Federal Trade Commission#Current members of the FTC

In the aftermath of the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark decision in Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. United States in 1911,{{Cite journal|last=Fayne|first=James A.|date=1915|title=The Federal Trade Commission: The Development of the Law which led to its Establishment|url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S000305540000945X/type/journal_article|journal=American Political Science Review|language=en|volume=9|issue=1|pages=57–67|doi=10.2307/1945762|jstor=1945762 |s2cid=146939544 |issn=0003-0554|url-access=subscription}} the first version of a bill to establish a commission to regulate interstate trade was introduced on January 25, 1912, by Oklahoma congressman Dick Thompson Morgan. He would make the first speech on the House floor advocating its creation on February 21, 1912.

Though the initial bill did not pass, the questions of trusts and antitrust dominated the 1912 election.[http://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/attachments/ftc-90-symposium/90thanniv_program.pdf A Brief History of the Federal Trade Commission], Federal Trade Commission, 90th Anniversary Symposium. Most political party platforms in 1912 endorsed the establishment of a federal trade commission with its regulatory powers placed in the hands of an administrative board, as an alternative to functions previously and necessarily exercised so slowly through the courts.[https://web.archive.org/web/20140301021630/http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=29633 Republican Party Platform of 1912], June 18, 1912; [https://web.archive.org/web/20140301022828/http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=29590 Democratic Party Platform of 1912], June 25, 1912; USCB.edu[https://web.archive.org/web/20111117204056/https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/primary-resources/tr-progressive/ Platform of the Progressive Party], August 7, 1912; PBS.

With the 1912 presidential election decided in favor of the Democrats and Woodrow Wilson, Morgan reintroduced a slightly amended version of his bill during the April 1913 special session. The national debate culminated in Wilson's signing of the FTC Act on September 26, 1914, with additional tightening of regulations in the Clayton Antitrust Act three weeks later.

The new FTC would absorb the staff and duties of Bureau of Corporations, previously established under the Department of Commerce and Labor in 1903. The FTC could additionally challenge "unfair methods of competition" and enforce the Clayton Act's more specific prohibitions against certain price discrimination, vertical arrangements, interlocking directorates, and stock acquisitions.{{Primary source inline|date=August 2024}}

In 1984,[http://www.ftc.gov/opa/1998/02/frop-97.shtm FTC Announces Results of Compliance Testing of Over 300 Funeral Homes in the Second Year of the Funeral Rule Offenders Program] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070629013621/http://www.ftc.gov/opa/1998/02/frop-97.shtm|date=June 29, 2007}}, Federal Trade Commission, February 25, 1998{{Primary source inline|date=August 2024}} the FTC began to regulate the funeral home industry in order to protect consumers from deceptive practices. The FTC Funeral Rule requires funeral homes to provide all customers (and potential customers) with a General Price List (GPL), specifically outlining goods and services in the funeral industry, as defined by the FTC, and a listing of their prices.{{cite web|date=October 24, 2008|title=Federal Trade Commission Funeral Rule – 16 CFR Part 453|url=http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/rulemaking/funeral/|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120724005703/http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/rulemaking/funeral/|archive-date=July 24, 2012|access-date=August 14, 2012|publisher=Ftc.gov}}{{Primary source inline|date=August 2024}} By law, the GPL must be presented on request to all individuals, and no one is to be denied a written, retainable copy of the GPL. In 1996, the FTC instituted the Funeral Rule Offenders Program (FROP), under which "funeral homes make a voluntary payment to the U.S. Treasury or appropriate state fund for an amount less than what would likely be sought if the Commission authorized filing a lawsuit for civil penalties. In addition, the funeral homes participate in the NFDA compliance program, which includes a review of the price lists, on-site training of the staff, and follow-up testing and certification on compliance with the Funeral Rule."{{Primary source inline|date=August 2024}}

In the mid-1990s, the FTC launched the fraud sweeps concept where the agency and its federal, state, and local partners filed simultaneous legal actions against multiple telemarketing fraud targets. The first sweeps operation was Project Telesweep in July 1995 which cracked down on 100 business opportunity scams.{{cite web |date=July 18, 1995 |title=Business Opportunity Scam "Epidemic" |url=http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/franchise/tsweep01.htm |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070310140931/http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/franchise/tsweep01.htm |archive-date=March 10, 2007 |access-date=August 14, 2012 |publisher=Ftc.gov}}{{Primary source inline|date=August 2024}}

In the 2021 United States Supreme Court case, AMG Capital Management, LLC v. FTC, the Court found unanimously that the FTC did not have power under {{UnitedStatesCodeSub|15|53|b}} of the FTC Act, amended in 1973, to seek equitable relief in courts; it had the power to seek only injunctive relief.{{cite web|last=Hurley|first=Lawrence|date=April 22, 2021|title=U.S. Supreme Court curbs FTC's power to recoup ill-gotten gains|url=https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/us-supreme-court-curbs-ftcs-power-recoup-ill-gotten-gains-2021-04-22/|publisher=Reuters|access-date=April 22, 2021}}

In 2023, Project 2025 suggested that an administration could abolish the FTC.{{Cite magazine |last=Elliott |first=Vittoria |date=August 1, 2024 |title=What Project 2025 Means for Big Tech … and Everyone Else |url=https://www.wired.com/story/project-2025-tech-industry/ |access-date=2024-08-04 |magazine=Wired |language=en-US |issn=1059-1028 |quote=And though some conservatives have railed against the dominance of Big Tech, Project 2025 also suggests that a second Trump administration could abolish the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which currently has the power to enforce antitrust laws.}}

On March 18, 2025, President Trump ordered the dismissal of Democratic Commissioners Alvaro Bedoya and Rebecca Kelly Slaughter.{{cite news |last1=Godoy |first1=Jody |title=Trump fires both Democratic commissioners at FTC |url=https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-fires-both-democratic-commissioners-ftc-sources-say-2025-03-18/ |access-date=18 March 2025 |work=Reuters |publisher=Reuters}}https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2025/03/18/two-democratic-commissioners-fired-ftc/ Presidents do not have statutory authority to fire FTC commissioners for reasons other than inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance, none of which were cited in Trump's orders; these restrictions were upheld by the Supreme Court in Humphrey's Executor v. United States.

