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 09/06/2023 OSCAR NO. 608517 -PAGE Page 7 of 10 * 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 EXTEND 

DEADLINES FOR FILING APPEAL BRIEFS

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

Expedited Motion to Extend Deadlines for Filing Appeal Briefs is DENIED in part and 

GRANTED in part, and it is hereby: 

ORDERED that the briefs in this proceeding shall be due as follows: 

Opening Briefs September 21, 2023 

Answering Briefs October 12, 2023 

Reply Briefs October 20, 2023 

By the Commission.

April J. Tabor

Secretary

Seal:

Issued:

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 09/06/2023 OSCAR NO. 608517 -PAGE Page 8 of 10 * PUBLIC * 
Public

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on September 6, 2023, I electronically filed the foregoing Complaint 

Counsel’s Opposition to Intuit’s Expedited Motion to Extend Deadlines for Filing 

Appeals Briefs and Proposed Order 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 September 6, 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

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

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 09/06/2023 OSCAR NO. 608517 -PAGE Page 9 of 10 * PUBLIC * 
Public

Jonathan D. Leibowitz

6313 Kenhowe Drive

Bethesda, MD 20817

jondleibowitz@gmail.com

(202) 577-5342

Attorneys for Respondent, Intuit Inc.

/s/ Rebecca Plett

 Rebecca Plett

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 09/06/2023 OSCAR NO. 608517 -PAGE Page 10 of 10 * PUBLIC *