 Seal of the Federal Trade Commission | |
 Flag of the Federal Trade Commission | |
| Agency overview | |
|---|---|
| Formed | September 26, 1914; 110 years ago (1914-09-26) |
| Preceding agency | |
| Jurisdiction | Federal government of the United States |
| Headquarters | Federal Trade Commission Building Washington, DC |
| Employees | 1,123 (FY 2021)[1] |
| Annual budget | $425.7 million (FY 2024)[2] |
| Agency executive |
|
| Website | ftc.gov |
| Footnotes | |
| [3][4] | |
TheFederal Trade Commission (FTC) is anindependent agency of the United States government whose principal mission is the enforcement of civil (non-criminal)antitrust law and the promotion ofconsumer protection. It shares jurisdiction over federal civil antitrust law enforcement with theDepartment of Justice Antitrust Division. The agency is headquartered in theFederal Trade Commission Building inWashington, DC.
The FTC was established in 1914 by theFederal Trade Commission Act, which was passed in response to the 19th-century monopolistic trust crisis. Since its inception, the FTC has enforced the provisions of theClayton Act, a key U.S. antitrust statute, as well as the provisions of the FTC Act,15 U.S.C. § 41 et seq. Over time, the FTC has been delegated with the enforcement of additional business regulation statutes and has promulgated a number of regulations (codified inTitle 16 of the Code of Federal Regulations). The broad statutory authority granted to the FTC provides it with more surveillance and monitoring abilities than it actually uses.[5]
The FTC is composed of five commissioners who were nominated by thePresident and subject toSenate confirmation. Commissioners serve seven-year terms, and by law can only be fired for "inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office."[6] No more than three FTC members can be from the sameparty. One member of the body serves as FTC Chair at the President's pleasure, with CommissionerAndrew N. Ferguson having served as chair since January 2025. In March 2025, Trump fired two Democratic commissioners without cause, sparking a legal dispute.[7]
In the aftermath of theU.S. Supreme Court's landmark decision inStandard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. United States in 1911,[8] the first version of a bill to establish a commission to regulate interstate trade was introduced on January 25, 1912, by Oklahoma congressmanDick Thompson Morgan. He would make the first speech on the House floor advocating its creation on February 21, 1912.
Though the initial bill did not pass, the questions of trusts and antitrust dominated the 1912 election.[9] Most political party platforms in 1912 endorsed the establishment of a federal trade commission with its regulatory powers placed in the hands of an administrative board, as an alternative to functions previously and necessarily exercised so slowly through the courts.[10][11]
With the1912 presidential election decided in favor of the Democrats andWoodrow Wilson, Morgan reintroduced a slightly amended version of his bill during the April 1913 special session. The national debate culminated in Wilson's signing of the FTC Act on September 26, 1914, with additional tightening of regulations in theClayton Antitrust Act three weeks later.
The new FTC would absorb the staff and duties ofBureau of Corporations, previously established under theDepartment of Commerce and Labor in 1903. The FTC could additionally challenge "unfair methods of competition" and enforce the Clayton Act's more specific prohibitions against certain price discrimination, vertical arrangements,interlocking directorates, and stock acquisitions.[9][non-primary source needed]
In 1984,[12][non-primary source needed] the FTC began to regulate thefuneral home industry in order to protect consumers from deceptive practices. The FTCFuneral Rule requires funeral homes to provide all customers (and potential customers) with a General Price List (GPL), specifically outlining goods and services in the funeral industry, as defined by the FTC, and a listing of their prices.[13][non-primary source needed] By law, the GPL must be presented on request to all individuals, and no one is to be denied a written, retainable copy of the GPL. In 1996, the FTC instituted the Funeral Rule Offenders Program (FROP), under which "funeral homes make a voluntary payment to the U.S. Treasury or appropriate state fund for an amount less than what would likely be sought if the Commission authorized filing a lawsuit for civil penalties. In addition, the funeral homes participate in the NFDA compliance program, which includes a review of the price lists, on-site training of the staff, and follow-up testing and certification on compliance with theFuneral Rule."[12][non-primary source needed]
