Popular Topics
All Topics
- .Com Disclosure Guide
- 140conf
- 140conf Long Island
- 140confLI
- 47 USC 230
- AAA
- ACI 2017
- Ads
- Advance Registration
- Advertising
- Advertising Agencies
- Advertising Agency
- Advertising Disclosure
- Advertising Industry
- Advertising Injury
- Advertising Law
- Advertising Practice
- advertising self-regulation
- Advertising Self-Regulatory Council
- Advertising Software
- Advertising, Marketing & Promotions News
- Advertorials
- Advisory
- Affiliate Marketing
- Affiliate Program
- AG
- All Natural
- Amazon
- Amazon Silk
- Amazon Tax
- Amazon.com
- Amendments
- American Advertising Federation
- American Bar Association
- Americans with Disabilities Act
- Android
- Annual Audit
- Annual Fee
- anti-fraud
- App Developers
- Apple
- Apps
- Arbitration
- Arbitration Clause
- Arbitration Rules
- Ashley Madison
- ASRC
- AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion
- ATDS
- Attorney
- Attorney General
- Audio Beacons
- Augme
- Auto-dial
- Automatic Renewal
- Automobiles
- BBB AdTruth
- Bead Art Playsets
- Behavioral Advertising
- Best Lawyers
- Blackberry
- Bloggers and Influencers
- Bloomberg BNA
- Brain Training
- Branding
- Brands
- Breach
- Burden of Proof
- Business Law
- Business, Marketing & Promotions News
- Buyers
- California
- California Auto-Renewal Task Force
- California Consumer Privacy Act
- California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control
- California’s Automatic Renewal Law
- California’s Unfair Competition Law
- Campaigns
- CAN-Spam
- Cancer Fund of America
- cannabis
- Caribbean & Latin American Corporate Counsel Summit 2017
- CARU's Guidelines
- CAS
- Cash prizes
- CASL
- CBBB
- CBD
- Celebrity Images
- Cell Phone Applications
- Cell phones
- CFPB
- CGMP
- Chambers 2017 USA Guide
- Chantal Tode
- Charge Pop-ups
- Charity Fundraising
- Charity Regulators
- Children's Advertising
- Children's Advertising Review Unit (CARU)
- children's marketing
- Children's Privacy
- Civil Penalties
- Class Action
- Class Action Lawsuit
- Class Certification
- Clean Diesel
- Cognitive Claims
- College Athletes
- Colorado
- Commerce Department
- Commercial Advertising
- Commercial Electronic Mail Act (CEMA)
- Communications Decency Act
- compliance
- conference
- Consumer Complaints
- Consumer Complaints List
- Consumer Contracts
- Consumer Data
- Consumer Data Protection Act (“CDPA”)
- Consumer Fraud
- Consumer Fraud Act
- consumer health guidelines
- Consumer Privacy
- Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights
- Consumer Protection
- consumer protection laws
- Consumer Sentinel Network
- Contract
- COPPA
- COPPA FTC Olshan Advertising Marketing Promotions Privacy
- Copyright Act
- Copyright Alert System
- Copyright Infringement
- Copyright Infringement Abroad
- Copyright, Trademark and Other Intellectual Property
- Corporate Law
- Council of Better Business Bureau
- Counterclaims
- Court Decisions
- COVID-19
- Cramming
- Credit Card Payment Surcharges
- Crowdfunding
- Cryptocurrency
- cybersecurity
- D.C. Circuit Court
- Daily Fantasy Sports Contests
- dark patterns
- data breach
- Data Broker
- Data Collection Practices
- Data Protection
- Data Security
- Data Transfers
