Fifth Circuit Vacates FTC’s Cease-and-Desist Order Against Intuit

The Fifth Circuit held that the FTC’s TurboTax case against Intuit could not be decided in the FTC’s in‑house tribunal and therefore vacated the Commission’s 2024 cease‑and‑desist order.

What the Fifth Circuit Decided

• In Intuit, Inc. v. FTC, No. 24‑60040 (5th Cir. Mar. 20, 2026), the court ruled that deceptive advertising claims under Section 5 of the FTC Act seeking civil‑penalty‑backed cease‑and‑desist relief must be adjudicated in an Article III court with a jury, not before an FTC ALJ.

• Because the Commission used its administrative process to issue the January 2024 order restricting Intuit’s “free” TurboTax advertising for 20 years, the panel vacated that order on constitutional separation‑of‑powers grounds.

• The court relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s 2024 SEC v. Jarkesy decision in concluding that the FTC’s in‑house adjudication of this type of fraud‑like claim violates the Seventh Amendment jury‑trial right and Article III.

Status of the TurboTax Case

• The ruling does not hold that Intuit’s “free” TurboTax ads were lawful; instead, it says the FTC used the wrong forum and therefore cannot enforce its order as issued.

• The case is remanded to the FTC for further proceedings consistent with the opinion, which in practice means the agency must proceed, if at all, in federal district court rather than through its administrative law judge.

• Intuit has publicly framed the decision as a vindication of its position and a limit on FTC overreach, while the FTC has not yet announced its next steps in district court.

Broader Implications for FTC Enforcement

• The decision directly threatens the FTC’s model of using administrative proceedings to obtain broad Section 5 cease‑and‑desist orders in deceptive advertising and similar fraud‑type cases.

• It extends the Jarkesy logic beyond the SEC and signals that, at least in the Fifth Circuit, agencies may not use in‑house ALJs to impose binding, penalty‑backed orders for claims historically tried to juries, such as fraud and deceptive advertising.

• For companies, this increases the odds that major FTC deceptive‑advertising and possibly UDAP and data‑security matters will be litigated in Article III courts, with full civil discovery and jury exposure, rather than within the Commission.

Quick comparison: before vs. after Intuit (in the Fifth Circuit)