Consumer Protection Remedies Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Sen. Cantwell, Maria [D-WA]
- Committees
- Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Apr 15, 2026
Bottom line
This bill significantly enhances the Federal Trade Commission's ability to recover monetary relief for consumers harmed by unfair or deceptive practices, addressing a limitation imposed by a recent Supreme Court ruling.
What it actually does
This bill amends Section 13 of the Federal Trade Commission Act to explicitly restore and expand the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) authority to seek equitable monetary relief, including restitution for consumer loss, contract rescission, refunds, and disgorgement of unjust enrichment. It clarifies that courts can order these remedies for past, ongoing, or impending violations of consumer protection laws, and establishes a 10-year limitations period for such claims, with a provision to toll the period for entities outside the U.S.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that this bill restores a critical tool for the FTC to protect consumers and deter corporate misconduct, ensuring that companies cannot profit from illegal activities. They contend it closes a loophole created by the *AMG Capital Management, LLC v. FTC* Supreme Court decision, which severely curtailed the FTC's ability to obtain monetary redress for victims, thereby leaving consumers vulnerable and wrongdoers unpunished.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that expanding the FTC's power to seek broad monetary remedies could lead to overreach, impose excessive burdens on businesses, and create legal uncertainty. They may contend that existing legal avenues are sufficient for consumer redress and that the FTC's role should primarily be injunctive, not punitive or compensatory, potentially stifling innovation and increasing compliance costs for legitimate businesses.
The bill is short and relatively focused, allowing for a quick read, but its implications for consumer protection law are substantial and warrant careful consideration.
Section 2(a)(1)(A)
Authority to Address Past Violations
This amendment changes the language in Section 13(b)(1) of the FTC Act from 'is violating, or is about to violate' to 'has violated, is violating, or is about to violate.' This explicitly allows the FTC to seek injunctions and other remedies for past violations, not just ongoing or impending ones, broadening the scope of cases the agency can pursue.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this is crucial to ensure the FTC can pursue justice for harms that have already occurred, preventing companies from escaping accountability simply because their illegal conduct has ceased by the time the FTC acts. It ensures that consumers who suffered past damages can still seek redress.
Critics contend
Critics might argue that expanding to past violations could open the door to retrospective enforcement actions, creating uncertainty for businesses that operated under different interpretations of the law or whose past practices are now subject to new scrutiny.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances the need for comprehensive consumer protection and accountability for past harms against concerns about the potential for retrospective application of enforcement powers and legal predictability for businesses.
Section 2(a)(1)(B) and (C), and Section 2(a)(2) (new subsection (e))
Codification of Equitable Monetary Relief
This provision explicitly grants courts the authority to order 'equitable remedies under subsection (e)' in FTC enforcement actions. The new subsection (e) details these remedies: restitution for consumer loss, rescission or reformation of contracts, refund of money or return of property, and disgorgement of unjust enrichment obtained as a result of a violation.
Section 2(a)(2) (new subsection (e)(1)(B) and (e)(2)(C))
10-Year Limitations Period for Equitable Remedies
The bill establishes a 10-year limitations period for claims seeking restitution, contract rescission/reformation, refunds, and disgorgement. This means the FTC can seek relief for violations that occurred up to 10 years before the filing of the suit, providing a defined but substantial lookback period for enforcement actions.
Section 2(a)(2) (new subsection (e)(3))
Tolling of Limitations Period for Absentees
This provision specifies that any time a person, partnership, or corporation against whom relief or an order is sought is outside the United States, that time shall not be counted towards the 10-year limitations period. This 'tolls' or pauses the clock, ensuring that bad actors cannot evade accountability by operating from abroad.
Excludes time spent outside the United States from the calculation of the 10-year limitations period for seeking equitable remedies.
Section 2(a)(2) (new subsection (e)(3))
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for defining the scope and application of limitations periods, often placed in technical sections to ensure comprehensive legal coverage.
Case for: Supporters argue it's critical to prevent bad actors from escaping justice by fleeing the country or operating exclusively from abroad, ensuring that the FTC's enforcement powers are not undermined by geographic evasion.
Case against: Critics might express concerns about the practicalities of tracking such absences and the potential for prolonged, indefinite liability, especially for individuals or entities with legitimate international operations who may not be attempting to evade justice.
Estimated impact: Enhances the FTC's ability to pursue a subset of cases involving international evasion, potentially recovering funds from entities that would otherwise be beyond reach, thereby increasing the overall effectiveness of consumer protection.
Amends the flush text of Section 13(b)(2) by striking 'to enjoin any such act or practice' and inserting 'to obtain such injunction or remedy.' This ensures the procedural language aligns with the new substantive remedies.
Section 2(a)(1)(C)(i)
Why it matters:This is a technical conforming amendment, necessary to ensure the language throughout the section consistently refers to the newly authorized equitable remedies, not just injunctions. It's standard legislative drafting practice to maintain consistency.
Case for: Proponents would argue it's a necessary technical adjustment to ensure the new equitable remedies are fully integrated into the FTC's enforcement framework, allowing courts to consider the full range of relief without linguistic ambiguity.
Case against: No specific opposition would typically be raised against this technical amendment itself, as its purpose is to ensure consistency with the bill's main intent rather than introducing new policy.
Estimated impact: Ensures the procedural language aligns with the substantive changes, facilitating the court's ability to grant the full scope of remedies and preventing potential legal challenges based on linguistic discrepancies.