June 26, 2026, 10:55 GMT | Insight
Companies that receive a subpoena from the
Federal Trade Commission and choose not to respond to it may still be inviting an antitrust or consumer protection lawsuit if the agency has enough evidence to proceed to litigation, Chairman Andrew Ferguson said.
Companies that receive a subpoena from the Federal Trade Commission and choose not to respond to it may still be inviting an antitrust or consumer protection lawsuit if the agency has enough evidence to proceed to litigation, Chairman Andrew Ferguson said.
"Look, it's the federal government. The federal government accusing someone of something in a complaint is a grave matter, and if I don't have enough, I'll go enforce the [Civil Investigative Demand]," Ferguson told MLex in an interview.
"But I don't want parties to think that I'm just going to sit there and wait for CID responses, and then do the saber-rattling on CID enforcement, which is itself litigation and expensive. If I have enough to sue you, and I think you broke the law, I don't care if you haven't responded to the CID, I'm going to sue you," he said.
The Republican FTC Chairman told MLex that he has concerns about companies withholding evidence — or not complying with subpoenas and pre-merger notification forms — and is open to pursuing sanctions or suing companies for wrongdoing.
Ferguson said the FTC pursued sanctions in the
Amazon dark patterns case, after staff presented him with a request to pursue sanctions. The FTC asked a US federal judge in May 2025 to impose sanctions on Amazon for wrongfully claiming privilege “to keep inculpatory documents from the FTC” in the agency’s lawsuit over Amazon’s use of “dark patterns” tactics in offering its Prime subscription service.
"That's probably — on the scale of history — unusual for Republicans to have that reaction. But I'm a litigator first, and I saw this, and I was like, 'it's not fair, and the system doesn't work if people do this, so seek sanctions'," he said.
The FTC was granted sanctions as well as 90 days to take discovery over the wrongfully withheld documents and an order precluding Amazon from making affirmative use of any wrongfully withheld materials (see
here).
"This is not the only case we've had where we have seen substantial evidence of parties either withholding documents or invoking, like, pretty specious privilege claims," he said.
The FTC Chairman said that as someone who once represented private parties at a law firm, he understands the incentive and the instinct of lawyers to slap privilege on top of everything, but that's not what the law is.
"Look, we've had cases, and we'll have cases where we have not gotten full responses to CIDs, and the parties will maybe trickle stuff along to make CID enforcement complicated, or they might just sort of give us the cold shoulder and kind of dare to do something. I was a state enforcer. You do a CID, and if they don't respond, if you have enough to sue, you sue them," Ferguson said.
Parties ought to clog their CIDs with information because sometimes the FTC might be able to resolve certain concerns short of litigation, he said. The FTC is also willing to enter into settlements if it would be a big win for consumers. "I've done so, and will continue to do so, particularly if parties are very responsive on CIDs. I'm more likely to be apt to negotiate something if I think they're being honest with me in their disclosures."
"But I think it's important for people to understand I'm not going to take non-response to CIDs as a reason to delay something for many years, or not to sue if I have enough evidence to proceed to litigation on a consumer protection or antitrust violation without a response to CID. It's going to happen," he said.
— Additional reporting by Mike Swift.
Please email editors@mlex.com to contact the editorial staff regarding this story, or to submit the names of lawyers and advisers.
Tags
Sections:
Antitrust, Data Privacy & Security, Mergers & Acquisitions, Technology, DealRisk®
Industries:
Professional Services
Geographies:
North America, United States
Topics:
Market Abuse, Market Manipulation, Section 1 Sherman Act, Section 2 Sherman Act