In the mid-1990s, the FTC launched the fraud sweeps concept where the agency and its federal, state, and local partners filed simultaneous legal actions against multiple telemarketing fraud targets. The first sweeps operation wasProject Telesweep in July 1995 which cracked down on 100 business opportunity scams.[14][non-primary source needed]
In the 2021United States Supreme Court case,AMG Capital Management, LLC v. FTC, the Court found unanimously that the FTC did not have power under15 U.S.C. § 53(b) of the FTC Act, amended in 1973, to seek equitable relief in courts; it had the power to seek only injunctive relief.[15]
In 2023,Project 2025 suggested that an administration could abolish the FTC.[16]
On March 18, 2025, President Trump ordered the dismissal of Democratic CommissionersAlvaro Bedoya andRebecca Kelly Slaughter.[17][18] Presidents do not have statutory authority to fire FTC commissioners for reasons other than inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance, none of which were cited in Trump's orders; these restrictions were upheld by theSupreme Court inHumphrey's Executor v. United States.[6]
Bedoya and Slaughter both stated the attempted firings were unlawful. Bedoya described it as "corruption plain and simple," while Slaughter stated it "violat[ed] the plain language of a statute and clear Supreme Court precedent."[15] While both Bedoya and Slaughter maintain they remain commissioners, their names have been removed from the FTC website and they do not currently have access to FTC resources.[19]
Republicans, including FTC chairAndrew N. Ferguson, have argued that Humphrey's Executor was wrongly decided.[20] Legal analysts expect the firings of Bedoya and Slaughter, along with the attempted firing of Democratic NLRB memberGwynne Wilcox, to serve as atest case that will enable the Supreme Court to overrule Humphrey's Executor and grant the President unlimited authority to fire commissioners of independent agencies such as the FTC, NLRB, and the Federal Reserve.[21][22]
In July 2025, the FTC held a workshop on what it deemed "unfair or deceptive trade practices" in the provision oftransgender health care, with a focus on trans healthcare for minors; done as part of the Trump administration's larger campaign to curtailtrans rights.[23][24]
In the 2004 caseIn re Gateway Learning Corp., the FTC alleged that Gateway committed unfair and deceptive trade practices by making retroactive changes to its privacy policy without informing customers and by violating its own privacy policy by selling customer information when it had said it would not.[25] Gateway settled the complaint by entering into a consent decree with the FTC that required it to surrender some profits and placed restrictions upon Gateway for the following 20 years.[26]
During the Obama Administration,Jon Leibowitz served as the Chair.
In the 2009 caseIn the Matter of Sears Holdings Management Corp., the FTC alleged that a research software program provided by Sears was deceptive because it collected information about nearly all online behavior, a fact that was only disclosed in legalese, buried within the end user license agreement.[27] The FTC secured a consent decree in the case.
In September 2013, a federal court closed an elusivebusiness opportunity scheme on the request of the FTC, namely "Money Now Funding"/"Cash4Businesses".[28] The FTC alleged that the defendants misrepresented potential earnings, violated theNational Do Not Call Register, and violated the FTC's Business Opportunity Rule in preventing a fair consumer evaluation of the business.[29] This was one of the first definitive actions taken by any regulator against a company engaging in transaction laundering, where almost US$6 million were processed illicitly.[30][31]
In December 2018, two defendants, Nikolas Mihilli and Dynasty Merchants, LLC, settled with the FTC.[32] They were banned from processing credit card transactions, though the initial monetary judgment of $5.8 million was suspended due to the defendant's inability to pay.
