"In sum, there is overwhelming evidence that Section 5 of the FTC Act did not create a new duty for merchants to refrain from deceptive advertising. That duty long predated the FTC Act and could be enforced by private parties in actions at common law or equity for fraud, deceit, or unfair competition."
"Matters concerning private rights may not be removed from Article III courts. If a suit is in the nature of an action at common law, then the matter presumptively concerns private rights, and adjudication by an Article III court is mandatory."
"Categories that fall within public rights include: collection of revenue; aspects of customs law; immigration law; relations with Indian tribes; the administration of public lands; and the granting of public benefits."
The 5th Circuit determined that the FTC's claims regarding deceptive advertising are traditional legal actions that necessitate adjudication in Article III courts. The court rejected the FTC's assertion that these claims involve public rights suitable for administrative agencies. It emphasized that the duty to avoid deceptive advertising predates the FTC Act and can be enforced by private parties. The ruling aligns with the Supreme Court's Jarkesy decision, which mandates that matters concerning private rights must be adjudicated in Article III courts, contrasting with public rights that can be handled by executive and legislative branches.
Read at Ars Technica
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]