CCIA Applauds Eighth Circuit Decision to Vacate FTC's Negative Option Rule
The Eighth Circuit held that the FTC's failure to issue a required Preliminary Regulatory Analysis (PRA) before finalizing the Rule was a fatal procedural deficiency under Section 22 of the Federal Trade Commission Act. The Court emphasized that this omission was not harmless and resulted in real prejudice to regulated parties, depriving them of the opportunity to submit informed public comment and help shape the rule.
'Vacating the Rule is appropriate because of the prejudice suffered by Petitioners as a result of the procedural error,' the Court stated.
In its opinion, the Court concluded that (FTCA Act) § 22 required the Commission to issue a preliminary regulatory analysis after the ALJ found the Rule would meet the $100 million economic impact threshold, even though the Commission initially estimated it would not.
'The ruling marks a major victory for CCIA members and the broader consumer financial protection industry,' said CCIA President & CEO, Sarah Ferman Baker. 'By vacating the rule, the Court upheld the principle that agencies must conduct rulemaking transparently and lawfully, particularly when regulations carry such significant economic implications.'
CCIA has consistently opposed the Rule, both during its development and through legal proceedings. The association submitted an amicus brief to the Court urging the very result issued today and filed detailed comment letters with the FTC, while also encouraging Congress to consider a Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution to overturn the Rule legislatively.
The Court also cited the Fifth Circuit's 2025 decision vacating the FTC's CARS Rule for similar procedural failings, highlighting a broader judicial trend toward holding the Commission accountable for compliance with its statutory obligations.
About CCIA
For over 70 years, the Consumer Credit Industry Association (CCIA) has been the trusted advocate for consumer financial protection and security products, dedicated to enhancing consumer financial security by preserving the availability, value, and integrity of its members' products. CCIA promotes fair regulations that balance consumer protection with industry innovation to ensure financial products remain accessible and affordable for millions of Americans.
Contact Information:
Consumer Credit Industry Association
John Euwema
630-824-7300
Contact via Email
www.cciaonline.com
Read the full story here: CCIA Applauds Eighth Circuit Decision to Vacate FTC's Negative Option Rule
Press Release Distributed by PR.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Trump's antitrust cops are OK with new mergers. Old tech monopolies, not so much.
President Trump's antitrust cops are friendlier thus far about mergers than their predecessors, but they are refusing to let up on one prominent priority of the Biden administration: monopoly prosecutions of the nation's best-known tech giants. Six months into Trump's second term in office, his antitrust regulators have already given the green light to more than 100 merger transactions, feeding the optimism of Wall Street bankers that new dealmaking will have widespread support in Washington, D.C. In June, antitrust enforcers gave a go-ahead to three deals worth a combined $63 billion, including candy giant Mars' $36 billion takeover of Kellanova (K), and the DOJ announced a settlement with Hewlett Packard Enterprise (HPE) allowing it to acquire software developer Juniper. This month, the DOJ announced that it closed a major investigation into telecom giant T-Mobile's (TMUS) $4 billion acquisition of USCellular assets that allowed the tie up to proceed. Administration officials claim the approvals are not a free pass because many have required pre-merger divestments or licensing requirements. Yet at the same time, Trump's DOJ and FTC have shown no plans to relent in a series of high-stakes government prosecutions targeting the competitive tactics of Google (GOOG), Amazon (AMZN), Meta (META), and Apple (AAPL). Nor have they shown any signs of unwinding investigations into Nvidia (NVDA), Microsoft (MSFT), and OpenAI ( That's despite efforts by the CEOs of these companies to curry favor with Trump, with many showing up in person for the president's inauguration in January. Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg tried unsuccessfully this spring to stop a government trial against his company from going forward. 'The criticism coming into this administration is that all of these Big Tech CEOs that were at the inauguration were going to get sweetheart deals; that they were going to settle these cases for pennies on the dollar," said Slade Bond, former principal deputy assistant attorney general in the Biden administration's Office of Legislative Affairs. "And that just hasn't happened." The Trump approach to new mergers, however, is "different," Bond said, explaining that Trump's regulators have made it clear that they're more open to structuring deals in a way that Biden's DOJ antitrust head Jonathan Kanter and former FTC chair Lina Khan were not. Arnold & Porter said the latest approvals clearly demonstrate the administration's willingness to negotiate. The approach with mergers is "a noteworthy shift away from the prior administration," according to a recent note published by the Washington D.C.