- Debt collectors
- Deceptive Advertising
- Deceptive Pricing
- Deceptive Tracking
- Department of Commerce
- Department of Labor
- Department of Labor (DOL)
- dietary supplements
- Digital
- Digital Advertising
- Digital Media
- Direct listings
- Direct Marketers
- Direct marketing programs
- Direct response marketing
- DirectTV
- Disclosure
- Disclosure Obligations
- Disclosure Rules
- Discounts
- DMA
- DMCA
- Do Not Call
- Do Not Track
- DOJ
- Domain Extensions
- Domino's Pizza
- Dot Com Disclosures
- DPPA
- DraftKings
- Drawing By Chance
- Ecommerce
- Elder Abuse Prevention and Prosecution Act
- Emissions Testing
- endorsement
- Enforcement Action
- Enhanced Ads
- Entry Fee
- EPA
- Epic
- Ethics
- EU Commission
- EU-US Privacy Shield
- European Commission
- European Court of Justice (ECJ)
- European Union
- European Union registration holders
- European Union Trademark
- Exchange listing
- Ezor
- Factory outlets
- Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA)
- Fair Debt Collections Practices Act
- Fair Information Practice Principles
- Fair Labor Standards Act
- false advertisement
- False Advertising
- FanDuel
- Fantasy Contests Act
- Fantasy Sports
- Fantasy Sports Operators
- Farm Bill
- fashion law
- Fax broadcsters
- Faxes
- FCC
- FCC Developments
- FCC Solicited Fax Rule
- FDA
- FDCA
- Federal Laws & Regulations
- Federal Overtime Regulations
- Federal Trade Commission
- Final Rule
- FIPP
- First Amendment
- Fit Products
- Fit Tea
- Florida
- Force Majeure
- Fraud
- FTC
- FTC Act
- FTC Chair
- FTC Guidance
- FTC restitution
- FTC’s Jewelry Guides
- Gambling
- Gambling Laws
- Game Promotions
- GDPR
- General Data Protection Regulation
- Geo-targeted Advertising
- Georgia
- government sanctions
- Guide
- HARO
- Health-related Mobile Apps
- Health-related Products
- Healthy
- HIPAA
- History Sniffing
- HitPath
- Homestead Laws
- HTC
- Hurricane
- IAB
- ICANN
- illegal content
- Illegal Gambling
- Illinois
- IMDb
- Influencer Marketing
- Injury in Fact
- Insider Trading
- Inspection Resources
- Insurance Company
- Insurance Coverage
- INTA
- Intellectual Property
- internet
- Internet and Privacy Law
- iOS
- Iowa
- IP Awareness Assessment Tool
- IPOs
- Jeff Pulver
- Jewelry
- JOLT
- Jurisdiction
- Kindle Fire
- Lanham Act
- Law
- Law Enforcement
- Law Review Article
- law school
- Laws
- lawsuit
- Leading Lawyers
- Lee Bogner
- Legal 500 United States 2017
- Legislation
- letter of consent
- Licensing Fees
- Lily Robotics
- List managers
- Litigation
- Lumosity
- Lumosity ads
- Lumosity games
- Lustigman Firm
- Luxury Daily
- made in the usa
- Magazine publishers
- Mail Order Sales Rule
- Manufacture
- Manufacturer’s Suggested Retail Price (“MSRP”)
- Marden-Kane
- Marketing
- Marketing & Promotions News
- Marketing and Advertising Law
- Marketshare
- Mass texts
- Material Disclosures
- Mc Donalds
- Media and Entertainment
- Media Companies
- Microsoft
- MLM
- Mobile Financial Services
- Mobile In-app Charges
- Mobile Marketer
- Mobile Marketing
- Mobile Payment Systems
- Mobile Payment Systems Security Programs
- Mortgage Bankers Association
- Mortgage Investors
- NAD
- NARB
- Native Advertising
- Native Advertising Guidelines
- Nautilus, Inc.
