Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-508_l6gn.pdf
Page Number: 8.0

Cite as:  593 U. S. ____ (2021) 

5 

Opinion of the Court 

to  obtain  court  orders  for  redress  of  various kinds  in  con-
sumer protection cases—without prior use of the adminis-
trative proceedings in §5.  See, e.g., FTC v. Virginia Homes 
Mfg.  Corp.,  509  F. Supp.  51,  59  (Md.  1981)  (relying  on 
§13(b)  to  order  the  defendant  to  notify  past  customers  of 
their warranty rights); see also D. FitzGerald, The Genesis
of  Consumer  Protection  Remedies  Under  Section  13(b)  of 
the FTC Act 1–2, Paper at FTC 90th Anniversary Sympo-
sium, Sept. 23, 2004 (FitzGerald); Beales & Muris, Striking 
the Proper Balance: Redress Under Section 13(b) of the FTC 
Act, 79 Antitrust L. J. 1, 3–4 (2013).  The Commission used 
this authority to seek and win restitution and other forms 
of equitable monetary relief directly in court.

Similarly, in the late 1990s the Commission began to use
§13(b)’s “permanent injunction” authority in antitrust cases 
to seek monetary awards, such as restitution and disgorge-
ment—again  without  prior  use  of  traditional  administra-
tive  proceedings.  See  Complaint  in  FTC  v.  Mylan  Labs., 
Inc.,  No.  98–3114  (DC);  Complaint  in  FTC  v.  The  Hearst 
Trust,  No.  01–734  (DC).  In  2003  the  Commission  issued 
guidance that limited its use of §13(b) to obtain monetary 
relief to “exceptional cases” involving a “[c]lear [v]iolation” 
of the antitrust laws.  Policy Statement on Monetary Equi-
table Remedies in Competition Cases, 68 Fed. Reg. 45821 
(emphasis deleted).  But in 2012 the Commission withdrew 
its  policy  statement  and  the  limitations  it  imposed.    See 
Withdrawal of the Commission Policy Statement on Mone-
tary  Equitable  Remedies  in  Competition  Cases,  77  Fed. 
Reg. 47071.

The result is that the Commission presently uses §13(b)
to win equitable monetary relief directly in court with great 
frequency.  The Commission tells us that “the agency [now] 
brings dozens of [§13(b)] cases every year seeking a perma-
nent injunction and the return of illegally obtained funds.” 
Brief for Respondent 8; see also,  e.g., Ohlhausen, Dollars, 
Doctrine, and Damage Control: How Disgorgement Affects