In 2016, the FTC launched action against the academic journal publisherOMICS Publishing Group for producingpredatory journals and organizingpredatory conferences.[33] This action, partly in response to ongoing pressure from the academic community,[34] is the first action taken by the FTC against an academic journal publisher.[35][36]
The complaint alleges that the defendants have been "deceiving academics and researchers about the nature of its publications and hiding publication fees ranging from hundreds to thousands of dollars".[37] It additionally notes that "OMICS regularly advertises conferences featuring academic experts who were never scheduled to appear in order to attract registrants"[34] and that attendees "spend hundreds or thousands of dollars on registration fees and travel costs to attend these scientific conferences."[37] Manuscripts are also sometimes held hostage, with OMICS refusing to allow submissions to be withdrawn and thereby preventing resubmission to another journal for consideration.[35] Library scientistJeffrey Beall has described OMICS as among the most egregious ofpredatory publishers.[34][38] In November 2017, a federal court in theCourt for the District of Nevada granted a preliminary injunction that:
prohibits the defendants from making misrepresentations regarding their academic journals and conferences, including that specific persons are editors of their journals or have agreed to participate in their conferences. It also prohibits the defendants from falsely representing that their journals engage in peer review, that their journals are included in any academic journal indexing service or any measurement of the extent to which their journals are cited. It also requires that the defendants clearly and conspicuously disclose all costs associated with submitting or publishing articles in their journals.[39]
In April 2019, the court imposed a fine of US$50.1 million on OMICS companies for unfair and deceptive business practices.[40][41][42]
In addition to prospective analysis of the effects of mergers and acquisitions, the FTC has recently resorted to retrospective analysis and monitoring of consolidated hospitals.[43] Thus, it also uses retroactive data to demonstrate that some hospital mergers and acquisitions are hurting consumers, particularly in terms of higher prices.[43] Here are some recent examples of the FTC's success in blocking or unwinding of hospital consolidations or affiliations:
In April 2011, the FTC successfully challenged in court the $195 million acquisition of Palmyra Medical Center by Phoebe Putney Memorial Hospital.[43][44] The FTC alleged that the transaction would create a monopoly as it would "reduce competition significantly and allow the combined Phoebe/Palmyra to raise prices for general acute-care hospital services charged to commercial health plans, substantially harming patients and local employers and employees".[44] TheSupreme Court on February 19, 2013, ruled in favor of the FTC.[44]
Similarly, court attempts by ProMedica health system inOhio to overturn an order by the FTC to the company to unwind its 2010 acquisition of St. Luke's hospital were unsuccessful.[43][45] The FTC claimed that the acquisition would hurt consumers through higher premiums because insurance companies would be required to pay more.[45] In December 2011, an administrative judge upheld the FTC's decision, noting that the behavior of ProMedica health system and St. Luke's was indeed anticompetitive. The court ordered ProMedica to divest St. Luke's to a buyer that would be approved by the FTC within 180 days of the date of the order.[43][45]
In November 2011, the FTC filed a lawsuit alleging that the proposed acquisition of Rockford by OSF would drive up prices for general acute-care inpatient services as OSF would face only one competitor (SwedishAmerican health system) in the Rockford area and would have a market share of 64%.[46] Later in 2012, OSF announced that it had abandoned its plans to acquire Rockford Health System.[46]
In December 2020, the FTC sued Meta (formally known as Facebook) for anticompetitive conduct under Section 2 of theSherman Act, which prohibits improper monopolization of a market. The FTC accused Meta of buying up its competitors to stifle competition which reduced the range of services available to consumers and by creating fewer social media platforms for advertisers to target.[47][48]
The FTC was chaired byLina Khan during the Biden Administration.
