15 U.S.C. § 41

Federal Trade Commission established; membership; vacancies; seal

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 15 CasesGoogle Scholar

A commission is created and established, to be known as the Federal Trade Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission), which shall be composed of five Commissioners, who shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. Not more than three of the Commissioners shall be members of the same political party. The first Commissioners appointed shall continue in office for terms of three, four, five, six, and seven years, respectively, from September 26, 1914, the term of each to be designated by the President, but their successors shall be appointed for terms of seven years, except that any person chosen to fill a vacancy shall be appointed only for the unexpired term of the Commissioner whom he shall succeed: Provided, however, That upon the expiration of his term of office a Commissioner shall continue to serve until his successor shall have been appointed and shall have qualified..11 So in original. The President shall choose a chairman from the Commission’s membership. No Commissioner shall engage in any other business, vocation, or employment. Any Commissioner may be removed by the President for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office. A vacancy in the Commission shall not impair the right of the remaining Commissioners to exercise all the powers of the Commission.

The Commission shall have an official seal, which shall be judicially noticed.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 438 cases (66 in the last 5 years), 1930–2026 · leading case: PHH Corp. v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

PHH Corp. v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (2018) cadc · cites it 18× “at 619, 629-32 ; see 15 U.S.C. § 41 . The CFPB’s for-cause removal requirement thus leaves the President no less removal authority than the provision sustained in Humphrey’s Executor; neither PHH nor dissenters disagree.”

Patrick Collins v. Steven Mnuchin, Secretar (2019) ca5 · cites it 3× “at 619 (quoting Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. § 41 ). 240 See Free Enter. Fund, 561 U.”

Belleville Toyota, Inc. v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. (2002) ill · cites it 2× “If a cause of action accrues during the pendency of any civil, criminal or administrative proceeding against a person brought by the United States, or any of its agencies under the antitrust laws, the Federal Trade Commission Act [ 15 U.S.C. § 41 et seq. (2000)], or any other…”

Morrison v. Olson (1988) scotus · cites it 2× “; 15 U. S. C. § 41 , the Interstate Commerce Commission, see 49 U.”

PHH Corp. v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (2016) cadc · cites it 2× “, 15 U.S.C. § 41 (Federal Trade Commission); 15 U.”

Bowsher v. Synar (1986) scotus · cites it 2× “, 15 U. S. C. § 41 (members of the Federal Trade Commission may be removed by the President "for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office"), or else do not specify a removal procedure, see, e.”

Trudeau v. Federal Trade Commission (2006) cadc “In June 2003, the FTC filed a complaint against Trudeau in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, alleging that Trudeau’s marketing of Coral Calcium Supreme and Biotape was false and misleading, in violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act,…”

Axon Enterprise, Inc. v. FTC (2023) scotus “(Exchange Act); 15 U. S. C. § 41 et seq. (FTC Act). Those Acts authorize the Commissions to ad- Cite as: 598 U.”

Patrick Collins v. Steven Mnuchin, Secretar (2018) ca5 · cites it 2× “Compare 15 U.S.C. § 41 (FTC) with 12 U.S.C. § 4512 (FHFA).”

United States v. Bogle (1988) flsd · cites it 6× “§ 4a (Commodity Futures Trading Commission); 15 U.S.C. § 41 et seq. (Federal Trade Commission).”

Panag v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Washington (2009) wash “717 (1914) (codified as amended at 15 U.S.C. § 41 ). RCW 19.86.920 ("It is the intent of the legislature that, in construing this act, the courts be guided by final decisions of the federal courts and final orders of the federal trade commission interpreting the various federal…”

Daugherty v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (2006) calctapp “Guided by Cel-Tech, we concluded the factors defining unfairness are the same as those used under section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act ( 15 U.S.C. § 41 et seq.) (section 5 test).”

Show all 438 citing cases →

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.