Bedoya and Slaughter both stated the attempted firings were unlawful. Bedoya described it as "corruption plain and simple," while Slaughter stated it "violat[ed] the plain language of a statute and clear Supreme Court precedent." While both Bedoya and Slaughter maintain they remain commissioners, their names have been removed from the FTC website and they do not currently have access to FTC resources.{{cite web | url=https://prospect.org/justice/2025-03-21-case-without-a-judge-ftc/ | title=The Case Without a Judge | date=March 21, 2025 }}

Republicans, including FTC chair Andrew N. Ferguson, have argued that Humphrey's Executor was wrongly decided.{{cite web | url=https://www.axios.com/2025/02/14/ftc-chair-ferguson-trump-fire-commissioners | title=Scoop: New FTC chair endorses Trump's ability to fire commissioners of independent agencies | date=February 14, 2025 }} Legal analysts expect the firings of Bedoya and Slaughter, along with the attempted firing of Democratic NLRB member Gwynne Wilcox, to serve as a test case that will enable the Supreme Court to overrule Humphrey's Executor and grant the President unlimited authority to fire commissioners of independent agencies such as the FTC, NLRB, and the Federal Reserve.{{cite web | url=https://www.retailconsumerproductslaw.com/2025/03/taking-aim-at-humphreys-executor-trump-fires-the-ftcs-democratic-commissioners/ | title=Taking aim at Humphrey's Executor: Trump Fires the FTC's Democratic Commissioners | date=March 19, 2025 }}{{cite web | url=https://www.marketwatch.com/story/trump-and-the-fed-are-getting-along-but-now-there-are-new-fears-about-firings-0024f7b9 | title=There are new fears about Fed firings after FTC dismissals | date=March 19, 2025 }}

In the 2004 case In re Gateway Learning Corp., the FTC alleged that Gateway committed unfair and deceptive trade practices by making retroactive changes to its privacy policy without informing customers and by violating its own privacy policy by selling customer information when it had said it would not.{{cite web |title=Complaint |url=http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/0423047/040707cmp0423047.pdf |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20041023221034/http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/0423047/040707cmp0423047.pdf |archive-date=October 23, 2004 |access-date=August 14, 2012}} Gateway settled the complaint by entering into a consent decree with the FTC that required it to surrender some profits and placed restrictions upon Gateway for the following 20 years.{{cite web |title=Gateway Decision and Order, Sept. 2004 |url=http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/0423047/040917do0423047.pdf |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20041023221102/http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/0423047/040917do0423047.pdf |archive-date=October 23, 2004 |access-date=August 14, 2012}}

During the Obama Administration, Jon Leibowitz served as the Chair.

In the 2009 case In the Matter of Sears Holdings Management Corp., the FTC alleged that a research software program provided by Sears was deceptive because it collected information about nearly all online behavior, a fact that was only disclosed in legalese, buried within the end user license agreement.{{cite web |title=Sears Complaint |url=http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/0823099/090604searscomplaint.pdf |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090605203428/http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/0823099/090604searscomplaint.pdf |archive-date=June 5, 2009 |access-date=August 14, 2012}} The FTC secured a consent decree in the case.

In September 2013, a federal court closed an elusive business opportunity scheme on the request of the FTC, namely "Money Now Funding"/"Cash4Businesses".{{Cite web |date=2013-09-26 |title=FTC Halts Elusive Business Opportunity Scheme |url=https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2013/09/ftc-halts-elusive-business-opportunity-scheme |access-date=2019-02-08 |website=Federal Trade Commission |language=en}} The FTC alleged that the defendants misrepresented potential earnings, violated the National Do Not Call Register, and violated the FTC's Business Opportunity Rule in preventing a fair consumer evaluation of the business.{{Cite web |title=Case 2:13-cv-01583-ROS Document 95 Filed 09/13/13 |url=https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/cases/130926rosemarketingpi-hobbs.pdf |website=FTC}} This was one of the first definitive actions taken by any regulator against a company engaging in transaction laundering, where almost US$6 million were processed illicitly.{{Cite web |date=2018-03-15 |title=What is transaction laundering and what is the Industry doing about it? |url=https://www.paymentscardsandmobile.com/what-is-transaction-laundering-and-what-is-the-industry-doing-about-it/ |access-date=2019-02-08 |website=Payments Cards & Mobile |language=en}}{{Cite web |date=2017-09-13 |title=FTC Targets Transaction Laundering In Landmark Lawsuit |url=http://evercompliant.com/ftc-targets-transaction-laundering-in-landmark-lawsuit/ |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190209180130/http://evercompliant.com/ftc-targets-transaction-laundering-in-landmark-lawsuit/ |archive-date=February 9, 2019 |access-date=2019-02-08 |website=EverCompliant |language=en-US}}

In December 2018, two defendants, Nikolas Mihilli and Dynasty Merchants, LLC, settled with the FTC.{{Cite web |date=2018-12-10 |title=Two Defendants Settle Allegations in 'Money Now Funding' Credit Card Charge Laundering Scheme |url=https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2018/12/two-defendants-settle-allegations-money-now-funding-credit-card |access-date=2019-02-08 |website=Federal Trade Commission |language=en}} They were banned from processing credit card transactions, though the initial monetary judgment of $5.8 million was suspended due to the defendant's inability to pay.

In 2016, the FTC launched action against the academic journal publisher OMICS Publishing Group for producing predatory journals and organizing predatory conferences.{{cite news |date=September 2, 2016 |title=FTC sues OMICS group: Are predatory publishers' days numbered? |url=https://www.statnews.com/2016/09/02/predatory-publishers/ |access-date=October 22, 2016 |newspaper=STAT News}} This action, partly in response to ongoing pressure from the academic community,{{cite news |last=Straumsheim |first=Carl |date=August 29, 2016 |title=Federal Trade Commission begins to crack down on 'predatory' publishers |url=https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/08/29/federal-trade-commission-begins-crack-down-predatory-publishers |access-date=October 22, 2016 |newspaper=Inside Higher Ed}} is the first action taken by the FTC against an academic journal publisher.{{cite web |last=McCook |first=Alison |date=August 26, 2016 |title=U.S. government agency sues publisher, charging it with deceiving researchers |url=http://retractionwatch.com/2016/08/26/u-s-government-group-sues-publisher-charging-it-with-deceiving-researchers/ |access-date=November 2, 2016 |publisher=Retraction Watch}}{{cite web |date=1 May 2018 |title=OMICS Group Inc. |url=https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/152-3113/federal-trade-commission-v-omics-group-inc |access-date=15 January 2019 |website=Federal Trade Commission}}

The complaint alleges that the defendants have been "deceiving academics and researchers about the nature of its publications and hiding publication fees ranging from hundreds to thousands of dollars".{{cite web |last1=Shonka |first1=David C. |last2=Rusu |first2=Ioana |last3=Ashe |first3=Gregory A. |last4=Bogden |first4=Daniel G. |author-link4=Daniel Bogden |last5=Welsh |first5=Blaine T. |date=August 25, 2016 |title=Case No. 2:16-cv-02022 – Complaint for Permanent Injunction and Other Equitable Relief |url=https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/160826omicscmpt.pdf |access-date=October 22, 2016 |website=Case 2:16-cv-02022 |publisher=Federal Trade Commission}} It additionally notes that "OMICS regularly advertises conferences featuring academic experts who were never scheduled to appear in order to attract registrants" and that attendees "spend hundreds or thousands of dollars on registration fees and travel costs to attend these scientific conferences." Manuscripts are also sometimes held hostage, with OMICS refusing to allow submissions to be withdrawn and thereby preventing resubmission to another journal for consideration. Library scientist Jeffrey Beall has described OMICS as among the most egregious of predatory publishers.{{cite web |last=Bailey |first=Jonathan |date=September 12, 2016 |title=Federal Trade Commission Targeting Predatory Publishers |url=http://www.ithenticate.com/plagiarism-detection-blog/federal-trade-commission-targeting-predatory-publishers |access-date=November 2, 2016 |work=iThenticate – Plagiarism Blog}} In November 2017, a federal court in the Court for the District of Nevada granted a preliminary injunction that:

{{blockquote|prohibits the defendants from making misrepresentations regarding their academic journals and conferences, including that specific persons are editors of their journals or have agreed to participate in their conferences. It also prohibits the defendants from falsely representing that their journals engage in peer review, that their journals are included in any academic journal indexing service or any measurement of the extent to which their journals are cited. It also requires that the defendants clearly and conspicuously disclose all costs associated with submitting or publishing articles in their journals.{{cite web |date=22 November 2017 |title=FTC Halts the Deceptive Practices of Academic Journal Publishers |url=https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2017/11/ftc-halts-deceptive-practices-academic-journal-publishers |access-date=15 January 2019 |publisher=Federal Trade Commission}}}}

In April 2019, the court imposed a fine of US$50.1 million on OMICS companies for unfair and deceptive business practices.{{Cite web |date=26 August 2016 |title=OMICS Group Inc. |url=http://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/cases-proceedings/152-3113-omics-group-inc |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220323144329/https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/cases-proceedings/152-3113-omics-group-inc |archive-date=2022-03-23 |access-date=2022-03-23 |publisher=Federal Trade Commission |language=en}}{{Cite news |last=Prasad |first=R. |date=3 April 2019 |title=Hyderabad-based OMICS fined $50 million for 'unfair, deceptive business practices' |language=en-IN |work=The Hindu |url=https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/science/hyderabad-based-omics-fined-50-million-for-unfair-deceptive-business-practices/article26724904.ece |access-date=2022-03-23 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220323214944/https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/science/hyderabad-based-omics-fined-50-million-for-unfair-deceptive-business-practices/article26724904.ece |archive-date=2022-03-23 |issn=0971-751X|url-access=subscription}}{{Cite web |date=11 October 2011 |title=Brief of the Federal Trade Commission |url=https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/omics_ca9_ftc_answering_brief_10-11-19.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211104143419/https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/omics_ca9_ftc_answering_brief_10-11-19.pdf |archive-date=2021-11-04 |access-date=2021-11-04 |publisher=Federal Trade Commission}}

In addition to prospective analysis of the effects of mergers and acquisitions, the FTC has recently resorted to retrospective analysis and monitoring of consolidated hospitals.{{cite web |title=What hospital executives should be considering in mergers and acquisitions |url=http://www.dhgllp.com/res_pubs/hospital-mergers-and-acquisitions.pdf |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170124010441/http://www2.dhgllp.com/res_pubs/hospital-mergers-and-acquisitions.pdf |archive-date=January 24, 2017 |access-date=November 16, 2014 |publisher=DHG Healthcare}} Thus, it also uses retroactive data to demonstrate that some hospital mergers and acquisitions are hurting consumers, particularly in terms of higher prices. Here are some recent examples of the FTC's success in blocking or unwinding of hospital consolidations or affiliations:

In April 2011, the FTC successfully challenged in court the $195 million acquisition of Palmyra Medical Center by Phoebe Putney Memorial Hospital.{{cite web |date=April 20, 2011 |title=In the Matter of Phoebe Putney Health System, Inc., Phoebe Putney Memorial Hospital, Inc., Phoebe North, Inc., HCA Inc., Palmyra Park Hospital, Inc., and Hospital Authority of Albany-Dougherty County |url=http://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/111-0067/phoebe-putney-health-system-inc-phoebe-putney-memorial |access-date=November 16, 2014 |publisher=Federal Trade Commission}} The FTC alleged that the transaction would create a monopoly as it would "reduce competition significantly and allow the combined Phoebe/Palmyra to raise prices for general acute-care hospital services charged to commercial health plans, substantially harming patients and local employers and employees". The Supreme Court on February 19, 2013, ruled in favor of the FTC.

Similarly, court attempts by ProMedica health system in Ohio to overturn an order by the FTC to the company to unwind its 2010 acquisition of St. Luke's hospital were unsuccessful.{{cite web |date=January 5, 2012 |title=Administrative Law Judge Upholds FTC's Complaint Against Ohio Hospital Deal, Orders ProMedica to Divest St. Luke's Hospital |url=http://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2012/01/administrative-law-judge-upholds-ftcs-complaint-against-ohio |access-date=November 16, 2014 |publisher=Federal Trade Commission}} The FTC claimed that the acquisition would hurt consumers through higher premiums because insurance companies would be required to pay more. In December 2011, an administrative judge upheld the FTC's decision, noting that the behavior of ProMedica health system and St. Luke's was indeed anticompetitive. The court ordered ProMedica to divest St. Luke's to a buyer that would be approved by the FTC within 180 days of the date of the order.

In November 2011, the FTC filed a lawsuit alleging that the proposed acquisition of Rockford by OSF would drive up prices for general acute-care inpatient services as OSF would face only one competitor (SwedishAmerican health system) in the Rockford area and would have a market share of 64%.{{cite web |date=April 13, 2012 |title=OSF Healthcare System Abandons Plans to Buy Rockford in Light of FTC Lawsuit; FTC Dismisses its Complaint Seeking to Block the Transaction |url=http://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2012/04/osf-healthcare-system-abandons-plan-buy-rockford-light-ftc |access-date=November 16, 2014 |website=Federal Trade Commission}} Later in 2012, OSF announced that it had abandoned its plans to acquire Rockford Health System.

{{Main| Federal Trade Commission v. Meta Platforms, Inc.}}

In December 2020, the FTC sued Meta (formally known as Facebook) for anticompetitive conduct under Section 2 of the Sherman Act, which prohibits improper monopolization of a market. The FTC accused Meta of buying up its competitors to stifle competition which reduced the range of services available to consumers and by creating fewer social media platforms for advertisers to target.{{cite news |last1=Kang |first1=Cecilia |last2=Isaac |first2=Mike |title=U.S. and States Say Facebook Illegally Crushed Competition |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/09/technology/facebook-antitrust-monopoly.html |access-date=25 August 2024 |work=The New York Times |date=9 December 2020}}{{cite web |last1=Mobbs |first1=Brent |title=FTC v. Facebook: Social Media Giant Sued for Anticompetitive Conduct |url=https://jolt.law.harvard.edu/digest/ftc-v-facebook-social-media-giant-sued-for-anticompetitive-conduct |website=Harvard Journal of Law & Technology |access-date=25 August 2024 |language=en |date=9 March 2021}}

The FTC was chaired by Lina Khan during the Biden Administration.

In November 2024, U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta agreed with Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Kanter and FTC Chair Khan, ruling the company a monopoly, and ordering Google to sell its Chrome web browser.Liedtke, Michael [https://apnews.com/article/google-search-monopoly-penalty-justice-department-84e07fec51c5c59751d846118cb900a7 "US regulators seek to break up Google, forcing Chrome sale as part of monopoly punishment"] Associated Press, November 21, 2024. Retrieved November 24, 2024.