- NCAA
- Network Advertising Initiative
- New Jersey
- New Jersey Supreme Court
- New York
- New York Law Journal
- New York SHIELD Act
- New York’s Automatic Renewal Law
- NFT
- NIL
- Nomi
- Non-Commercial Calls
- Non-profit Organization
- Notice
- Nutrient Content
- NY Attorney General
- objective consumer harm
- Off-label Prescriptions
- Office for Civil Rights (OCR)
- Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC)
- Office of National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC)
- Ohio
- Oklahoma
- Olshan
- Olshan Grundman
- Olshan News
- Online Advertising
- Online Apps
- Online Cancellation
- Online Contracts
- Online Discount Pricing
- Online Entertainment Co
- Online Retail
- Online Reviews
- Online Tracking
- Online travel agencies
- Overstock
- Paid Advertising
- Paid Promotions
- pandemic
- Patents
- Payment Methods
- Penny Auction
- Performance Marketing
- Personally Identifiable Information
- Pet Care
- Peter Shankman
- Pharmaceutical Advertising
- Pharmaceutical Manufacturers
- pre-orders
- Pre-recorded Message
- Price Match Guarantee
- Pricing Guides
- Pricing Practices
- Privacy
- Privacy Act
- Privacy Policy
- Privacy Practices
- Privacy Shield
- Pro-Consumer
- Products
- Professional Association for Customer Engagement (PACE)
- Promotion
- Promotions
- Proposed Rulemaking
- Public Database
- Publication of Age
- Publisher Magazine
- Q&A
- RCT Requirements
- Real Estate
- Real-estate-advertising
- Reasonableness
- Registration
- Regulations
- Resale Value
- Resignation
- Restrictions
- retail
- Retail Stores
- Revisions
- Risk
- Robocalls
- Roundtable
- Safe Harbor
- Sales
- Sales Practices
- Sales Tax
- Sandy
- SDNY
- SEC
- SEC disclosure
- SEC disgorgement
- SEC Form 10
- Section 17600 of the Business and Professions Code
- Securities Act of 1933
- Securities Act Section 17(b)
- Securities Exchange Act of 1934
- self-regulatory
- Sellers
- Service-Mark Infringement
- Settlement
- Sex Offenders
- SilverPush Apps
- Skill Contest
- Skin Care Products
- Smartphone
- Social Media
- Social Media Accounts
- Social Media Marketing
- Social Media Posts
- Social Networking
- South Dakota
- Southern District of Florida
- Spam
- Special Olympics
- Spotify
- Staff Reshuffling
- State Law
- Statute of Limitations
- Subscribers' privacy rights
- Subscription Arrangements
- substantiation rules
- Super Lawyers
- Supreme Court
- Sweeping
- Sweepstakes Law
- Sweeptstakes Contest
- symposium
- Tasty
- TCCWNA
- TCPA
- TCPA Appeals
- TCPA Claim
- TCPA Class Actions
- TCPA Lawsuit
- TCPA Liability
- TCPA Regulation
- TCPA Ruling
- TCPA Violation
- Tech Companies
- Tech Day New York 2017
- Telecom Law
- Telemarketers
- Telemarketing
- Telemarketing Calls
- Telemarketing Law
- Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR)
- Telephone Consumer Act
- Terms & Conditions
- Text Message Ads
- Text Messages
- Text Messengers
- Textile Fiber Products Identification Act
- The 2017 ANA/BAA 39th Marketing Law Conference: Breakthrough: Legal Strategies for Dynamic Businesses
- The Americans with Disabilities Act
- The Electronic Retailing Self-Regulation Program
- The Kardashians
- The Pennsylvania Record
- Third Circuit Court
- Throttling
- Top Ten Complaints
- Trademark Clearinghouse
- Trademark Protection
- Trademark Rights
- Trademarks
- Transactions
- Transnational Criminal Organization (TCO
- Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty & Notice Act
- U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
- Unauthorized Data
- United Kingdom
- Unsolicited Advertisement
- Unsubscribe Act of 2019
- US Supreme Court
- Use Tax
- Velti
- Vermont
- Vermont House Bill 593
- Vicarious Liability
- Violations
- virtual reality
- Wal-Mart v. Dukes
- Warning Letter
- Washington D.C.
