The rules in this part govern procedure in formal adjudicative proceedings. To the extent practicable and consistent with requirements of law, the Commission's policy is to conduct such proceedings expeditiously. In the conduct of such proceedings the Administrative Law Judge and counsel for all parties shall make every effort at each stage of a proceeding to avoid delay. In the event of a scheduling conflict between a proceeding in which the Commission also has sought or is seeking relief under Section 13(b) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 53(b), and another proceeding, the proceeding in which the Commission also has sought or is seeking relief under Section 13(b) shall take precedence. The Commission, at any time, or the Administrative Law Judge at any time prior to the filing of his or her recommended decision, may, with the consent of the parties, shorten any time limit prescribed by these Rules of Practice.
[74 FR 20208, May 1, 2009, as amended at 88 FR 42875, July 5, 2023]
Notes of Decisions
Retail Ventures, Inc. v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins., 691 F.3d 821 (6th Cir. 2012).
“” The term “legal proceeding” is not defined by the policy, but FTC regulations distinguish "inquiries” and "investigations" from "formal adjudicative proceedings.”
Farmington Dowel Prods. Co. v. Forster Mfg. Co., Inc., 421 F.2d 61 (1st Cir. 1970).
“16 C.F.R. §§ 3.1 et seq. More specifically, they require a clear factual statement in the complaint and provide for motions for more definite statement; a public notice and a public hearing, with interventions allowed where proper; any party may request admissions, depositions,…”
Exxon Corp. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 411 F. Supp. 1362 (D. Del. 1976).
““This is the Commission’s first attempt . to enforce an order purportedly made under the adjudicative rules.”
Stand. Oil Co. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 475 F. Supp. 1261 (N.D. Ind. 1979).
“The FTC’s Rules of Practice for Adjudicative Proceedings, Part 3 of the Rules, 16 C.F.R. § 3.1 , et seq., provide for pleadings, motions, discovery, and other procedures comparable in many respects to those in the federal courts.”
Sw. Sunsites, Inc. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 785 F.2d 1431 (9th Cir. 1986).
“” 16 C.F.R. § 3.1 (1985). The proposed consent agreement and recommendations were forwarded to the Secretary on April 19, 1983, but were not placed on the record until August of 1984.”
Kunc v. ARA Servs., Inc., 414 F. Supp. 809 (W.D. Okla. 1976).
“Part 3 of the FTC Rules of Practice as codified in 16 C.F.R. §§ 3.1 et seq. establish the procedures for adjudicative hearings before the FTC.”
City of Battle Creek v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 481 F. Supp. 538 (W.D. Mich. 1979).
“FTC regulations include a section entitled, Rules of Practice for Adjudicative Proceedings, (Part 3 — 16 C.F.R. 3.1, et seq.). These rules govern procedures in adjudicative proceedings before an administrative law judge or before the full Commission.”
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.