-based law firm. And the shift demonstrates the administration's willingness to negotiate, it added. "FTC and DOJ Antitrust leadership resisted pre-litigation merger settlements during the Biden administration, choosing to litigate to challenge deals instead of accepting remedies." But "the new Trump administration leadership appears willing to accept divestitures to resolve its competitive concerns, providing an opportunity for merging parties to avoid litigation to get deals done." 'The world knows we're going to be very serious' The more flexible approach to mergers is not stopping Trump's enforcers from pressing ahead with dozens of prosecutions and investigations into the ways that dominant Big Tech companies are hanging onto their market power. The DOJ, along with a group of US states, is waiting for judges to rule on their requests to force Google to break up its empire, after prevailing in two landmark cases against Google in 2024 and April this year. In each case — one filed during Trump's first term in office and one brought by the Biden administration — the DOJ and states have pushed for remedies that would remake Google's search engine and online advertising empires. In another ongoing case that Trump's FTC took to trial against Meta in April, regulators are awaiting a California federal judge's decision on their claims that the social media titan leveraged its acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp to box out competitors. Amazon and Apple are also in the new administration's antitrust crosshairs. In two federal lawsuits brought by the Biden administration and inherited by Trump's FTC, regulators allege that Amazon illegally maintained its monopoly in the markets for online superstores and online marketplace services, and deceived customers into renewing Amazon Prime subscriptions. Biden's DOJ accused Apple of violating antitrust laws in an ongoing federal case in New Jersey, now under the direction of Trump's DOJ. The complaint alleges that the iPhone maker abused its dominance in the smartphone market. One top Trump antitrust official, Roger Alford, said in May that Trump's regulators were focused on prosecuting anticompetitive behavior that impacts everyday Americans. In addition to the cases against Big Tech, he applauded Biden-era antitrust lawsuits filed against private equity firm Thoma Bravo's real estate management software developer RealPage and event promoter and ticket distributor Live Nation Entertainment's Ticketmaster (LIV). Alford said to expect the administration's regulators to focus on protecting competition in markets where average Americans spend their money, like housing, transportation, insurance, and entertainment. "So bring cases in those kinds of categories," he said. "I think the world knows we're going to be very serious about antitrust enforcement." Alexis Keenan is a legal reporter for Yahoo Finance. Follow Alexis on X @alexiskweed. Click here for in-depth analysis of the latest stock market news and events moving stock prices Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
2 days ago
Judge restores Democrat to Federal Trade Commission, ruling her firing by Trump was illegal
A federal judge has restored a Democrat to the Federal Trade Commission, ruling that President Donald Trump illegally fired her earlier this year in his efforts to exert control over independent agencies across the government. U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan ruled late Thursday that federal law protects FTC commissioners from being removed by the president without cause, citing a key 1935 U.S. Supreme Court decision involving the FTC. The decision allows Rebecca Kelly Slaughter to resume her duties as commissioner. The FTC website had been updated by Friday morning to show that Slaughter is among four sitting commissioners. Attorneys for the Trump administration almost immediately declared their intent to appeal, and the case could make its way to the Supreme Court. The conservative-led court already has narrowed the reach of the 90-year-old decision, known as Humphrey's Executor, and some justices have called for overturning it altogether. The high court also permitted Trump to fire the heads of other independent agencies. In May, the court allowed Trump to remove members of the National Labor Relations Board and the Merit Systems Protection Board, despite lower court rulings that Humphrey's Executor should protect them from arbitrary dismissal. The justices are currently weighing an emergency appeal from the administration to oust three Democratic members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission. Trump fired them in May, but a federal judge restored them to their positions a month later. The legal fight over the firings also could extend to the Federal Reserve and the prospect of Trump firing Fed chairman Jerome Powell. The justices suggested in May that Trump may not have the same freedom to upend the leadership of the Fed, describing it as 'a uniquely structured, quasi-private entity.' In her opinion, AliKhan said she was required to abide by the Humphrey's Executor decision, in which the court rebuffed President Franklin Roosevelt and held that FTC commissioners could be removed only for cause, not at the president's whim. She said her ruling would uphold 'clearly established law that has been enacted by a coequal branch of government, reaffirmed by another coequal branch, and acquiesced to by thirteen executives over the course of ninety years.' But the judge acknowledged that hers probably would not be the last word. 