Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-508_l6gn.pdf
Page Number: 5.0

2 

AMG CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC v. FTC 

Opinion of the Court 

likely repay a total of $390.)  But in fine print the explana-
tions said that the loan would be automatically renewed un-
less the customer took affirmative steps to opt out.  Thus, 
unless the customer who borrowed $300 was aware of the 
fine  print  and  actively  prevented  the  loan’s  automatic  re-
newal, he or she could end up having to pay $975, not $390.
Between  2008  and  2012,  Tucker’s  businesses  made  more 
than 5 million payday loans, amounting to more than $1.3
billion in deceptive charges. 

In  2012  the  Federal  Trade  Commission  filed  suit  and 
claimed  that  Tucker  and  his  companies  were  engaging  in 
“unfair  or  deceptive  acts  or  practices  in  or  affecting  com-
merce,” in violation of §5(a) of the Act.  15 U. S. C. §45(a)(1). 
(We  shall  refer  to  all  of  the  defendants  collectively  as 
Tucker.)  In asserting that Tucker’s practices were likely to
mislead  consumers,  the  Commission  did  not  first  use  its 
own administrative proceedings.  Rather, the Commission 
filed a complaint against Tucker  directly in federal court.
The Commission, relying upon §13(b), asked the court to is-
sue a permanent injunction to prevent Tucker from commit-
ting future violations of the Act.  Relying on the same pro-
vision,  the  Commission  also  asked  the  court  to  order 
monetary  relief,  in  particular,  restitution  and  disgorge-
ment.  The Commission moved for summary judgment.

The  District  Court  granted  the  Commission’s  summary
judgment motion.  The court also granted the Commission’s
request for an injunction and directed Tucker to pay $1.27
billion in restitution and disgorgement.  The court ordered 
the Commission to use these funds first to provide “direct
redress to consumers” and then to provide “other equitable 
relief ” reasonably related to Tucker’s alleged business prac-
tices.  Finally, the court ordered the Commission to deposit 
any remaining funds in the United States Treasury as dis-
gorgement.

On appeal, Tucker argued that §13(b) does not authorize
the  monetary  relief  the  District  Court  had  granted.    The