Neora and the FTC are back to the negotiating table, but don't expect them to shake hands anytime soon.

The two sides spent over a year trying to hammer out a settlement last year and came up empty. A December report made it official: they were stuck. Now, following a Supreme Court decision in the AMG case, both parties have been ordered to explore alternative dispute resolution. The question is whether either side actually wants to.

The FTC's position is straightforward. The agency wants permanent injunctive relief—a court order barring Neora from future violations of the FTC Act. The Supreme Court's AMG ruling, the FTC argues, doesn't touch its authority to seek such relief under Section 13(b). Translation: the door is still open for the FTC to get what it wants. That's why the agency doesn't see much point in mediation. "The FTC does not believe that pursuing alternative dispute resolution would be fruitful at this time," the agency wrote.

Neora sees things completely differently. The company argues the AMG decision is far broader than the FTC admits. Not only does it block the equitable monetary relief the FTC is seeking, Neora claims, but it also severely limits when permanent injunctions are appropriate. According to Neora's reading of the ruling, courts can only grant injunctions in cases where temporary or preliminary relief was already granted or sought. Since that didn't happen here, Neora argues permanent injunctions are off the table.

That disagreement is the real sticking point. The FTC wants a permanent injunction that would prevent Neora from violating the law going forward. Neora says the AMG decision—and case law the decision relied on—means such relief won't fly for past behavior that's no longer happening.

Despite the FTC's skepticism about mediation, Neora is pushing hard for it. The company says now is the time to negotiate, not wait. Neora has already volunteered to mediate before a private mediator or a magistrate judge and has signaled openness to other dispute resolution options the court might suggest.

The timing matters here. Both sides filed their Joint Report on Alternative Dispute Resolution on May 10th, outlining their positions and essentially asking the court: what now?

The court answered quickly. On May 14th, just four days later, a magistrate judge was assigned to the case. The order required a settlement conference to be scheduled within sixty days. Then on May 19th, a status conference was set for May 25th to nail down when that settlement conference would actually happen.

Before that May 25th meeting, the lawyers for both sides are required to confer and come prepared with three possible dates for the settlement conference, whether in person or by video.

The real test comes next. With a magistrate now in the picture, both sides will have to decide whether they're serious about settling or just going through the motions. Neora clearly wants to talk. The FTC's willingness to engage remains an open question.

🤖 Quick Answer

What is the current status of settlement negotiations between Neora and the FTC?
Neora and the FTC have resumed settlement discussions following the Supreme Court's AMG decision, which ordered both parties to explore alternative dispute resolution. However, previous negotiations lasted over a year without reaching an agreement, with December reports confirming the parties remained deadlocked on key terms and remedies.

What does the FTC seek in its case against Neora?
The FTC is pursuing permanent injunctive relief through a court order that would prohibit Neora from future violations of the FTC Act. The agency contends the Supreme Court's AMG ruling does not restrict its authority to obtain such injunctive relief under Section 13(b) of applicable law.

Why did the Supreme Court's AMG decision impact these negotiations?
The AMG ruling prompted federal court intervention, ordering both Neora and the FTC to pursue

🔗 Related Articles

- FTC want Vemma’s “irrelevant evidence” excluded (Koscot)
- Randy Crosby folds, enters into negotiations with the SEC
- Ryan Evans settles Saivian fraud with SEC
- DOJ want DFRF Enterprises civil case discovery stayed
- Massachusetts charge TelexFree as “billion dollar Ponzi”