> ## Content Index
> Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.fdaweb.com/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further.

# FTC Seeks Restored Disgorgement Authority
- URL: https://www.fdaweb.com/ftc-seeks-restored-disgorgement-authority/
- Published: 2021-04-23T12:00:00.000Z
- Updated: 2026-09-14T16:56:08.000Z
- Author: David McFarland
- Tags: Drugs, #legacy-id-D5149182

The [FTC says](https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2021/04/statement-ftc-acting-chairwoman-rebecca-kelly-slaughter-us?ref=fdaweb.com) it will advocate for Congress to act quickly and advance legislation to strengthen its powers in the wake of a 4/22 Supreme Court decision that curtails its authority to seek monetary restitution from companies engaged in deceptive practices, such as pharmaceutical company anticompetive measures.

  
The unanimous [opinion](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-508%5Fl6gn.pdf?ref=fdaweb.com) by Justice **Stephen Breyer** held that Section 13(b) of the Federal Trade Commission Act does not give the FTC the authority to seek “equitable monetary relief such as restitution or disgorgement.” It further said that the section authorizes injunctions only, not monetary relief. Breyer added that the agency still has the authority to obtain restitution on behalf of consumers under other sections of the FTC Act.

  
A [PhRMA brief](https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-508/156634/20201002132209247%5FAmicus%20Brief%20-%20PhRMA.pdf?ref=fdaweb.com) to the court argued against the FTC monetary penalties, particularly in patent cases involving so-called “reverse payments.” PhRMA said FTC used Section 13(b) to obtain “substantial payments in cases in which the underlying legal theory was far from settled and where the defendants had a well-founded belief that the conduct was lawful... In these cases, the agency alleged that an incumbent pharmaceutical manufacturer who exercised its patent rights in accordance with the special procedures of the Hatch-Waxman Act was in fact paying a generic competitor not to enter the market. The agency has obtained some of its largest 13(b) payments under this theory.”