Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-508_l6gn.pdf
Page Number: 1.0

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2020 

1 

Syllabus 

NOTE:  Where  it  is  feasible,  a  syllabus  (headnote)  will  be  released,  as  is 
being  done  in  connection  with  this  case,  at  the  time  the  opinion  is  issued. 
The  syllabus  constitutes  no  part  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court  but  has  been 
prepared  by  the  Reporter  of  Decisions  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

AMG CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC, ET AL. v. 
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR 
THE NINTH CIRCUIT 

No. 19–508.  Argued January 13, 2021—Decided April 22, 2021 

The Federal Trade Commission filed a complaint against Scott Tucker
and his companies alleging deceptive payday lending practices in vio-
lation  of  §5(a)  of  the  Federal  Trade  Commission  Act.    The  District 
Court granted the Commission’s request pursuant to §13(b) of the Act 
for a permanent injunction to prevent Tucker from committing future 
violations of the Act, and relied on the same authority to direct Tucker 
to pay $1.27 billion in restitution and disgorgement.  On appeal, the
Ninth Circuit rejected Tucker’s argument that §13(b) does not author-
ize the award of equitable monetary relief. 

Held: Section 13(b) does not authorize the Commission to seek, or a court 
to  award,  equitable  monetary  relief  such  as  restitution  or  disgorge-
ment.  Pp. 3–15.

(a) Congress granted the Commission authority to enforce the Act’s 
prohibitions  on  “unfair  or  deceptive  acts  or  practices,”  15  U.  S.  C. 
§§45(a)(1)–(2), by commencing administrative proceedings pursuant to 
§5 of the Act.  Section 5(l) of the Act authorizes the Commission, fol-
lowing completion of the administrative process and the issuance of a
final cease and desist order, to seek civil penalties, and permits district
courts to “grant mandatory injunctions and such other and further eq-
uitable relief as they deem appropriate in the enforcement of such final 
orders of the Commission.”  §45(l).  Section 19 of the Act further au-
thorizes district courts (subject to various conditions and limitations)
to grant “such relief as the court finds necessary to redress injury to 
consumers,” §57b(b), in cases where someone has engaged in unfair or 
deceptive conduct with respect to which the Commission has issued a
final cease and desist order applicable to that person, see §57b(a)(2).
Here, the Commission responded to Tucker’s payday lending practices