The FTC ruled to ban virtually all non-competes nationwide in April 2024.{{Cite news |last=Hsu |first=Andrea |date=April 23, 2024 |title=U.S. bans non-compete agreements for nearly all jobs |url=https://www.npr.org/2024/04/23/1246655366/ftc-bans-noncompete-agreements-lina-khan |work=NPR}} The agency estimates 30 million workers are bound by these clauses and only excludes senior executives from the ban on enforcing non-competes. The agency believes that this will allow workers to find better working conditions and pay, since switching companies, on average, provides the biggest pay raises.{{Cite web |last=Rugaber |first=Christopher |date=2024-04-23 |title=New federal rule would bar 'noncompete' agreements for most employees |url=https://apnews.com/article/jobs-employers-noncompete-agreements-economy-pay-4d7b3eb8e143cfd52025c7f2f5259fc4 |access-date=2024-08-04 |website=AP News |language=en}} It also allows workers to leave abusive work environments and can prevent some doctors from having to leave medicine once they leave a practice. The ban was put on hold by U.S. District Judge Ada Brown on July 3, 2024, but then upheld on appeal by U.S. District Judge Kelley B. Hodge on July 23, 2024.{{Cite web |last=Niedzwiadek |first=Nick |date=July 23, 2024 |title=Politico Pro: Judge sides with FTC in second challenge to non-compete ban |url=https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/2024/07/judge-sides-with-ftc-in-second-challenge-to-noncompete-ban-00170739 |access-date=2024-08-04 |website=subscriber.politicopro.com |language=en}}{{cite news |last1=Wise |first1=Justin |title=FTC Gets Win on Noncompete Ban After Loss in Another Court |url=https://news.bloomberglaw.com/antitrust/judge-sides-with-ftc-in-noncompete-challenge-splitting-courts |access-date=25 August 2024 |publisher=Bloomberg Law |date=23 July 2024}} On August 20, 2024, a federal court in Texas overturned the FTC's ban on non-compete agreements, which was originally scheduled to take effect on September 4, 2024.{{cite web |last1=Hsu |first1=Andrea |title=Federal judge throws out U.S. ban on noncompetes |url=https://www.npr.org/2024/08/21/g-s1-18376/federal-judge-tosses-ftc-noncompetes-ban |website=NPR |date=August 21, 2024 |access-date=25 August 2024}} U.S. District Judge Ada Brown said the FTC did not have the authority to issue the ban, which she said was "unreasonably overbroad without a reasonable explanation."{{cite web |last1=Mekelburg |first1=Madlin |title=FTC Ban on Worker Noncompete Deals Blocked by Federal Judge (2) |url=https://news.bloomberglaw.com/antitrust/ftc-ban-on-worker-noncompete-deals-blocked-by-federal-judge?context=search&index=4 |website=Bloomberg Law |access-date=25 August 2024}} Victoria Graham, an FTC spokeswoman responded to the ruling by stating "We are seriously considering a potential appeal..."{{cite news |last1=Kaye |first1=Danielle |title=Judge Blocks F.T.C.'s Noncompete Rule |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/20/business/economy/noncompete-ban-ftc-texas.html |access-date=25 August 2024 |work=The New York Times |date=20 August 2024}}

The FTC successfully blocked Nvidia from purchasing Arm Holdings in 2022.{{Cite news |last=Jones |first=Callum |date=2024-03-09 |title='She's going to prevail': FTC head Lina Khan is fighting for an anti-monopoly America |url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/mar/09/lina-khan-federal-trade-commission-antitrust-monopolies |access-date=2024-07-14 |work=The Guardian |language=en-GB |issn=0261-3077}}

The FTC has pursued lawsuits against companies to lower drug prices,{{Cite news |date=July 10, 2024 |title=Feds poised to sue pharmacy gatekeepers over high drug costs |url=https://www.politico.com/news/2024/07/10/ftc-pharmacy-insulin-drug-00167342 |work=Politico}} including for insulin{{Cite news |date=July 10, 2024 |title=US FTC to sue drug middlemen over insulin prices, source says |url=https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/us-ftc-sue-drug-middlemen-over-insulin-prices-wsj-reports-2024-07-10/ |work=Reuters}} and for inhalers.{{Cite news |last=Brittain |first=Blake |date=June 10, 2024 |title=Amneal, US FTC win order removing Teva inhaler patents from FDA list |url=https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/amneal-us-ftc-win-order-removing-teva-inhaler-patents-fda-list-2024-06-10/ |work=Reuters}}

The FTC launched its investigation into pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) in 2022. In July 2024, it released an interim report on its 2-year investigation into pharmacy benefit managers, the agency requested documents from the six largest PBMs as part of its investigation. The three largest – UnitedHealth Group's OptumRx, Cigna's Express Scripts and CVS Health's Caremark – manage about 80% of U.S. prescriptions. The top three PBMs share a parent company with a large medical insurance company. The FTC accused these companies of raising drug prices through conflicts of interest, vertical integration, concentration, and exclusivity provisions; the agency also alleged that the companies created a rebate system that prioritized high rebates from drug manufacturers, among other factors. The agency stated that several PBMs failed to provide documents in a timely manner and warned that it could take the companies to court to force them to comply, during the announcment in the preliminary findings.{{Cite news |last=Sisco |first=Josh |date=July 10, 2024 |title=Feds poised to sue pharmacy gatekeepers over high drug costs |url=https://www.politico.com/news/2024/07/10/ftc-pharmacy-insulin-drug-00167342 |work=Politico}}{{Cite news |last=Aboulenein |first=Ahmed |date=July 9, 2024 |title=Explainer: Why are US pharmacy benefit managers under fire? |url=https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/why-are-us-pharmacy-benefit-managers-under-fire-2024-07-09/ |work=Reuters}}{{Cite web |last=Whyte |first=Liz Essley |date=July 9, 2024 |title=Big Pharmacy-Benefit Managers Increase Drug Costs, FTC Says |url=https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/other/big-pharmacy-benefit-managers-increase-drug-costs-ftc-says/ar-BB1pFXiS |access-date=2024-08-14 |website=Wall Street Journal |via=MSN}}{{Cite web |last=Pifer |first=Rebecca |date=2024-07-09 |title=FTC slams pharmacy benefit managers in first report from ongoing investigation |url=https://www.healthcaredive.com/news/ftc-pharmacy-benefit-manager-investigation-interim-report/720814/ |archive-url=https://archive.today/20240924031133/https://www.healthcaredive.com/news/ftc-pharmacy-benefit-manager-investigation-interim-report/720814/ |archive-date=2024-09-24 |access-date=2024-09-24 |website=Healthcare Dive |language=en-US}} In September 2024, the FTC sued the three largest pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) for allegedly engaging in anti-competitive practices that increased their profits while artificially inflating the list price of insulin. The agency is seeking to prohibit the PBMs from favoring medicines because certain pharaceuticals make them more money.{{Cite web |last1=Abelson |first1=Reed |last2=Robbins |first2=Rebecca |date=September 20, 2024 |title=F.T.C. Accuses Drug Middlemen of Inflating Insulin Prices |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/20/health/ftc-drug-price-inflation-insulin.html |archive-url=https://archive.today/20240920225837/https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/20/health/ftc-drug-price-inflation-insulin.html |archive-date=2024-09-20 |access-date=September 23, 2024 |website=New York Times}}{{Cite web |last=Weixel |first=Nathaniel |date=2024-09-20 |title=FTC sues three largest drug middlemen for allegedly inflating insulin prices |url=https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/4891338-ftc-sues-drug-companies-insulin-prices/ |access-date=2024-09-24 |website=The Hill |language=en-US}}

