Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Reuters)   SCOTUS in 9-0 decision tells FTC to do its work, reversing a $1.3B penalty against scammy payday lender CEO Scott Tucker, making him the richest man in US prison today. Leavenworth Cellhouse-C, the Pruno is on that guy   (reuters.com) divider line
    More: Misc, Supreme Court of the United States, liberal Justice Stephen Breyer, racecar driver Scott Tucker, U.S. Supreme Court, FTC's powers, business practices of Tucker, deceptive business practices, 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals  
•       •       •

1458 clicks; posted to Business » on 22 Apr 2021 at 8:25 PM (2 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



15 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2021-04-22 6:45:38 PM  
Now the FTC will have to use other lengthier and more complicated legal avenues to obtain restitution for consumers unless Congress takes action.

Congress has important things to do, like argue about Mr. Potato Head's junk.
 
2021-04-22 7:10:45 PM  
F'ing 6-3 conservative majority screwing the little guy.

The 9-0 ruling . . .

Whaaaa . . . ?
 
2021-04-22 7:16:49 PM  
All of the summaries sound like the court ruled in favor of scam artists, but if you read the opinion it sounds like the FTC was using the courts as a money collection system even though the Act in question required the FTC to do their own legwork to collect money. The courts are there for injunctions to stop damaging behavior, but the FTC is required to use their own administrative services to collect redress money.

My brother won a court case years ago against a state EPA agency that was doing the exact same thing. They were charging people a fee for site studies even if there was no environmental contamination. They even had a fee schedule set up, like $500 a day for an engineer, $400 for a surveyor, etc. They'd been doing it for like 50 years. The problem? The statute they were citing in court gave them no such authority. At all. They just started doing it one day and then they kept doing it.

It was so entrenched that the case in which they lost the ability to charge the fees wasn't even specifically about charging the fees. It was about something else, but my brother's client also challenged the fees and the judge added that to the decision. The state EPA knew they farked up, so they kept appealing it, and they kept losing. Now? No fees, at least not like they used to have. They tried to argue they couldn't function without them, and the judge told them to talk to the State Legislature.
 
2021-04-22 8:44:27 PM  
Yeah, this isn't SCOTUS unanimously taking the side of scammers and con men. This is SCOTUS unanimously telling the FTC: "Look, you have no mechanism for doing this through the courts. If you want the money back, either do it through your own avenues, or pass legislation by which you can do it through the courts."

The judges are ruling on what the letter of the law says, not on who's fault it is.

The problem here isn't the ruling. The problem is that watchdog agencies have been regulatory-captured by crooks and corrupt entities for so long that they are no longer equipped to enforce the regulations that they supposedly created.

There is an easy fix for this, and it doesn't need to go through SCOTUS.
 
2021-04-22 9:11:45 PM  

Three Crooked Squirrels: F'ing 6-3 conservative majority screwing the little guy.

The 9-0 ruling . . .

Whaaaa . . . ?


Something tells me it was shifty work on the part of the prosecution. As much as some paint them as activists, Kagan and Sotomayor have Impeccable records as objective jurists.
 
2021-04-22 11:15:18 PM  
That's kind of tragic. I mean, I really can't disagree with the court; the mechanism the FTC was using didn't exist as they interpreted it. I suspect the FTC also can't use money recouped to pay the workers I salaries either, so there's no manpower to do the legwork that's required.

/They're Federal Employees; Generally $300,000 bonuses don't happen.
 
2021-04-22 11:28:01 PM  
Dirty Money on Netflix has a good episode about his payday lending company.
 
2021-04-22 11:28:09 PM  
Wow...  A thread where most Farkers are accepting the fact that SCOUTS was correct in ruling that the law isn't what they want it to be?

What is the world coming to?
 
2021-04-23 2:38:42 AM  

Three Crooked Squirrels: F'ing 6-3 conservative majority screwing the little guy.

The 9-0 ruling . . .

Whaaaa . . . ?


There's more to this than the article leading onto. But got to generate clicks and that ad revenue so hype hype hype.
 
2021-04-23 6:55:12 AM  
The SC on the side of criminals? Fetch my fainting couch!
 
2021-04-23 7:32:42 AM  
I stopped reading at "the other processes are too cumbersome."

Seriously government agencies, some processes are intentionally cumbersome.  It shouldn't be easy to seize anyone's assets or property.  Just go through the cumbersome process, and get judges involved, wait the proper time frames to allow for review and hardship claims, and appeals to be considered.

I say this as a retired IRS Revenue Officer.  It's not supposed to be easy deprive a citizen of their rights.
 
2021-04-23 8:47:23 AM  

BMFPitt: Wow...  A thread where most Farkers are accepting the fact that SCOUTS was correct in ruling that the law isn't what they want it to be?

What is the world coming to?


Just because the ruling is correct doesn't make the law correct. It's completely understandable why the court ruled the way it did, but also understandable why the FTC wants the law to function the way they desired to interpret it.

I have no place no fault with the ruling but would like to see the law changed to facilitate recovery in this manner from convicted scam artist.
 
2021-04-23 8:54:20 AM  

keldaria: Just because the ruling is correct doesn't make the law correct.


I legitimately can't think of any other case where a majority of Farkers actually made that distinction.
 
2021-04-23 12:22:49 PM  
Basically i find it is a correct ruling, even if it hurts some of us a bit in the hear and now.
the answer is, FTC needs to be more preventative and take earlier action more often, that may need some legal adjustments to make happen.
But is is not a good situation for the rules to basiaclly make it such that NOT taking action and NOT stopping fraud sooner, can result in your agency obtaining direct financial gains later.

Additionally if their general pattern was skirting too close to questionable behaviors, that can't be tolerated for public entities expected to be beholden to upholding and protecting the public trust.

not unlike how ti is entierly questionable that a police officer has to seek pay raises and promotions through their arrests to convictions records. The mechanics of their pay rate means if they are not finding enough real criminals maybe they just need to invent a few by pretending the regular pocket knife is an illegal one. Or whatever works for them to seek their own personal financial gains self interests from behind their badge.
 
2021-04-24 12:25:55 PM  

Ishkur: The judges are ruling on what the letter of the law says, not on who's fault it is.


This is what the Supreme Court does.

Not make creative new law, but exclusively rule on whether laws are legal.

The Congress is the SOLE body for the making of Laws in the United States. If they did a lousy job, it's not on SCOTUS to haul their water.
 
Displayed 15 of 15 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.