California Dental Assn. v. FTC, 526 U.S. 756 (1999)

Page:   Index   1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

756

OCTOBER TERM, 1998

Syllabus

CALIFORNIA DENTAL ASSOCIATION v. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit

No. 97-1625. Argued January 13, 1999—Decided May 24, 1999

Petitioner California Dental Association (CDA), a nonprofit association of local dental societies to which about three-quarters of the State's dentists belong, provides desirable insurance and preferential financing arrangements for its members, and engages in lobbying, litigation, marketing, and public relations for members' benefit. Members agree to abide by the CDA's Code of Ethics, which, inter alia, prohibits false or misleading advertising. The CDA has issued interpretive advisory opinions and guidelines relating to advertising. Respondent Federal Trade Commission brought a complaint, alleging that the CDA violated 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (Act), 15 U. S. C. 45, in applying its guidelines so as to restrict two types of truthful, nondeceptive advertising: price advertising, particularly discounted fees, and advertising relating to the quality of dental services. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) held the Commission to have jurisdiction over the CDA and found a 5 violation. As relevant here, the Commission held that the advertising restrictions violated the Act under an abbreviated rule-of-reason analysis. In affirming, the Ninth Circuit sustained the Commission's jurisdiction and concluded that an abbreviated or "quick look" rule-of-reason analysis was proper in this case.

Held:

1. The Commission's jurisdiction extends to an association that, like the CDA, provides substantial economic benefit to its for-profit members. The Act gives the Commission authority over a "corporatio[n]," 15 U. S. C. 45(a)(2), "organized to carry on business for its own profit or that of its members," 44. The Commission's claim that the Act gives it jurisdiction over nonprofit associations whose activities provide substantial economic benefits to their for-profit members is clearly the better reading of the Act, which does not require that a supporting organization must devote itself entirely to its members' profits or say anything about how much of the entity's activities must go to raising the members' bottom lines. There is thus no apparent reason to let the Act's application turn on meeting some threshold percentage of activity for this purpose or even a softer formulation calling for a substantial part of the entity's total activities to be aimed at its members' pecuniary

Page:   Index   1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

Last modified: October 4, 2007