Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Marketing and the law

Marketing and the law Anita Cava, Rend Sacasas, and Larry A. DiMatteo, Editors University of Miami Corporate Officer Liability: FTC Expands Its redress payments to anyone other than the affected Gem Remedial Reach Over Deceptive Marketing customers. The circuit court rejected this argument, hold- ing that the letter and spirit of consumer protection legis- Practices lation allow federal courts to "do equity and to mold each FTC v. Gem Merchandising Corp., et al., 87 F.3rd 466 decree to the necessities of the particular case." Under (llth Cir., 1996); FTC v. Publishing Clearing House, Section 13 (b) of the FTC Act, in addition to preventing et al., 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 6698 (9th Cir., 1997) further illegal conduct, the courts have the authority and discretion to order restitution----repayments to individual It is well established that the Federal Trade Commission defrauded customers---or other disgorgement of illegal (FTC) has the authority to sue persons and entities that profits if reimbursement to all affected consumers is not engage in any "unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or feasible. Disgorgement payments are designed both to affecting commerce" (Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 "deprive the wrongdoer of his unjust enrichment and to U.S.C. w et seq.). The FTC http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science Springer Journals

Marketing and the law

Download PDF
2 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer-journals/marketing-and-the-law-hIoU869Tux

References (0)

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Springer Journals
Copyright
Copyright © Academy of Marketing Science 1998
Subject
Economics / Management Science; Business/Management Science, general; Marketing; Social Sciences, general
ISSN
0092-0703
eISSN
1552-7824
DOI
10.1177/0092070398262007
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Anita Cava, Rend Sacasas, and Larry A. DiMatteo, Editors University of Miami Corporate Officer Liability: FTC Expands Its redress payments to anyone other than the affected Gem Remedial Reach Over Deceptive Marketing customers. The circuit court rejected this argument, hold- ing that the letter and spirit of consumer protection legis- Practices lation allow federal courts to "do equity and to mold each FTC v. Gem Merchandising Corp., et al., 87 F.3rd 466 decree to the necessities of the particular case." Under (llth Cir., 1996); FTC v. Publishing Clearing House, Section 13 (b) of the FTC Act, in addition to preventing et al., 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 6698 (9th Cir., 1997) further illegal conduct, the courts have the authority and discretion to order restitution----repayments to individual It is well established that the Federal Trade Commission defrauded customers---or other disgorgement of illegal (FTC) has the authority to sue persons and entities that profits if reimbursement to all affected consumers is not engage in any "unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or feasible. Disgorgement payments are designed both to affecting commerce" (Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 "deprive the wrongdoer of his unjust enrichment and to U.S.C. w et seq.). The FTC

Journal

Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science – Springer Journals

Published: Mar 1, 1998

There are no references for this article.