In November 2024, U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta agreed with Assistant Attorney GeneralJonathan Kanter and FTC Chair Khan, ruling the company a monopoly, and ordering Google to sell its Chrome web browser.[49]
The FTC ruled to ban virtually allnon-competes nationwide in April 2024.[50] The agency estimates 30 million workers are bound by these clauses and only excludes senior executives from the ban on enforcing non-competes.[50] The agency believes that this will allow workers to find better working conditions and pay, since switching companies, on average, provides the biggest pay raises.[51] It also allows workers to leave abusive work environments and can prevent some doctors from having to leave medicine once they leave a practice.[51] The ban was put on hold by U.S. District JudgeAda Brown on July 3, 2024, but then upheld on appeal by U.S. District JudgeKelley B. Hodge on July 23, 2024.[52][53] On August 20, 2024, a federal court in Texas overturned the FTC's ban on non-compete agreements, which was originally scheduled to take effect on September 4, 2024.[54] U.S. District Judge Ada Brown said the FTC did not have the authority to issue the ban, which she said was "unreasonably overbroad without a reasonable explanation."[55] Victoria Graham, an FTC spokeswoman responded to the ruling by stating "We are seriously considering a potential appeal..."[56]
The FTC successfully blockedNvidia from purchasingArm Holdings in 2022.[57]
The FTC has pursued lawsuits against companies to lower drug prices,[58] including for insulin[59] and for inhalers.[60]
The FTC launched its investigation intopharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) in 2022. In July 2024, it released an interim report on its 2-year investigation intopharmacy benefit managers, the agency requested documents from the six largest PBMs as part of its investigation. The three largest –UnitedHealth Group's OptumRx,Cigna's Express Scripts andCVS Health's Caremark – manage about 80% of U.S. prescriptions. The top three PBMs share a parent company with a largemedical insurance company. The FTC accused these companies of raising drug prices throughconflicts of interest,vertical integration, concentration, and exclusivity provisions; the agency also alleged that the companies created a rebate system that prioritized high rebates from drug manufacturers, among other factors. The agency stated that several PBMs failed to provide documents in a timely manner and warned that it could take the companies to court to force them to comply, during the announcment in the preliminary findings.[61][62][63][64] In September 2024, the FTC sued the three largest pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) for allegedly engaging in anti-competitive practices that increased their profits while artificially inflating the list price of insulin. The agency is seeking to prohibit the PBMs from favoring medicines because certain pharaceuticals make them more money.[65][66]
In August 2024, the FTC announced it would finalize rules to ban fake reviews online.[67][68]
In February 2024, the FTC challenged theKroger-Albertsons merger, arguing it would drive up grocery and pharmacy prices, worsen service, and lower wages and working conditions.[69][70] On December 10, 2024, U.S. DistrictJudge Adrienne Nelson agreed with the FTC, that the merger would risk reducing competition at the expense of both consumers and workers. Judge Nelson halted Kroger’s $24.6 billion acquisition of Albertsons with a preliminary injunction.[71]
In March 2024, the FTC released a report that found higher profit margins as a driver of inflation for grocery prices.[72]
In August 2024, it announced it would be probing grocery prices to look for anti-competitive behavior andprice gouging at chain supermarkets.[73][74]
In October 2023, the FTC proposed a new rule that would ensure that the cancellation process of subscription services is as easy as the process of signing up.[75][76] On October 16, 2024, the FTC announced the new rule, dubbed "click to cancel", requiring companies to make subscription services "as easy for consumers to cancel their enrollment as it was to sign up."[77][78] Khan said in an interview that the new rule is designed so that if consumers signed up online, they must also be able to cancel on the same website in the same number of steps.[79] The rule’s final provisions will go into effect 180 days after it is published in theFederal Register.[77] On May 9, 2025 the FTC voted to delay enforcing compliance on the "Click to cancel" provision until July 14, 2025.[80]
It also targeted airlines and credit card companies overjunk fees and high prices.[74] The rule for junk fees which covers, businesses selling live-event tickets and short-term lodging, requires disclosing total price upfront, and no misrepresentations about fees and charges, went into effect on May 12, 2025.[81]
In October 2023, the FTC authorized an administrative complaint againstthe merger betweenMicrosoft andActivision Blizzard, Inc. The FTC alleged the deal would suppress competitors from accessing future content/games developed by Activision once the deal goes through. The FTC dropped its lawsuit on July 20, 2023. Microsoft had to restructure its deal to appease UK regulators.[82] Microsoft reneged on promises it made in court filings by laying off 1900 employees in January 2024, signaling that it did not plan to let Activision Blizzard remain as independent as it had promised and leading the FTC to continue to appeal the decision.[83]
