FTC, Walmart Propose Briefing Schedule on Interlocutory Review Motion
The FTC and Walmart propose a May 8 deadline for the FTC to respond to Walmart’s motion to certify the court’s March 27 order denying in part Walmart’s motion to dismiss an FTC enforcement action for interlocutory appeal to the…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (see 2304130002), said their joint status report Monday (docket 1:22-cv-03372) in U.S. District Court for Northern Illinois in Chicago. Walmart’s reply brief would be due May 22, said the report. The case involves telemarketers who conned consumers into sending money using Walmart’s services. The FTC alleges Walmart knew it was processing fraudulent money transfers and failed to do enough to protect consumers. The FTC plans to file an amended complaint and proposes to do so by June 30, said the report. Walmart believes all case deadlines should remain stayed until after the court rules on Walmart’s motion seeking interlocutory appeal, it said. If the court and 7th Circuit grant Walmart’s request for interlocutory appeal, all case deadlines should remain stayed until after a ruling from the 7th Circuit, it said. In its motion, Walmart seeks interlocutory appeal of three questions, including whether the FTC has the constitutional authority “to bring this case,” said the status report. Resolution of the constitutional question in Walmart’s favor would be “case-dispositive, obviating the need for the FTC to file an amended complaint,” it said. Resolution of the other two questions in Walmart’s favor also would be case-dispositive, said the status report. The motion for interlocutory review asks whether Section 13(b) of the FTC Act requires the FTC to show “ongoing or imminent illegal conduct,” and whether Section 5 of the statute requires the FTC to show Walmart “violated established public policy or engaged in morally blameworthy conduct,” it said. Even if a ruling in Walmart’s favor on those two issues didn’t fully dispose of the case, “at minimum it would clarify the legal standard the FTC would have to satisfy in any amended complaint and narrow the scope of discovery if the case moves forward,” it said.