Southwest Sunsites, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission
785 F.2d 1431 (1986)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The application of a new, more stringent deception standard by an administrative agency does not violate due process or the Administrative Procedures Act if the new standard is subsumed within the prior standard and requires the same facts for defense. An agency's finding of deceptive practices, supported by substantial evidence and leading to a reasonably related remedial order, will be affirmed.
Facts:
- Southwest Sunsites, Inc. (SWS), Green Valley Acres, Inc. (GVA), and Green Valley Acres, Inc. II (GVA II) were land sales companies incorporated in Texas with corporate headquarters in California, engaged in selling undeveloped rural land in west Texas primarily to out-of-state purchasers.
- Sidney Gross owned all stock in the companies and was the exclusive sales agent, while Edwin Kritzler was the general manager responsible for operations and policy decisions.
- Between 1973 and 1977, petitioners acquired 40,000 acres of undeveloped land, purchasing it for approximately $27-$50 per acre and selling parcels for $600-$1200 per acre.
- Petitioners marketed the land through newspaper, television, and radio advertisements, brochures, and promotional dinners, touting it as a good, safe investment due to potential industrial development (e.g., oil, rubber, nuclear, uranium interests).
- Petitioners also represented the land as suitable for homesites, subsistence farms, and non-commercial ranches.
- Porter Realty, an independent brokerage working for petitioners, sold 80% of the land using petitioner-approved scripts and materials, and distributed an oil map depicting ownership of parcels near GVA and GVA II by oil interests.
- Petitioners subsequently hired Jeffrey Elfont to contact customers who purchased from Porter Realty to retract all oil development representations made by Porter Realty, and Kritzler testified that some, but not all, contracts were cancelled and money refunded to those who relied on these representations.
- The land was found to have high development costs, a low market value relative to its sale price, and significant risks and limitations for the proposed uses.
Procedural Posture:
- The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) lodged a three-count complaint contending that Southwest Sunsites, Inc., Green Valley Acres, Inc., Green Valley Acres, Inc. II, Sidney Gross, and Edwin Kritzler engaged in unfair and deceptive practices in violation of § 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act.
- An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) dismissed the complaint.
- The Federal Trade Commission reversed the ALJ's dismissal, found violations, and issued a cease and desist order.
- Petitioners (Southwest Sunsites, Inc. et al.) appealed the FTC's cease and desist order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the Federal Trade Commission err by applying a new deception standard, engaging in improper ex parte communications, making findings not supported by substantial evidence, or issuing an overly broad remedial order, thereby violating petitioners' due process rights or the Administrative Procedures Act?
Opinions:
Majority - BEEZER, Circuit Judge
No, the Federal Trade Commission did not err in applying a new deception standard, its decision was not tainted by ex parte communications, its findings were supported by substantial evidence, and its remedial order was not overly broad. The court found that the FTC’s application of the 'new' deception standard did not violate the APA or due process. This new standard, requiring a representation to be 'likely to mislead the consumer acting reasonably in the circumstances, to the consumer’s detriment,' imposed a greater burden of proof on the FTC (probable, reasonable consumer, and detriment) than the prior 'tendency and capacity to mislead' standard. Because the new theory was 'more narrow than, but completely subsumed in, the prior theory,' all evidence relevant to the old was necessarily relevant to the new, ensuring petitioners understood the issue and had a full opportunity to defend, consistent with Golden Grain Macaroni Co. v. FTC. Furthermore, the ex parte communications concerning consent agreement negotiations with co-respondents did not void the agency decision. Agency regulations explicitly permitted such internal communications, and although disclosure was not prompt, it was made, allowing petitioners an opportunity to respond. The court concluded that the decision-making process was not 'irrevocably tainted' (PATCO v. FLRA). The Commission’s factual findings regarding misleading oral representations, the land’s unsuitability for represented uses, failure to disclose development costs, and the land's low investment value were all supported by substantial evidence. Where the agency and the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) disagreed, the court’s deference is to the agency’s determination, not the ALJ’s, as established in Stamper v. Secretary of Agriculture. Substantial evidence also supported that Porter Realty had both actual and apparent authority to make misrepresentations, as petitioners provided sales materials, maintained a close business relationship, and their remedial actions were insufficient to limit apparent authority (Goodman v. F.T.C.). Gross and Kritzler were also properly held individually liable based on substantial evidence of their managerial and policy-making responsibilities in approving deceptive practices. Finally, the remedial order, which included disclosure requirements for past and future buyers, was upheld as within the FTC's broad remedial powers and reasonably related to the unlawful practices (Chrysler Corp. v. FTC, Amrep Corp. v. FTC).
Analysis:
This case is significant for clarifying the boundaries within which an administrative agency can adapt and apply new standards for determining deceptive practices. It affirms that a shift to a more rigorous standard for the agency does not inherently violate due process or the APA if the underlying factual defenses remain pertinent. The decision also reiterates the high bar for overturning agency actions based on procedural irregularities like ex parte communications, requiring proof of irrevocable taint to the decision-making process. Moreover, it reinforces a principal's liability for an agent's misrepresentations, particularly when apparent authority exists, and underscores the broad remedial powers of the FTC, including the ability to mandate corrective disclosures to protect consumers.