In July 2021, the FTC voted unanimously to enforce theright to repair as policy and to look to take action against companies that limit the type of repair work that can be done at independent repair shops.[84] In October 2024, following a comment by the FTC to theUS Copyright Office, an exemption was granted allowing for repair of retail-level food preparation equipment, such asMcDonald's ice cream machines.[85][86]
In July 2023, the FTC issued acivil investigative demand toOpenAI to investigate whether the company'sdata security andprivacy practices to developChatGPT wereunfair orharmed consumers (including byreputational harm) in violation of Section 5 of theFederal Trade Commission Act of 1914.[87][88][89] These are typically preliminary investigative matters and are nonpublic, but the FTC's document was leaked.[90][89] In July 2023, the FTC launched an investigation into OpenAI, the creator of ChatGPT, over allegations that the company scraped public data and published false and defamatory information. They asked OpenAI for comprehensive information about its technology and privacy safeguards, as well as any steps taken to prevent the recurrence of situations in which its chatbot generated false and derogatory content about people.[91]
In November 2023, the FTC passed an omnibus resolution to increase its ability to investigate companies adding AI into their products or making AI.[92]
The agency then reported concern with the Microsoft-Open AI partnership and the Amazon-Anthropic partnership.[93][94] The circular spending in which, for example, Microsoft gives OpenAI credit toMicrosoft Azure and the companies provide each other access to engineering talent was of particular concern for its potential negative impacts to the public.[93]
In August 2024, the FTC voted unanimously to ban marketers from using fake user reviews created by generative AI chatbots andinfluencers paying forbots to increasefollower counts.[95]
The commission is headed by five commissioners, who each serve seven-year terms. Commissioners are nominated by thepresident and confirmed by theSenate. No more than three commissioners can be of the samepolitical party. In practice, this means that two commissioners are of the opposition party. However, three members of the FTC throughout its history have beenwithout party affiliation, with the most recent independent,Pamela Jones Harbour, serving from 2003 to 2009.[96]
| Portrait | Name | Party | Prior experience | Education | Term began | Term expires | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 | Andrew N. Ferguson (chair) | Republican | Solicitor general of Virginia | University of Virginia (BA) | April 2, 2024 | September 26, 2030 | |
| Vacant[97] | — | — | — | — | — | — | |
 | Melissa Holyoak | Republican | Solicitor general of Utah | University of Utah (BA) | March 25, 2024 | September 26, 2025 | |
 | Mark Meador | Republican | Department of Justice attorney | University of Chicago (BA) | April 16, 2025 | September 26, 2031 | |
| Vacant[97] | — | — | — | — | — | — | |
Notes
As of 2021, there have been:
 | This articlerelies excessively onreferences toprimary sources. Please improve this article by addingsecondary or tertiary sources. Find sources: "Federal Trade Commission" – news ·newspapers ·books ·scholar ·JSTOR(August 2024) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
The FTC has three main bureaus: the Bureau of Competition, the Bureau of Consumer Protection, and the Bureau of Economics.
The Bureau of Competition is the division of the FTC charged with elimination and prevention of "anticompetitive" business practices. It accomplishes this through the enforcement ofantitrust laws, review of proposedmergers, and investigation into other non-merger business practices that may impair competition. Such non-merger practices include horizontal restraints, involving agreements between direct competitors, andvertical restraints, involving agreements among businesses at different levels in the same industry (such as suppliers and commercial buyers).
The FTC shares enforcement of antitrust laws with theDepartment of Justice. However, while the FTC is responsible for civil enforcement of antitrust laws, theAntitrust Division of the Department of Justice has the power to bring both civil and criminal action in antitrust matters.
The Bureau of Consumer Protection's mandate is to protect consumers against unfair or deceptive acts or practices in commerce. With the written consent of the commission, Bureau attorneys enforce federal laws related to consumer affairs and rules promulgated by the FTC. Its functions include investigations, enforcement actions, and consumer and business education. Areas of principal concern for this bureau are: advertising and marketing, financial products and practices,telemarketing fraud, privacy and identity protection, etc. The bureau also is responsible for theUnited States National Do Not Call Registry.
Under the FTC Act, the commission has the authority, in most cases, to bring its actions in federal court through its own attorneys. In some consumer protection matters, the FTC appears with, or supports, theU.S. Department of Justice.
