Federal Trade Commissioner v. Universal Processing Services of Wisconsin, LLC, 877 F.3d 1234

Treasure Your Success (TYS), run by Plancher, Toska, and Warren, operated a fraudulent credit-card interest-reduction telemarketing scheme in 2011–2012 that took over $2.5 million from consumers.
Universal Processing Services (Universal), a payment processor, approved two merchant accounts for TYS after referral by long-time agent Hal Smith, despite numerous red flags (high chargebacks, owners’ delinquent credit).
FTC sued the TYS operators and later added Universal and DePuydt, alleging violations of the FTC Act and the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR), including 16 C.F.R. § 310.3(b) (substantial assistance).
The district court granted summary judgment that Universal violated the TSR by knowingly or consciously avoiding knowing about TYS’s violations and that Universal substantially assisted TYS by providing merchant accounts.
The district court awarded equitable monetary relief (disgorgement/restitution) of $1,734,972 and held Universal jointly and severally liable with the TYS defendants; this portion was vacated and remanded for clarification on joint-and-several liability.
On remand the district court explained joint-and-several liability rested on Universal’s violation of the TSR substantial-assistance provision; the Eleventh Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether joint and several liability may be imposed on a defendant who provided substantial assistance in violation of the TSR	FTC: The TSR makes providing substantial assistance a rule violation; such violators may be held jointly and severally liable for unjust gains under §13(b) equitable powers	Universal: Joint and several liability requires participation in a common enterprise or close collaboration with primary violators; otherwise liability should be apportioned	Held: Violation of TSR’s substantial-assistance provision alone can support joint and several liability for unjust gains; common-enterprise is sufficient but not necessary
Whether the district court abused its discretion in calculating restitution amount against Universal	FTC: Restitution properly measured by total unjust gains to the fraud (gross receipts minus refunds/chargebacks) and may be imposed jointly and severally	Universal: Liability should be apportioned; Universal should only disgorge amounts it retained (not funds passed to TYS) or amounts that actually enriched it, analogizing to Verity	Held: No abuse; harm was indivisible and funds passed to codefendants are part of the collective unjust enrichment, so full disgorgement of the group’s unjust gains was appropriate

FTC v. Commerce Planet, Inc., 815 F.3d 593 (9th Cir. 2016) (equity courts may order joint and several restitution under §13(b))
Halberstam v. Welch, 705 F.2d 472 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (adopting Restatement aiding-and-abetting standards in tort)
SEC v. Big Apple Consulting USA, Inc., 783 F.3d 786 (11th Cir. 2015) (securities aiding-and-abetting requires substantial assistance and culpable state of mind; recklessness may suffice)
Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. United States, 556 U.S. 599 (2009) (when causes produce a single indivisible harm, courts refuse arbitrary apportionment)
Honeycutt v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1626 (2017) (principle that joint actors causing harm may be held liable for entire harm)
FTC v. E.M.A. Nationwide, Inc., 767 F.3d 611 (6th Cir. 2014) (common-enterprise findings can support joint and several liability)
FTC v. Gem Merch. Corp., 87 F.3d 466 (11th Cir. 1996) (§13(b) injunction power includes equitable monetary remedies)