'Defendants are, of course, free to take their quarrels with Humphrey's Executor to the Supreme Court. This court has no illusions about where this case's journey leads,' she wrote. Trump fired Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya, the commission's two Democratic members in March. The FTC is a regulator created by Congress that enforces consumer protection measures and antitrust legislation. Its seats typically include three members of the president's party and two from the opposing party. The commissioners sued to reclaim their jobs, saying they'd been dismissed illegally. Slaughter has four years left in her term as commissioner. Bedoya submitted his resignation in June, and AliKhan dismissed his claim as a result. 'As the Court recognized today, the law is clear, and I look forward to getting back to work,' Slaughter said in a statement Thursday. During a May court hearing in federal court in Washington, D.C., plaintiffs' attorneys warned against granting the president 'absolute removal power over any executive officer,' saying it would effectively eliminate an important check on his power. 'That has never been the case in this country,' said attorney Aaron Crowell. 'That's not the law. That has never been the law.' A politicized FTC also could favor powerful corporations while driving up prices for consumers, the lawyers for the fired commissioners said. But attorneys for the Trump administration argued that the FTC's role has expanded since the 1930s, and as such, its members should answer directly to the president. 'The president should be able to remove someone who is actively blocking his policies, for example,' Justice Department lawyer Emily Hall said during the hearing. AliKhan, who was nominated to the federal bench by President Joe Biden in 2023, noted the long line of presidents before Trump who didn't try to push the limits. Commissioners are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. They serve seven-year terms that are staggered to prevent multiple vacancies at once. They can be fired for displaying specific bad behaviors, including inefficiency, neglect of duty and malfeasance in office. Trump told Bedoya and Slaughter that he was dismissing them because their service on the commission was inconsistent with his administration's priorities, according to the lawsuit.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
Scott Sheffield Bashes Exxon Mobil After FTC Clears Him
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) revoked a 2024 decision prohibiting former Pioneer Natural Resources CEO Scott Sheffield from holding an Exxon Mobil position. But after winning the clearance, Sheffield told Hart Energy that 'as for the possibility of joining Exxon's board now, because of actions they have taken in this matter I am no longer interested. 'Exxon signed a rushed, baseless and illegal order barring me and other Pioneer employees from taking an Exxon board seat. In doing so, they effectively broke the commitment they made to me in their merger agreement with Pioneer, the company I founded and led for over 40 years.' Sheffield led Pioneer's merger with Exxon Mobil in 2024 in a $64.5 billion stock and debt assumption deal. 'That seat had been unanimously approved by Pioneer shareholders, based on the value I was prepared to bring to Exxon and its shareholders—not least as someone with 50 years of strategic and operational experience in the U.S. shale industry, experience that Exxon's board currently lacks,' he told Hart Energy. 'For now, I remain one of Exxon's largest individual shareholders and as such will consider other options.' The FTC, chaired at the time of the Pioneer-Exxon Mobil decision by a President Biden nominee, Lina Khan, had voted 3-2 that the merger could go forward if Sheffield holds no position—including in an advisory capacity—in the merged company and no other Pioneer employee hold an Exxon Mobil board seat for at least five years. Khan alleged Sheffield had asked OPEC members to withdraw oil from the market to improve prices. The FTC voted 3-0 July 17 to reopen and set aside the 2024 decision. The FTC consists currently of only three members, all Republican. Sheffield said, 'I appreciate the current commissioners for their willingness to review this case, and I'm obviously pleased that common sense has carried the day in their decision to vacate the prior order. 'Aside from its impact on me personally, the FTC's initial decision, based on an utterly unfounded smear campaign, had a chilling effect on free speech and important policy debates across this critical industry. 'It was important to reverse it.' Sheffield has a lawsuit outstanding against Khan individually in a federal court in Fort Worth, Texas, over the matter. The proceedings there had been on pause awaiting the FTC's decision on whether to revoke the 2024 decision. The FTC reported that, in considering whether to reopen the case, the more than 3,000 public comments didn't find any antitrust violation and didn't allege the Pioneer-Exxon Mobil deal would result in an anticompetitive market. The FTC had asked for public comments this spring on whether to reopen the case. A few comments were submitted online, some in favor and some against. As the deadline approached, though, more than 100 more comments, all against, were submitted online after Khan posted on X about the case, calling for followers to file a comment as the '@FTC is now trying to let this oil exec off the hook.' The FTC reported July 17, 'In light of the complaint's deficiencies, the FTC concluded that maintaining the restrictions on Mr. Sheffield's employment would damage the FTC's credibility and undermine its mission. Vacating the final order is therefore in the public interest.' Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
