Consumer Protection and Recovery Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Schakowsky, Janice D. [D-IL-9]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jul 30, 2026
Bottom line
The bill aims to restore and clarify the Federal Trade Commission's ability to obtain monetary and other equitable remedies directly from federal courts against entities that violate consumer protection laws, thereby enhancing consumer protection and deterrence.
What it actually does
This bill, the "Consumer Protection and Recovery Act," amends Section 13(b) of the Federal Trade Commission Act to explicitly affirm the FTC's authority to seek permanent injunctions and various forms of equitable relief, including restitution, contract rescission, refunds, return of property, and disgorgement of unjust enrichment, for violations of any law it enforces. It also establishes a 10-year statute of limitations for such equitable relief and applies these changes to pending and future actions.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue this bill is crucial for restoring the FTC's full enforcement powers, which they contend were curtailed by recent Supreme Court decisions. They assert that it will enable the FTC to more effectively protect consumers from fraudulent and unfair business practices by ensuring the agency can recover ill-gotten gains and provide direct relief to victims, thereby deterring future violations and making victims whole.
Opponents contend
Opponents may argue that this bill grants excessive power to an unelected agency, potentially leading to overreach and burdensome litigation against businesses. They might contend that existing legal frameworks are sufficient for consumer protection and that expanding the FTC's authority for monetary relief, especially retroactively, could stifle innovation or impose undue financial burdens on companies without adequate due process.
The bill is concise and its core changes are readily apparent, making it accessible for a quick but informed review.
Section 2(a)(1) amending 15 U.S.C. 53(b)(1) and (2)
Clarification of FTC's Authority to Seek Permanent Injunctions
This provision explicitly states that the Federal Trade Commission can seek a permanent injunction against any person, partnership, or corporation that "has violated" any law enforced by the Commission. This clarifies that the FTC's authority extends to past violations, not just ongoing or imminent ones, ensuring the agency can pursue long-term remedies to prevent future harm.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this is a necessary clarification to ensure the FTC can effectively stop illegal practices and prevent their recurrence, even if the immediate violation has ceased. It closes a perceived loophole that allowed bad actors to escape long-term accountability.
Critics contend
Critics might argue that expanding injunctive power to past violations could lead to retrospective enforcement actions, creating uncertainty for businesses that have already addressed issues or ceased certain practices. They may contend it could be used punitively rather than preventatively.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances the FTC's need for robust enforcement and deterrence against concerns about potential overreach or retroactive application of penalties for actions that are no longer ongoing.
Section 2(a)(2) adding new subsection (e) to 15 U.S.C. 53
Authority for Restitution, Contract Rescission, Refunds, Return of Property, and Disgorgement
This section explicitly grants courts the power to order various forms of equitable relief in FTC enforcement suits. This includes restitution for losses, rescission or reformation of contracts, refunds of money, return of property, and disgorgement of unjust enrichment obtained through violations. It also specifies that disgorgement amounts will be offset by any other monetary relief ordered to prevent double recovery.
Section 2(a)(2) adding new subsection (e)(4) to 15 U.S.C. 53
Establishment of a 10-Year Limitations Period for Equitable Relief
This provision sets a 10-year look-back period for courts to order equitable relief. This means the FTC can seek restitution or disgorgement for violations that occurred up to 10 years before the date the Commission files its lawsuit. It also specifies that any time an individual against whom relief is sought is outside the United States does not count towards this 10-year period, effectively pausing the clock.
The amendments made by this Act shall apply with respect to any action or proceeding that is pending on, or commenced on or after, the date of the enactment of this Act.
Section 2(c)
Why it matters:While common to include applicability clauses, the retroactive application to pending cases is a substantively important detail that could be missed by a casual reader focusing on the main amendments. Its placement is standard legislative practice, but its content is impactful.
Case for: Supporters argue that applying the new authority to pending cases is critical to immediately address the harms consumers are facing and to prevent further delays in obtaining relief. It ensures that the FTC can act decisively without waiting for new violations to occur, providing immediate impact.
Case against: Critics contend that applying new legal standards and remedies to ongoing cases can be unfair to defendants who initiated or defended their actions under a different legal framework. This could be seen as changing the rules mid-game, potentially raising due process concerns and increasing litigation uncertainty.
Estimated impact: Could significantly alter the legal landscape and potential outcomes for numerous ongoing FTC enforcement actions, potentially leading to substantial monetary recoveries in cases that might otherwise have been limited to injunctive relief. It would also immediately empower the FTC in current disputes.