National Automobile Dealers Ass'n v. Federal Trade Commission
399 U.S. App. D.C. 303
| D.C. Cir. | 2012Background
- NADA petitions for review of FTC interpretation of 15 U.S.C. § 1681m(h) in the risk-based pricing context.
- FTC accompanying the amended rule (July 15, 2011) published supplementary information interpreting 'uses'.
- Dodd-Frank amended FCRA to require credit scores in risk-based pricing notices when scores were used.
- NADA challenges whether FTC interpretation falls within the FTC Act direct-review framework.
- Court dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction; district court proceedings exist under APA.
- Petition filed in DC Circuit; related district court action pending; court discussed transfer and APA jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DC Circuit has appellate jurisdiction to review FTC interpretation | NADA relies on FTCA §18(e)(1)(A) direct review. | Interpretation is not a trade regulation rule; not directly reviewable here. | Lack of appellate jurisdiction; petition dismissed. |
| Whether interpretation qualifies as a trade regulation rule under FTCA | Interpretation is within scope of 18(e)(1)(A) review of rules. | Interpretive statement is not a trade regulation rule. | Not a trade regulation rule; cannot be reviewed directly. |
| Whether interpretive rule may be challenged in district court under APA | Challenging FTC interpretation under APA in district court. | Direct review not available; APA challenge proper in district court. | Proceed in district court under APA; petition dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction. |
| Whether interpretation concerns 'uses' in § 1681m(h) outside FTCA scope | Interpretation relates to FCRA provisions; should be reviewable. | FTCA direct-review provisions do not cover interpretive rules of FCRA. | No FTCA direct-review jurisdiction; interpretation not within scope. |
Key Cases Cited
- Watts v. SEC, 482 F.3d 501 (D.C.Cir.2007) (default rule: review starts in district court absent direct-review statute)
- Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters v. Pena, 17 F.3d 1478 (D.C.Cir.1994) (direct-review statute framework governs appellate jurisdiction)
- Five Flags Pipe Line Co. v. DOT, 854 F.2d 1438 (D.C.Cir.1988) (direct-review jurisdiction limits in FTCA context)
- Micei Int'l v. Dep't of Commerce, 613 F.3d 1147 (D.C.Cir.2010) (presumption against direct review absent clear statutory directive)
- Pub. Citizen v. NHTSA, 489 F.3d 1279 (D.C.Cir.2007) (direct-review framework and exceptions for agency actions)
- Funeral Consumer Alliance, Inc. v. FTC, 481 F.3d 860 (D.C.Cir.2007) (interpretive or non-substantive agency action may be outside direct-review)
- Am. Optometric Ass'n v. FTC, 626 F.2d 896 (D.C.Cir.1980) (special procedural protections for trade regulation rules)
- Hazardous Waste Treatment Council v. EPA, 910 F.2d 974 (D.C.Cir.1990) (procedural pathway for certain FTC actions)
- Pub. Citizen v. FTC, 829 F.2d 149 (D.C.Cir.1987) (per curiam on direct review of FTC actions)