For companies that use web-monitoring services to identify possible policy violations, is it a reasonable business practice to limit the search parameters to only go back a certain number of years?When it reversed 40 years of appellate precedent by ruling that Section 13(b) does not authorize the Federal Trade Commission to seek monetary relief, the Supreme Court relied not only on the language of Section 13(b), but also on the presence of other provisions in the FTC Act, which expressly allow the FTC to obtain monetary relief for consumers.
House Bill 2668, which Congressman Cárdenas introduced last week, addresses the two significant judicial limitations to Section 13(b) of the FTC Act. —Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, Acting Chairwoman, FTCTo the relief of many direct sellers, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous ruling in the closely-followed AMG Capital Management, LLC v. Federal Trade Commission case. In a April 22 decision authored by Justice Stephen Breyer, the court held that Section 13(b) of the FTC Act does not authorize the Commission to seek “equitable monetary relief such as restitution or disgorgement,” ruling that the “permanent injunction” reference in Section 13(b) only grants the FTC the ability to stop future actions of a targeted individual or company.
Passage of the PRO Act by the full U.S. House of Representatives is the biggest shot across the bow to independent contractor status in recent history.One of the core issues for the Direct Selling Association (DSA) and direct selling throughout our storied history has been protecting the independent contractor status of the salesforce. When legislation goes to undermine that relationship, it has the potential to throw into disarray our way of doing business. H.R. 842, the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act, would do just that.