- Washington Law
- Washington’s Consumer Protection Act
- WBO
- Web Agreements
- Web Browsers
- webinar
- webOS
- Websites
- Western District of Washington
- White House
- World Boxing Organization
- World Trademark Review
Recent Posts
- Alleged Creator of Fake Reviews Sued in Federal Court
- Data Entry Error on Phone Number Blocks Class Certification
- Intellectual Property Owners Beware: Russia Threatens The Established Order On Trademark And Patent Rights
- Class Action Moves Ahead Over Dogecoin Sweepstakes
- Andrew Lustigman and Morgan Spina Serve as Panelists on CLE Webinar on Ecommerce Marketing
- Supreme Court OKs TCPA Lawsuits Covering 2015-2020 Despite Constitutional Issue
- Olshan's Brand Management & Protection Attorneys Present Webinar on Understanding U.S. Trademark Registrations
- Bloomberg Law Quotes Mary Grieco on Russian IP Concerns
- FTC Once Again Focuses on Earnings Claims
- Robert Appleton Serves as Panelist on Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine and Impact on the Luxury Market
Archives
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
Contact Us
212.451.2258
U.S. Supreme Court Considers Limiting SEC’s Ability to Recover Disgorgement
Oral arguments held in Liu v. SEC
Back in November, we blogged about the United States Supreme Court’s willingness to consider whether the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) could continue to seek the remedy of disgorgement of illegally obtained funds. On March 3, 2020, the Supreme Court held oral arguments on the case, which is styled as Liu v. SEC.
The appellants in this case make the simple argument that disgorgement of illegally obtained funds, a remedy commonly sought by the SEC, should not be permitted because it is not authorized anywhere in the SEC statutory scheme.
The SEC counters that disgorgement need not be explicitly authorized by statute because it is an “equitable” remedy that has been traditionally available for courts to award.
The current definition of disgorgement includes all funds received by a defendant as a result of illegal activity, even if that defendant no longer possesses those funds. For example, if a defendant subsequently paid out the funds to a third party, the SEC would require those funds to be paid back by the Defendant, not the third party. This definition of disgorgement leads to very harsh results in cases where defendants retained only a modest profit but the SEC obtains an order requiring the defendants to disgorge much greater sums of money than they currently possess or ever earned.
At oral arguments, the Supreme Court Justices appeared to be considering a middle ground rather than the all-or-nothing stakes laid out in the parties’ briefs. Justice Samuel Alito asked the appellants’ attorney the following question: “Suppose [disgorgement] were limited to net profits and suppose every effort was made to return the money to the victims of the fraud. Would that not fall within a traditional form of equitable relief?”
The Appellants responded that, “the better course would be to say this remedy that the SEC has sought here, SEC disgorgement, which does not have a historical parallel, does not exist… [I]n the case where Congress has not [mentioned] disgorgement, and they did not say so here, I think the Court should hesitate to read it into a general provision for equitable relief.”
Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Brett Kavanaugh both followed up with related questions implying a preference towards limiting disgorgement to profits, and requiring the profits to be returned to the victims (instead of them flowing into government coffers).
When the SEC’s attorney got his chance at the lectern, he was repeatedly asked similar questions, i.e., whether it would be appropriate to make disgorgement available to the SEC on the condition that the funds must then be returned to the investors. In other words, the Justices were asking why the SEC should be allowed to retain for itself funds illegally obtained from investors. The SEC attorney stammered, but eventually conceded the point: “I --I --I wouldn't have a problem with that. I mean, I don't know that it is kind of in accordance with usual principles for the Court to announce that sort of instruction[.]”
While the Supreme Court has no timetable for issuing a decision, a ruling is expected prior to the end of June. The ruling will be of great importance to cases brought by the Federal Trade Commission, which also regularly claims the right to obtain disgorgement despite no explicit authorization to do so.
TAKEAWAY: While one should never assume too much based on questions asked by judges during oral arguments, it appears there is a very real chance that the Supreme Court will drastically reduce the SEC’s powers of judicial recovery. If the recent oral arguments were an accurate indication of the Justices’ reasoning, a ruling could be forthcoming that limits disgorgement to profits only, and requires such profits to be returned to the investors rather than remaining with the government.