The Bureau of Economics was established to support the Bureau of Competition and Consumer Protection by providing expert knowledge related to the economic impacts of the FTC's legislation and operation.
| This sectionrelies largely or entirely on asingle source. Relevant discussion may be found on thetalk page. Please helpimprove this article byintroducing citations to additional sources. Find sources: "Federal Trade Commission" – news ·newspapers ·books ·scholar ·JSTOR(August 2024) |
| Competition law |
|---|
 |
| Basic concepts |
| Anti-competitive practices |
| Competition regulators |
The FTC investigates issues raised by reports from consumers and businesses, pre-merger notification filings, congressional inquiries, or reports in themedia. These issues include, for instance,false advertising and other forms offraud. FTC investigations may pertain to a single company or an entire industry. If the results of the investigation reveal unlawful conduct, the FTC may seek voluntary compliance by the offending business through aconsent order, file an administrative complaint, or initiate federal litigation. During the course of regulatory activities, the FTC is authorized to collect records, but not on-site inspections.[106]
Traditionally an administrative complaint is heard in front of an independent administrative law judge (ALJ) with FTC staff acting as prosecutors. The case is reviewedde novo by the full FTC commission which then may be appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals and finally to the Supreme Court.[citation needed]
Under the FTC Act, the federal courts retain their traditional authority to issueequitable relief, including the appointment of receivers, monitors, the imposition of asset freezes to guard against the spoliation of funds, immediate access to business premises to preserve evidence, and other relief including financial disclosures and expedited discovery. In numerous cases, the FTC employs this authority to combat serious consumer deception or fraud. Additionally, the FTC hasrulemaking power to address concerns regarding industry-wide practices. Rules promulgated under this authority are known asTrade Rules.[citation needed]
One of the Federal Trade Commission's other major focuses isidentity theft. The FTC serves as a federal repository for individual consumer complaints regarding identity theft. Even though the FTC does not resolve individual complaints, it does use the aggregated information to determine where federal action might be taken. The complaint form is available online or by phone (1-877-ID-THEFT).[citation needed]
The FTC has been involved in the oversight of the online advertising industry and its practice ofbehavioral targeting for some time. In 2011 the FTC proposed a "Do Not Track" mechanism to allow Internet users toopt-out ofbehavioral targeting.[citation needed]
The FTC, along with theEnvironmental Protection Agency and Department of Justice also empowers third-party enforcer-firms to engage in some regulatory oversight, e.g. the FTC requires other energy companies to audit offshore oil platform operators.[107]
In 2013, the FTC issued a comprehensive revision of itsGreen guides, which set forth standards for environmental marketing.[108][non-primary source needed]
Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act,15 U.S.C. § 45 grants the FTC power to investigate and preventdeceptive trade practices. The statute declares that "unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, are hereby declared unlawful."[109]
Unfairness and deception towards consumers represent two distinct areas of FTC enforcement and authority. The FTC also has authority over unfair methods of competition between businesses.[110]
Courts have identified three main factors that must be considered in consumer unfairness cases: (1) whether the practice injures consumers; (2) whether the practice violates established public policy; and (3) whether it is unethical or unscrupulous.[110]
In a letter to the Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, the FTC defined the elements ofdeception cases. First, "there must be a representation, omission or practice that is likely to mislead the consumer."[111] In the case of omissions, the Commission considers the implied representations understood by the consumer.
A misleading omission occurs when information is not disclosed to correct reasonable consumer expectations.[111] Second, the Commission examines the practice from the perspective of a reasonable consumer being targeted by the practice. Finally the representation or omission must be a material one – that is one that would have changed consumer behavior.[111]
In its Dot Com Disclosures guide,[112] the FTC said that "disclosures that are required to prevent deception or to provide consumers material information about a transaction must be presented clearly and conspicuously."[112] The FTC suggested a number of different factors that would help determine whether the information was "clear and conspicuous" including but not limited to:
However, the "key is the overall net impression."[112]
And though some conservatives have railed against the dominance of Big Tech, Project 2025 also suggests that a second Trump administration could abolish the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which currently has the power to enforce antitrust laws.
 | This "further reading" sectionmay need cleanup. Please read theediting guide and help improve the section.(August 2024) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
