Responding to an FTC Civil Investigative Demand (CID)

Responding to an FTC Civil Investigative Demand (CID)

The Federal Trade Commission sends you a Civil Investigative Demand demanding you produce documents, answer written interrogatories under oath, and appear for testimony. You have twenty days to file a petition to quash under 16 CFR § 2.10, and that petition must be accompanied by a signed statement certifying you conferred with FTC staff in good faith to resolve issues before filing. If you don’t petition within twenty days, you’ve waived objections. If you ignore the CID entirely, the Commission petitions federal district court for enforcement, and you’re facing contempt. The Fourth Amendment supposedly requires particularity in government searches – but FTC CIDs operate under 15 U.S.C. § 57b-1 with a relevance standard so broad it swallows constitutional limits.

Thanks for visiting Spodek Law Group, a second generation law firm managed by Todd Spodek with over 40 years of combined experience. We defend companies facing FTC investigations, respond to CIDs, and litigate petitions to quash when the Commission’s demands exceed its statutory authority. This article explains what triggers FTC CIDs in 2025, why the Commission’s March 2025 enforcement posture signals aggressive use of compulsory process, and how to respond when the agency uses civil investigation as prelude to enforcement action.

Section 20 Authority and What It Permits

FTC derives CID authority from Section 20 of the FTC Act, codified at 15 U.S.C. § 57b-1. That statute allows the Commission to issue compulsory process – demands enforceable by contempt – to investigate “potentially unfair or deceptive acts or practices.” Not actual violations, not probable cause of wrongdoing – potential violations. The threshold is investigatory hunch plus reasonable belief that you possess relevant information.

What can CIDs demand? Five categories. Documentary material – emails, contracts, internal analyses, competitive intelligence, compliance manuals. Tangible things – product samples, physical evidence, prototypes. Written reports or answers to interrogatories – forcing you to create new documents analyzing your business practices under oath. Oral testimony – depositions where FTC attorneys question you or your employees. And finally, file materials – requiring you to produce organized collections of documents responsive to specific questions.

The distinction between subpoenas and CIDs matters. Subpoenas obtain existing documents. CIDs compel creation of new evidence through interrogatory responses and sworn certifications. When the government forces you to answer detailed questions about your advertising practices, pricing strategies, or consumer complaints – and certify those answers under oath – it’s using civil process to build a case you’re generating yourself.

FTC regulations at 16 CFR Part 2 govern CID procedures. The Commission delegates CID issuance to Bureau of Consumer Protection staff, meaning bureaucrats – not commissioners – decide what demands to impose on your business. The CID arrives with schedules, specifications, and certification requirements drafted by staff attorneys building an enforcement case. Your first contact with the investigation is receiving demands from people who’ve already decided you warrant scrutiny.

The March 2025 Enforcement Signal

In March 2025, FTC published a blog post titled “Did your business receive a CID? The FTC means business.” The message was unmistakable: “CIDs are legally enforceable demands. If you get one, you must respond completely and on the specified schedule.” The blog warned that non-compliance means “impeding our law enforcement efforts, and we will likely seek judicial enforcement.”

Translation: the Commission is using CIDs aggressively in 2025, expects full cooperation, and will litigate enforcement rather than negotiate delays. The blog’s timing – early in a new administration – signals a shift toward more assertive investigation tactics. When government agencies publicly announce their enforcement posture, they’re deterring resistance and warning that the cost of fighting has increased.

Consider the context. FTC has expanded its unfair and deceptive practices enforcement beyond traditional consumer fraud into data privacy, algorithmic bias, labor practices disguised as gig economy business models, and “dark patterns” in digital interfaces. That jurisdictional expansion means more companies across more sectors face CID exposure. The March 2025 blog put those companies on notice: the Commission interprets its authority broadly and expects compliance promptly.

Media Matters Case: When Petitions to Quash Fail

May 20, 2025: FTC issues a CID to Media Matters for America. June 18, 2025: Media Matters files a petition to quash, raising arguments that the CID was improperly issued, implicated First Amendment concerns, and imposed overly broad and burdensome demands. FTC’s response: denied. The Commission ordered compliance no later than August 27, 2025.

The Media Matters petition illustrates the standard FTC applies. The Commission rejected First Amendment objections, finding that compelled document production doesn’t violate speech protections. It rejected overbreadth arguments, holding that the CID sought information reasonably related to the investigation’s scope. And it rejected burdensomeness claims, noting that Media Matters failed to demonstrate the demands would impose unreasonable costs relative to the investigation’s importance.

That’s the hurdle for quashing FTC CIDs. You must show the demand exceeds statutory authority, seeks privileged materials the Commission can’t obtain, or imposes burdens grossly disproportionate to the investigation’s legitimate needs. Arguing the CID is inconvenient, expensive, or invasive isn’t enough. The Commission weighs its investigative interest against your compliance burden, and courts defer heavily to agency judgment about what information it needs.

