Federal Trade Commission v. Ross, 743 F.3d 886

The FTC sued Innovative Marketing, Inc. (IMI) and Ross for a deceptive internet scareware scheme in violation of the FTC Act.
A bench trial determined Ross had authority to control deceptive acts and participated in them, with knowledge or willful blindness to deception.
The district court entered judgment enjoining Ross and awarded $163,167,539.95 in consumer redress.
Ross appealed on authority to award redress, the liability standard, evidentiary rulings, and factual findings.
The district court found Ross a high-level officer who financed corporate expenses, oversaw many employees, and helped create and disseminate ads.
On review, the Fourth Circuit affirmed, upholding monetary redress and Ross’s individual liability.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Authority to award redress	Ross argues the FTC Act grants no monetary relief.	Ross contends no explicit grant of monetary redress, citing Porter-based limits.	Authority to provide complete relief including redress affirmed.
Standard for individual liability	Ross argues for a securities-like control-and-fraud standard.	Ross contends a narrower control/intent standard should apply.	Individual liability requires control or participation plus knowledge (actual, reckless, or willful blindness).
Evidence admissibility	FTC-supported evidentiary rulings admitted necessary material.	Ross challenges certain exhibits (profit/loss statements, emails) as improper or hearsay.	Admissibility upheld; statements were adoptive admissions or co-conspirator statements supported by independent conspiracy evidence.
Factual sufficiency of control/knowledge findings	Ross had extensive authority and directly participated in ad deception.	Ross disputes degree of control and knowledge.	district court findings not clearly erroneous; Ross’s authority, participation, and knowledge supported.

Porter v. Warner Holding Co., 328 U.S. 395 (1946) (equitable powers include complete relief unless Congress restricts)
Mitchell v. Robert DeMario Jewelry, Inc., 361 U.S. 288 (1960) (equitable powers extend to reimbursements; text differences irrelevant)
United States v. Phillip Morris USA, Inc., 396 F.3d 1190 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (Porter lineage expanded; not limited by 'other order' language)
F.T.C. v. Bronson Partners LLC, 654 F.3d 359 (2d Cir. 2011) (adopts uniform approach to individual liability)
F.T.C. v. Amy Travel Service, Inc., 875 F.2d 564 (7th Cir. 1989) (uniform standard for individual liability)
F.T.C. v. Security Rare Coin & Buillion Corp., 931 F.2d 1312 (8th Cir. 1991) (recognizes individual liability framework)
F.T.C. v. Pantron I Corp., 33 F.3d 1088 (9th Cir. 1994) (expands liability analysis framework)
F.T.C. v. Gem Merchandising Corp., 87 F.3d 466 (11th Cir. 1996) (supports broad individual liability standard)
F.T.C. v. Direct Marketing Concepts, Inc., 624 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2010) (embodies prevailing liability test)
F.T.C. v. Publishing Clearing House, Inc., 104 F.3d 1168 (9th Cir. 1997) (contributes to uniform standard)
F.T.C. v. Freecom Communications, Inc., 401 F.3d 1192 (10th Cir. 2005) (supports current liability approach)