S.1249 - Federal Trade Commission Act Amendments of 1989101st Congress (1989-1990)
|Sponsor:||Sen. Bryan, Richard H. [D-NV] (Introduced 06/22/1989)|
|Committees:||Senate - Commerce, Science, and Transportation | House - Energy and Commerce|
|Committee Reports:||S.Rept 101-135|
|Latest Action:||House - 11/20/1989 Referred to the Subcommittee on Transportation and Hazardous Materials. (All Actions)|
This bill has the status Passed Senate
Here are the steps for Status of Legislation:
- Passed Senate
Summary: S.1249 — 101st Congress (1989-1990)All Information (Except Text)
Introduced in Senate (06/22/1989)
Federal Trade Commission Act Amendments of 1989 - Amends the Federal Trade Commission Act to deny authority to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to find a method of competition unfair (in any action under the Sherman Act) if such method of competition would be held to constitute State action.
Denies the FTC authority to: (1) study, investigate, or prosecute agricultural cooperatives for any action not in violation of antitrust Acts; or (2) study or investigate agricultural marketing orders.
Repeals the authority of the FTC to pay attorneys fees, expert witness fees, and other costs of participating in a rulemaking proceeding.
Prohibits the FTC from instituting a civil action, in cases involving consent orders, to obtain civil penalties for unfair or deceptive acts or practices.
Permits a district court to review certain FTC determinations of law which found an act or practice unfair or deceptive.
Permits the FTC to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking for certain rules only where it has reason to believe that the unfair or deceptive acts or practices are prevalent.
Revises the effective dates for cease and desist orders issued by the FTC.
Applies FTC civil investigative demand procedures only to acts, practices, or methods of competition declared unlawful by a law administered by the Commission.
Requires that an unfair act or practice must be likely to cause substantial injury to consumers which is not reasonably avoidable by consumers themselves and not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or to competition.
Denies FTC authority to initiate any new rulemaking proceeding which results in a rule prohibiting commercial advertising on the basis that such advertising constitutes an unfair act or practice in or affecting commerce.
Authorizes the court to: (1) summon any person, partnership, or corporation without regard to whether they reside or transact business in the district in which the suit is brought; and (2) serve process in any district. Specifies requirements for the service of process.
Authorizes the FTC to serve civil investigative demands to obtain physical evidence (under current law, restricted to documentary material) relevant to unfair or deceptive practices.
Directs the FTC to submit semiannual reports in FY 1990 through 1992 to specified congressional committees on instances in which resale price maintenance or predatory pricing practices have been suspected or alleged.
Directs the FTC to submit to appropriate congressional committees a report describing complaints made, investigations undertaken, recommendations and opinions given, and consent agreements and other dispositions made by the FTC. Requires that such report shall also contain a statement of the reasons for the termination of any matter.
Directs the FTC to report to specified congressional committees on instances in which predatory pricing practices in such industries have been suspected or alleged.
Prohibits the FTC from intervening in the proceedings of any Federal or State agency without first notifying specified congressional committees at least 60 days in advance, or as soon as practicable.
Authorizes appropriations for FY 1990 through 1992.
Directs the FTC to: (1) conduct an evaluation of the level of its personnel resources and the manner in which such resources are allocated and to submit the results to specified congressional committees; and (2) review its statutory responsibilities to identify matters within its jurisdiction where Federal enforcement is particularly necessary or desirable and those areas that might more effectively be enforced at the State or local level and to submit such information together with specific recommendations for greater Federal-State cooperation to such committees.