In August 2024, the FTC announced it would finalize rules to ban fake reviews online.{{Cite web|url=https://www.reuters.com/business/retail-consumer/us-ftc-finalizes-ban-fake-online-reviews-2024-08-14/|title=US FTC finalizes ban on companies buying and selling fake online reviews|website=Reuters|date=August 14, 2024}}{{Cite web|url=https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/4828686-ftc-bans-fake-online-reviews-testimonials/|title=FTC bans fake online reviews, testimonials|website=The Hill|date=August 14, 2024}}

In February 2024, the FTC challenged the Kroger-Albertsons merger, arguing it would drive up grocery and pharmacy prices, worsen service, and lower wages and working conditions.{{Cite news |last=Hill |first=Meredith Lee |date=August 14, 2024 |title=Grocery price gouging to feature prominently in Harris economic plan |url=https://www.politico.com/news/2024/08/14/harris-food-prices-economy-speech-00174112 |work=Politico}}{{Cite news |last=Sisco |first=Josh |date=February 26, 2024 |title=FTC, states challenge Kroger's $25 billion grocery merger with Albertsons |url=https://www.politico.com/news/2024/02/26/ftc-krogers-albertsons-grocery-merger-00143287 |work=Politico}} On December 10, 2024, U.S. District Judge Adrienne Nelson agreed with the FTC, that the merger would risk reducing competition at the expense of both consumers and workers. Judge Nelson halted Kroger’s $24.6 billion acquisition of Albertsons with a preliminary injunction.{{Cite news |last=Kaye |first=Danielle |date=2024-12-10 |title=Federal Judge Blocks $25 Billion Kroger-Albertsons Grocery Merger |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/10/business/kroger-albertsons-merger-ftc.html |archive-url=https://archive.today/20241225105934/https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/10/business/kroger-albertsons-merger-ftc.html |archive-date=2024-12-25 |access-date=2024-12-10 |work=The New York Times}}

In March 2024, the FTC released a report that found higher profit margins as a driver of inflation for grocery prices.{{Cite web |last=Burns |first=Tobias |date=2024-03-29 |title=FTC calls out profits as a driver of grocery prices |url=https://thehill.com/business/4562244-how-retailers-are-profiting-from-food-inflation-profit-inflation-question-gains-new-urgency-from-ftc-report/ |access-date=2024-08-17 |website=The Hill |language=en-US}}

In August 2024, it announced it would be probing grocery prices to look for anti-competitive behavior and price gouging at chain supermarkets.{{Cite web |last=Suter |first=Tara |date=2024-08-02 |title=Federal Trade Commission to probe stubbornly high grocery prices |url=https://thehill.com/business/4808280-ftc-federal-probe-high-grocery-prices-inflation/ |access-date=2024-08-17 |website=The Hill |language=en-US}}{{Cite news |last=Godoy |first=Jody |date=August 1, 2024 |title=US targets surging grocery prices in latest probe |url=https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/us-targets-surging-grocery-prices-latest-probe-2024-08-01/ |work=Reuters}}

In October 2023, the FTC proposed a new rule that would ensure that the cancellation process of subscription services is as easy as the process of signing up.Godoy, Jody [https://www.reuters.com/world/us/ftc-takes-subscription-traps-with-click-cancel-rule-2024-10-16/ "FTC takes on subscription traps with 'click to cancel' rule"] Reuters, October 16, 2024. Retrieved November 5, 2024.{{Cite web |last=Narea |first=Nicole |date=2024-08-13 |title=Biden wants to free you from all those subscriptions you meant to cancel but didn't |url=https://www.vox.com/policy/366838/biden-subscription-membership-junk-fees |access-date=2024-08-14 |website=Vox |language=en-US}} On October 16, 2024, the FTC announced the new rule, dubbed "click to cancel", requiring companies to make subscription services "as easy for consumers to cancel their enrollment as it was to sign up."{{Cite web |last=Mastrangelo |first=Dominick |date=2024-10-16 |title=FTC to implement rule making it easier to cancel subscriptions |url=https://thehill.com/homenews/media/4936175-federal-trade-commission-subscription-cancellation/ |access-date=2024-10-16 |website=The Hill |language=en-US}}{{Cite news |last=Selyukh |first=Alina |date=October 16, 2024 |title=Canceling subscriptions has to be as easy as signing up, FTC says in a new rule |url=https://www.npr.org/2024/10/16/nx-s1-5154814/click-to-cancel-subscriptions-memberships-ftc-rule |access-date=October 16, 2024 |work=NPR}} Khan said in an interview that the new rule is designed so that if consumers signed up online, they must also be able to cancel on the same website in the same number of steps.{{Cite web |date=2024-10-16 |title=FTC moves to take the 'frustration' out of canceling subscriptions for consumers |url=https://www.nbcnews.com/business/consumer/making-it-easier-to-cancel-subscriptions-ftc-lina-khan-interview-rcna175607 |access-date=2024-10-16 |website=NBC News |language=en}} The rule’s final provisions will go into effect 180 days after it is published in the Federal Register. On May 9, 2025 the FTC voted to delay enforcing compliance on the "Click to cancel" provision until July 14, 2025.{{Cite web |date=2025-05-11 |title=FTC delays enforcing 'click to cancel' rule that would finally bring the hammer down on companies that make it as annoying as possible to cancel subscriptions |url=https://www.yahoo.com/news/ftc-delays-enforcing-click-cancel-183815120.html |access-date=2025-05-13 |website=Yahoo News |language=en-US}}

It also targeted airlines and credit card companies over junk fees and high prices. The rule for junk fees which covers, businesses selling live-event tickets and short-term lodging, requires disclosing total price upfront, and no misrepresentations about fees and charges, went into effect on May 12, 2025.{{Cite web |last=Adele |first=Chilekasi |date=2025-05-11 |title=Federal Trade Commission's crackdown on junk fees goes into effect this week, here's how you can save money - CBS Pittsburgh |url=https://www.cbsnews.com/pittsburgh/news/ftc-hidden-fee-and-junk-fee-crackdown/ |access-date=2025-05-13 |website=www.cbsnews.com |language=en-US}}

