I think we agree more than this suggests.
Let me expand a little bit. Getting all revenue is good in fraud cases BC the incremental gains are all consumer harm (i.e. product has no value such as weight loss scams, etc.). (1/6)
Let me expand a little bit. Getting all revenue is good in fraud cases BC the incremental gains are all consumer harm (i.e. product has no value such as weight loss scams, etc.). (1/6)
https://twitter.com/JustinBrookman/status/1385614290636492802
The problem has been the all revenue approach is in cases where a deceptive/ unfair practice causes some harm but consumer also receives real value, e.g. a deceptive claim increases what I pay for an otherwise valuable product. (2/6)
I agree the D should pay every $ of consumer harm they cause. But there is indeed a rational policy basis for wanting optimal deterrence (this is an area where @chopraftc and I agree), e.g. the D to pay no more and no less than the full harm caused in those cases (3/6)
The safeguards I am talking about in the thread involve the FTC prosecuting cases in ways that take the all revenue approach in cases where we actually do have to worry about over-deterrence. Where we don't (what I loosely described as pure fraud cases), take everything. (4/6)
This practice has increased over time; and the FTC has taken to going "all revenue" whenever it can convince a court --- without regard to the guardrails put in place in the fraud program. Thus my claim that courts rejecting that approach -- is no surprise. (5/6)
What I would like to see is a 13b fix that makes consumer harm the core of what the FTC can get for equitable monetary relief. That would allow it to take the all revenue approach in fraud cases and get an amount proportional to consumer harm in the other cases. END. (6/6)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
