Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The FTC Act does not give consumers the right to sue for violations of the act, but consumers may complain to the Commission about acts or practices they believe to be unfair or deceptive. [14] Consumers may, however, be authorized to sue under a state "UDAP" (unfair, deceptive and abusive practices) statute, sometimes called a "Little FTC Act."
The Land Act of 1820 (ch. 51, 3 Stat. 566), enacted April 24, 1820, is the United States federal law that ended the ability to purchase the United States' public domain lands on a credit or installment system over four years, as previously established. The new law became effective July 1, 1820 and required full payment at the time of purchase ...
The FTC was established in 1914 by the Federal Trade Commission Act, which was passed in response to the 19th-century monopolistic trust crisis. Since its inception, the FTC has enforced the provisions of the Clayton Act , a key U.S. antitrust statute, as well as the provisions of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 41 et seq.
An exclusive right to sell agreement gives one real estate agent and their brokerage the sole right to market and sell a property.
For example, the Federal Trade Commission says nearly $2.7 billion in losses were reported from impostor scams in 2023, but that includes all impostor schemes — not just real estate ones.
Maine: Married women are given the right to own (but not control) property in their own name. [4] 1841. Maryland: Married women are given the right to own (but not control) property in their own name. [4] 1842. New Hampshire: Married women are given the right to own and manage property in their own name during the incapacity of their spouse. [4 ...
The FTC (and DOJ) should return to the consumer welfare standard instead of persisting in the economic illiteracy and noncomprehensive jurisprudence promulgated by the 2023 guidelines.
Regarding helping the poor: Despite being an FTC program that targeted violations in poor neighborhoods, the authors found that in analyzing the 1965 FTC Report on District of Columbia Consumer Protection Program (the "D.C. Study"), very few complaints were ultimately addressed, and the FTC did not use its ability for rigorously fining violators.