{{Main|FTC v. Microsoft}}

In October 2023, the FTC authorized an administrative complaint against the merger between Microsoft and Activision Blizzard, Inc. The FTC alleged the deal would suppress competitors from accessing future content/games developed by Activision once the deal goes through. The FTC dropped its lawsuit on July 20, 2023. Microsoft had to restructure its deal to appease UK regulators.{{Cite web |last=Warren |first=Tom |date=2023-10-13 |title=Microsoft completes Activision Blizzard acquisition, Call of Duty now part of Xbox |url=https://www.theverge.com/2023/10/13/23791235/microsoft-activision-blizzard-acquisition-complete-finalized |access-date=2024-08-04 |website=The Verge |language=en}} Microsoft reneged on promises it made in court filings by laying off 1900 employees in January 2024, signaling that it did not plan to let Activision Blizzard remain as independent as it had promised and leading the FTC to continue to appeal the decision.{{Cite web |last=Carpenter |first=Nicole |date=2024-02-07 |title=The FTC isn't too happy with Microsoft's Activision Blizzard layoffs |url=https://www.polygon.com/24065269/ftc-microsoft-activision-deal-layoffs-appeal |access-date=2024-08-04 |website=Polygon |language=en-US}}

In July 2021, the FTC voted unanimously to enforce the right to repair as policy and to look to take action against companies that limit the type of repair work that can be done at independent repair shops.{{cite web |last=Kelly |first=Makena |date=July 21, 2021 |title=FTC pledges to fight unlawful right to repair restrictions |url=https://www.theverge.com/2021/7/21/22587331/right-to-repair-apple-iphone-ftc-lina-khan-open-meeting |access-date=July 21, 2021 |work=The Verge}} In October 2024, following a comment by the FTC to the US Copyright Office, an exemption was granted allowing for repair of retail-level food preparation equipment, such as McDonald's ice cream machines.{{Cite web |last=Brodkin |first=Jon |date=2024-10-25 |title=US Copyright Office "frees the McFlurry," allowing repair of ice cream machines |url=https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/10/us-copyright-office-frees-the-mcflurry-allowing-repair-of-ice-cream-machines/#gsc.tab=0 |access-date=2024-11-03 |website=Ars Technica |language=en-US}}{{Cite web |last=Hurwitz |first=Sophie |title=Donald Trump talked about fixing McDonald's ice cream machines. Lina Khan actually did. |url=https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2024/10/donald-trump-talked-about-fixing-mcdonalds-ice-cream-machines-lina-khan-actually-did/ |access-date=2024-11-03 |website=Mother Jones |language=en-US}}

In July 2023, the FTC issued a civil investigative demand to OpenAI to investigate whether the company's data security and privacy practices to develop ChatGPT were unfair or harmed consumers (including by reputational harm) in violation of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914.{{cite news|last=Zakrzewski|first=Cat|date=July 13, 2023|title=The FTC is investigating whether ChatGPT harms consumers|newspaper=The Washington Post|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/07/13/ftc-openai-chatgpt-sam-altman-lina-khan/|access-date=July 13, 2023|archive-date=July 13, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230713153008/https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/07/13/ftc-openai-chatgpt-sam-altman-lina-khan/|url-status=live}}{{cite news|last1=Tracy|first1=Ryan|last2=McKinnon|first2=John D.|date=July 13, 2023|title=ChatGPT Comes Under Investigation by Federal Trade Commission|work=The Wall Street Journal|publisher=News Corp|url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/chatgpt-under-investigation-by-ftc-21e4b3ef|access-date=July 13, 2023|archive-date=July 13, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230713134549/https://www.wsj.com/articles/chatgpt-under-investigation-by-ftc-21e4b3ef|url-status=live}}{{cite news|last=Feiner|first=Lauren|date=July 13, 2023|title=FTC investigating ChatGPT-maker OpenAI for possible consumer harm|publisher=CNBC|url=https://www.cnbc.com/2023/07/13/chatgpt-owner-openai-is-being-investigated-by-ftc.html|access-date=July 13, 2023|archive-date=July 13, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230713140119/https://www.cnbc.com/2023/07/13/chatgpt-owner-openai-is-being-investigated-by-ftc.html|url-status=live}} These are typically preliminary investigative matters and are nonpublic, but the FTC's document was leaked.{{cite web |last1=Jr |first1=D. Reed Freeman |title=Leaked FTC Civil Investigative Demand to OpenAI Provides a Rare Preliminary View of the Future of AI Enforcement |url=https://www.afslaw.com/perspectives/privacy-counsel/leaked-ftc-civil-investigative-demand-openai-provides-rare-preliminary?utm_source=chatgpt.com |website=ArentFox Schiff |access-date=20 June 2025 |language=en |date=2 August 2023}} In July 2023, the FTC launched an investigation into OpenAI, the creator of ChatGPT, over allegations that the company scraped public data and published false and defamatory information. They asked OpenAI for comprehensive information about its technology and privacy safeguards, as well as any steps taken to prevent the recurrence of situations in which its chatbot generated false and derogatory content about people.{{cite web |title=ChatGPT creator OpenAI faces US probe over libellous output |url=https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2023/7/14/us-watchdog-probes-chatgpt-maker-openai-over-false-information |access-date=July 15, 2023 |website=Ars Technica |archive-date=July 15, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230715025721/https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2023/7/14/us-watchdog-probes-chatgpt-maker-openai-over-false-information |url-status=live }}

In November 2023, the FTC passed an omnibus resolution to increase its ability to investigate companies adding AI into their products or making AI.{{cite web |last1=Walker |first1=Jake |last2=O'Brien |first2=Ann |last3=Gatto |first3=James |title=AI Enforcement Update: FTC Authorizes Compulsory Process for AI Investigations |url=https://www.antitrustlawblog.com/2023/12/articles/ftc/ai-enforcement-update-ftc-authorizes-compulsory-process-for-ai-investigations/?utm_source=chatgpt.com |website=Antitrust Law Blog |access-date=20 June 2025 |date=8 December 2023}}

The agency then reported concern with the Microsoft-Open AI partnership and the Amazon-Anthropic partnership.{{cite web |title=FTC Launches Inquiry into Generative AI Investments and Partnerships |url=https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/01/ftc-launches-inquiry-generative-ai-investments-partnerships |website=Federal Trade Commission |language=en |date=24 January 2024}} The circular spending in which, for example, Microsoft gives OpenAI credit to Microsoft Azure and the companies provide each other access to engineering talent was of particular concern for its potential negative impacts to the public.{{cite news |last1=Birnbaum |first1=Emily |last2=Bass |first2=Diana |last3=Metz |first3=Rachel |title=Microsoft-OpenAI Partnership Raises Antitrust Concerns, FTC Says |url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-01-17/microsoft-openai-partnership-raises-antitrust-concerns-ftc |access-date=4 June 2025 |work=Bloomberg.com |date=January 17, 2025 |archive-url=https://archive.today/20250117212509/https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-01-17/microsoft-openai-partnership-raises-antitrust-concerns-ftc |archive-date=17 January 2025 |language=en}}

In August 2024, the FTC voted unanimously to ban marketers from using fake user reviews created by generative AI chatbots and influencers paying for bots to increase follower counts.{{cite news|last=Picciotto|first=Rebecca|date=August 14, 2024|title=FTC bans fake online reviews, inflated social media influence; rule takes effect in October|publisher=CNBC|url=https://www.cnbc.com/2024/08/14/ftc-bans-fake-reviews-social-media-influence-markers.html|access-date=August 15, 2024|archive-date=August 14, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240814223921/https://www.cnbc.com/2024/08/14/ftc-bans-fake-reviews-social-media-influence-markers.html|url-status=live}}

