16 C.F.R. § 2.3
Policy as to private controversies
The Commission acts only in the public interest and does not initiate an investigation or take other action when the alleged violation of law is merely a matter of private controversy and does not tend adversely to affect the public.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6
cases, 1967–1985 · leading case: Jewel Companies, Inc. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 432 F.2d 1155 (7th Cir. 1970).
Jewel Companies, Inc. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 432 F.2d 1155 (7th Cir. 1970). “While the overall policy of the Federal Trade Commission may be directed toward matters which affect the public, Rule 2.”
Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Glenn W. Turner, 609 F.2d 743 (5th Cir. 1980). “16 CFR § 2.3 . (ii) Judicial Expansion of Administrative Investigatory Authority Besides the statutes, an eye must be cast to the expanding judicial interpretation of the Commission’s investigatory authority.”
Nardella v. Braff, 621 F. Supp. 1170 (S.D.N.Y. 1985). “16 C.F.R. § 2.3 (1973); see also Federal Trade Commission v.”
David Rettinger v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 392 F.2d 454 (2d Cir. 1968). “3, 16 C.F.R. § 2.3 (1967). 5 . 15 U.S.C. § 45(1).”
Y & Y Popcorn Supply Co. v. ABC VENDING Corp., 263 F. Supp. 709 (E.D. Pa. 1967). “Actually the Rules say only that “the [consent order] agreement may contain a statement that the signing thereof * * * does not constitute an admission by any party that the law has been violated * * 11 . The FTC order required divestiture of a stated volume of concessionary…”
Rush v. Macy's New York, Inc., 596 F. Supp. 1540 (S.D. Fla. 1984). “16 C.F.R. § 2.3 (1984). See, 15 U.S.C. § 45 (b); FTC v.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.