AMG Capital Management, LLC v. FTC

Background

Scott Tucker and several companies operated online payday lending businesses and regularly misled borrowers about loan terms. The federal consumer protection agency sued in federal court under the statute’s injunction provision, asking for a permanent injunction and monetary relief. The district court granted summary judgment, ordered an injunction, and required Tucker to pay $1.27 billion in restitution and disgorgement. The Ninth Circuit upheld that award, and Tucker appealed to the Supreme Court.

Reasoning

The Court asked whether the statute’s "permanent injunction" language allows the agency to obtain equitable monetary relief such as restitution or disgorgement directly in court. The Court concluded it does not. It explained that the word "injunction" primarily refers to forward‑looking orders, while monetary relief typically fixes past harm. The Court relied on the statute’s structure and history: the agency has long used its own administrative process to seek consumer redress, and Congress later enacted a separate provision that authorizes limited monetary relief only after administrative proceedings. The Court found it unlikely Congress intended a short injunction clause to override those other, more detailed provisions.

Real world impact

As a result, the agency cannot rely on the injunction provision to bypass administrative processes and win restitution or disgorgement directly. To secure monetary relief for consumers the agency must follow its administrative path and the more limited court remedies Congress provided, or ask Congress for new authority. The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit and sent the case back for further proceedings.