{{See also|List of members of the Federal Trade Commission}}

The commission is headed by five commissioners, who each serve seven-year terms. Commissioners are nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. No more than three commissioners can be of the same political party. In practice, this means that two commissioners are of the opposition party. However, three members of the FTC throughout its history have been without party affiliation, with the most recent independent, Pamela Jones Harbour, serving from 2003 to 2009.{{Cite web |title=Independent commissioners have shaped key FTC decisions – FTCWatch |url=https://www.mlexwatch.com/articles/2697/print?section=ftcwatch |access-date=2021-09-11 |website=www.mlexwatch.com}}

Notes

• The FTC Act allows commissioners to remain in their position after their term expires until a replacement has been appointed.{{Cite web |title=15 U.S. Code § 41 – Federal Trade Commission established; membership; vacancies; seal |url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/41#fn002001 |access-date=2024-09-19 |website=LII / Legal Information Institute |language=en}}

As of 2021, there have been:

• Three African-Americans to serve on the FTC: A. Leon Higginbotham Jr. (served from 1962 to 1964), Mozelle W. Thompson (served from 1997 to 2004), Pamela Jones Harbour (served from 2003 to 2009){{Cite web |last=LexisNexis |title=Breaking down barriers: Recruiting and promoting Black antitrust lawyers |url=https://mlexmarketinsight.com/news-hub/editors-picks/area-of-expertise/antitrust/breaking-down-barriers-recruiting-and-promoting-black-antitrust-lawyers |access-date=2021-09-11 |website=mlexmarketinsight.com |language=en}}
• Three Asian-Americans to serve on the FTC: Dennis Yao (served from 1991 to 1994), Rohit Chopra (served from 2018 to 2021), and Lina Khan (served since 2021); Khan is the first Asian-American to serve as FTC Chair{{Cite web |last=Birnbaum |first=Emily |date=April 21, 2021 |title=What to watch at Lina Khan's confirmation hearing |url=https://politi.co/3dDf6IY |access-date=2021-09-11 |website=Politico |language=en}}
• Three independents to serve on the FTC: Philip Elman (served from 1961 to 1970), Mary Azcuenaga (served from 1984 to 1998), and Pamela Jones Harbour (served from 2003 to 2009)

{{Primary sources|date=August 2024}}File:Scam Watch 1280x720.ogv

The FTC has three main bureaus: the Bureau of Competition, the Bureau of Consumer Protection, and the Bureau of Economics.

The Bureau of Competition is the division of the FTC charged with elimination and prevention of "anticompetitive" business practices. It accomplishes this through the enforcement of antitrust laws, review of proposed mergers, and investigation into other non-merger business practices that may impair competition. Such non-merger practices include horizontal restraints, involving agreements between direct competitors, and vertical restraints, involving agreements among businesses at different levels in the same industry (such as suppliers and commercial buyers).

File:The_Apex_Building,_headquarters_of_the_Federal_Trade_Commission,_on_Constitution_Avenue_and_7th_Streets_in_Washington,_D.C.jpg]]

The FTC shares enforcement of antitrust laws with the Department of Justice. However, while the FTC is responsible for civil enforcement of antitrust laws, the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice has the power to bring both civil and criminal action in antitrust matters.

The Bureau of Consumer Protection's mandate is to protect consumers against unfair or deceptive acts or practices in commerce. With the written consent of the commission, Bureau attorneys enforce federal laws related to consumer affairs and rules promulgated by the FTC. Its functions include investigations, enforcement actions, and consumer and business education. Areas of principal concern for this bureau are: advertising and marketing, financial products and practices, telemarketing fraud, privacy and identity protection, etc. The bureau also is responsible for the United States National Do Not Call Registry.

Under the FTC Act, the commission has the authority, in most cases, to bring its actions in federal court through its own attorneys. In some consumer protection matters, the FTC appears with, or supports, the U.S. Department of Justice.

The Bureau of Economics was established to support the Bureau of Competition and Consumer Protection by providing expert knowledge related to the economic impacts of the FTC's legislation and operation.

• The FTC maintains an Office of Technology Research and Investigation to assist it in technology-related enforcement actions.{{Cite web|date=2015-08-05|title=Office of Technology Research and Investigation|url=https://www.ftc.gov/about-ftc/bureaus-offices/bureau-consumer-protection/office-technology-research-investigation|access-date=2020-11-28|website=Federal Trade Commission|language=en}}
• The FTC generally selects its Chief Technologist from among computer science academics and noted practitioners.{{Cite web|date=2018-05-01|title=FTC Chief Technologists|url=https://www.ftc.gov/about-ftc/biographies/ftc-chief-technologist|access-date=2020-11-28|website=Federal Trade Commission|language=en}} The role has previously been filled by Steven K. Bellovin, Lorrie Cranor, Edward Felten, Ashkan Soltani, and Latanya Sweeney.
• The FTC also maintains an academic in residence program, inviting leading legal scholars to join the FTC for a year as a Senior Policy Advisor. The role has been held by Tim Wu in 2011,{{Cite web|title=Professor Tim Wu Named Advisor to Federal Trade Commission on Consumer Protection, Competition|url=https://www.law.columbia.edu/news/archive/professor-tim-wu-named-advisor-federal-trade-commission-consumer-protection-competition|access-date=2020-11-28|website=law.columbia.edu|language=en}} Paul Ohm in 2012,{{Cite web|date=2012-05-21|title=Professor Paul Ohm Named Advisor to Federal Trade Commission|url=https://www.colorado.edu/law/2012/05/21/professor-paul-ohm-named-advisor-federal-trade-commission|access-date=2020-11-28|website=Colorado Law|language=en}} and Andrea M. Matwyshyn in 2014.{{Cite web|date=2013-11-18|title=FTC Names Latanya Sweeney as Chief Technologist; Andrea Matwyshyn as Policy Advisor|url=https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2013/11/ftc-names-latanya-sweeney-chief-technologist-andrea-matwyshyn|access-date=2020-11-28|website=Federal Trade Commission|language=en}}

{{One source|date=August 2024|section}}{{Competition law}}

The FTC investigates issues raised by reports from consumers and businesses, pre-merger notification filings, congressional inquiries, or reports in the media. These issues include, for instance, false advertising and other forms of fraud. FTC investigations may pertain to a single company or an entire industry. If the results of the investigation reveal unlawful conduct, the FTC may seek voluntary compliance by the offending business through a consent order, file an administrative complaint, or initiate federal litigation. During the course of regulatory activities, the FTC is authorized to collect records, but not on-site inspections.{{Cite journal|last=Van Loo|first=Rory|date=2018-08-01|title=Regulatory Monitors: Policing Firms in the Compliance Era|url=https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/faculty_scholarship/265|journal=Faculty Scholarship|volume=119 |issue=2 |page=369 }}

Traditionally an administrative complaint is heard in front of an independent administrative law judge (ALJ) with FTC staff acting as prosecutors. The case is reviewed de novo by the full FTC commission which then may be appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals and finally to the Supreme Court.{{Citation needed|date=August 2024}}

Under the FTC Act, the federal courts retain their traditional authority to issue equitable relief, including the appointment of receivers, monitors, the imposition of asset freezes to guard against the spoliation of funds, immediate access to business premises to preserve evidence, and other relief including financial disclosures and expedited discovery. In numerous cases, the FTC employs this authority to combat serious consumer deception or fraud. Additionally, the FTC has rulemaking power to address concerns regarding industry-wide practices. Rules promulgated under this authority are known as Trade Rules.{{Citation needed|date=August 2024}}

One of the Federal Trade Commission's other major focuses is identity theft. The FTC serves as a federal repository for individual consumer complaints regarding identity theft. Even though the FTC does not resolve individual complaints, it does use the aggregated information to determine where federal action might be taken. The complaint form is available online or by phone (1-877-ID-THEFT).{{Citation needed|date=August 2024}}

The FTC has been involved in the oversight of the online advertising industry and its practice of behavioral targeting for some time. In 2011 the FTC proposed a "Do Not Track" mechanism to allow Internet users to opt-out of behavioral targeting.{{Citation needed|date=August 2024}}

The FTC, along with the Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Justice also empowers third-party enforcer-firms to engage in some regulatory oversight, e.g. the FTC requires other energy companies to audit offshore oil platform operators.{{Cite journal|last=Van Loo|first=Rory|date=2020-04-01|title=The New Gatekeepers: Private Firms as Public Enforcers|url=https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/faculty_scholarship/800|journal=Virginia Law Review|volume=106|issue=2|pages=467}}

In 2013, the FTC issued a comprehensive revision of its Green guides, which set forth standards for environmental marketing.{{cite web |date=October 1, 2012 |title=FTC Issues Revised 'Green Guides' |url=http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2012/10/greenguides.shtm |access-date=October 24, 2013 |website=FTC.gov}}{{Primary source inline|date=August 2024}}

File:EndorsementGuides 0.webm

Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, {{UnitedStatesCode|15|45}} grants the FTC power to investigate and prevent deceptive trade practices. The statute declares that "unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, are hereby declared unlawful."{{UnitedStatesCode|15|45(a)(1)}}

Unfairness and deception towards consumers represent two distinct areas of FTC enforcement and authority. The FTC also has authority over unfair methods of competition between businesses.{{cite web|url=http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/policystmt/ad-unfair.htm |title=FTC Policy Statement on Unfairness, Dec. 17, 1980 |publisher=Ftc.gov |access-date=August 14, 2012}}

Courts have identified three main factors that must be considered in consumer unfairness cases: (1) whether the practice injures consumers; (2) whether the practice violates established public policy; and (3) whether it is unethical or unscrupulous.

In a letter to the Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, the FTC defined the elements of deception cases. First, "there must be a representation, omission or practice that is likely to mislead the consumer."{{cite web|title=FTC Policy Statement on Deception, Oct. 14, 1983|url=http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/policystmt/ad-decept.htm|access-date=August 14, 2012|publisher=Ftc.gov}} In the case of omissions, the Commission considers the implied representations understood by the consumer.

A misleading omission occurs when information is not disclosed to correct reasonable consumer expectations. Second, the Commission examines the practice from the perspective of a reasonable consumer being targeted by the practice. Finally the representation or omission must be a material one{{snd}}that is one that would have changed consumer behavior.File:Federal Trade Commission Entrance Doorway.jpg

In its Dot Com Disclosures guide,{{cite web|url=https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/attachments/press-releases/ftc-staff-revises-online-advertising-disclosure-guidelines/130312dotcomdisclosures.pdf |title=.com Disclosures: How to Make Effective Disclosures in Digital Advertising, March 2013 |publisher=FTC |access-date=January 19, 2016}} the FTC said that "disclosures that are required to prevent deception or to provide consumers material information about a transaction must be presented clearly and conspicuously." The FTC suggested a number of different factors that would help determine whether the information was "clear and conspicuous" including but not limited to:

• the placement of the disclosure in an advertisement and its proximity to the claim it is qualifying,
• the prominence of the disclosure,
• whether items in other parts of the advertisement distract attention from the disclosure,
• whether the advertisement is so lengthy that the disclosure needs to be repeated,
• whether disclosures in audio messages are presented in an adequate volume and cadence and visual disclosures appear for a sufficient duration, and
• whether the language of the disclosure is understandable to the intended audience.

However, the "key is the overall net impression."

{{Portal|Business and economics|United States}}

{{col div}}

• Children's Online Privacy Protection Act
• Competition policy
• Competition regulator
• Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
• Consumer Product Safety Commission
• Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
• Franchising
• FTC Fair Information Practices
• FTC regulation of behavioral advertising
• Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act
• Humphrey's Executor v. United States
• Information broker
• Sweepstakes
• United States v. Google Inc.

{{col div end}}

{{Reflist|30em}}

{{Further reading cleanup|date=August 2024}}

• {{cite journal |last=MacLean |first=Elizabeth Kimball |date=July 2007 |title=Joseph E. Davies: The Wisconsin Idea and the Origins of the Federal Trade Commission |journal=Journal of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era |volume=6 |issue=3 |pages=248–284 |doi=10.1017/S1537781400002097|s2cid=161773580 }}
• {{cite journal | first = Marc | last = Winerman | title = The Origins of the FTC: Concentration, Cooperation, Control, and Competition | journal = Antitrust Law Journal | volume = 71 | issue = 1 | year = 2003 | pages = 1–98 }}
• {{cite journal |last1=MacIntyre |first1=A. Everette |last2=Volhard |first2=Joachim J. |date=1970 |title=The Federal Trade Commission |url=http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/bclr/vol11/iss4/6/ |journal=Boston College Law Review |volume=11 |issue=4 |pages=723–783}}
• {{cite journal |last=Davis |first=G. Cullom |date=1962 |title=The Transformation of the Federal Trade Commission, 1914–1929 |journal=The Mississippi Valley Historical Review |volume=49 |issue=3 |pages=437–455 |jstor=1902564|doi=10.2307/1902564 }}

{{EB1922 Poster}}

{{Commons category|Federal Trade Commission}}

• {{official website|https://www.ftc.gov/}}
• [https://reportfraud.ftc.gov/ Report fraud website] of the FTC
• [https://www.federalregister.gov/agencies/federal-trade-commission Federal Trade Commission] in the Federal Register
• [https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-16/chapter-I Federal Trade Commission] in the Code of Federal Regulations
• [https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/001531691 FTC Decisions] volumes 1-128 archive from HathiTrust
• [https://www.usaspending.gov/agency/federal-trade-commission Federal Trade Commission] on USAspending.gov

{{United States antitrust law|state=collapsed}}

{{Authority control}}

Category:Corporate crime

Category:Competition regulators

Category:Consumer rights agencies

Category:Government agencies established in 1914

Category:Independent agencies of the United States government

Category:Organizations based in Washington, D.C.

Category:Articles containing video clips