Media Matters also demonstrates timing pressures. One month between CID issuance and petition filing. If you’re going to fight, you’re mobilizing counsel, conducting privilege review, and drafting legal arguments in weeks – while simultaneously beginning document collection in case the petition fails. Most recipients lack resources to litigate and comply simultaneously, which is precisely why petitions to quash succeed rarely.

The Certification Trap

Every CID includes a Certification of Compliance form. Federal law requires that CID recipients produce a “sworn certificate” assuring the Commission that you’ve produced “all of the documentary material” responsive to the CID, and that interrogatory answers are made “under oath.” That certification creates criminal liability for false statements under 18 U.S.C. § 1001.

Think about what you’re certifying. You’ve searched all custodians, all file systems, all backup servers, and all potentially responsive locations. You’ve produced every responsive document, withheld only privileged materials properly logged, and answered every interrogatory completely and truthfully. One missed document, one overly narrow interpretation of what’s responsive, one employee who didn’t preserve files properly – and your certification is false.

False certifications aren’t just perjury. They’re obstruction of agency proceedings. If FTC later discovers you failed to produce responsive documents, the Commission can refer you for criminal prosecution, assert the omission demonstrates consciousness of guilt, and use the incomplete production as evidence you’re hiding misconduct. The certification requirement transforms document production from civil compliance into potential criminal exposure.

Defense attorneys handle this by documenting the document collection process meticulously. We issue litigation holds to all custodians, use forensic collection methods to preserve metadata, employ search terms negotiated with FTC staff, and conduct multi-stage privilege review before certifying completeness. That documentation becomes proof of good faith if disputes arise about whether production was adequate.

What Triggers FTC CIDs in 2025

Consumer complaints. Multiple consumers file complaints alleging deceptive advertising, hidden fees, or failure to honor refund policies. FTC’s Consumer Sentinel Network aggregates those complaints. When patterns emerge, the Commission opens investigations. First step: CID to the company demanding advertising materials, consumer communications, and internal analyses of complaint trends.

Data breach disclosures. Your company suffers a cybersecurity incident, discloses it as required under state breach notification laws, and moves on. FTC sees the disclosure and investigates whether your data security practices were “reasonable” under Section 5 of the FTC Act. CID demands all documents related to data security policies, vulnerability assessments, and breach response – going back years before the incident.

Industry sweeps and market studies. Commission launches sector-wide inquiry into subscription practices, privacy policies, algorithmic decision-making, or gig economy labor practices. Every major player in that market receives a CID seeking standardized information. You’re not individually targeted – but you’re still required to produce comprehensive data about business practices the Commission is scrutinizing industry-wide.

Competitor complaints and whistleblowers. A rival files an unfair competition complaint, or a former employee reports alleged deceptive practices. FTC opens an investigation based on those allegations. You might not know the source, but the CID’s scope reveals what conduct the agency is examining. Third-party CIDs follow, seeking corroborating evidence from suppliers, customers, and business partners.

Strategic Response to FTC CIDs

Engage FTC staff immediately. The regulations require good faith conferral before filing petitions to quash. But engagement serves a broader purpose: understanding the investigation’s focus, negotiating scope reductions, and building credibility with staff attorneys who control how aggressively the Commission pursues your company.

Early conversations reveal what the agency knows and what it’s seeking. If FTC asks for documents related to specific marketing campaigns, you know consumer complaints targeted those campaigns. If the CID focuses on particular time periods, something triggered scrutiny during that window. Use those conversations to assess your exposure and plan your response accordingly.

Conduct internal investigation in parallel. Before producing documents to FTC, review them yourself. Interview key employees about the conduct under investigation. Assess whether evidence suggests violations, whether compliance failures occurred, and whether individuals might face personal liability. That assessment informs whether you’re heading toward a consent decree, civil penalties, or potential criminal referrals.

Negotiate scope intelligently. FTC staff will narrow CID scope if you demonstrate that certain requests are unduly burdensome and less burdensome alternatives exist. “All documents related to advertising” for a ten-year period covering fifty product lines is impossibly broad. Offer to produce documents for the specific products mentioned in consumer complaints, for time periods when alleged misconduct occurred, using negotiated search terms that capture relevant materials without over-producing.

Preserve privilege aggressively but realistically. Attorney-client communications about compliance advice are privileged. But FTC challenges privilege assertions routinely, especially when communications involve business strategy or regulatory interpretation. Draft a detailed privilege log, anticipate challenges to borderline materials, and be prepared to produce documents for in camera review if the Commission moves to compel.

At Spodek Law Group, we’ve responded to FTC CIDs by negotiating phased production schedules that reduced immediate compliance burdens, securing confidentiality protections for trade secrets and proprietary information, and coordinating responses across multiple CID recipients to avoid creating evidentiary contradictions. We’ve also litigated petitions to quash when the Commission exceeded statutory authority – and we’ve counseled clients when CID responses revealed exposure requiring proactive settlement negotiations before enforcement actions were filed.

Todd Spodek represents clients where government investigations threaten not just civil penalties but business viability. FTC enforcement actions can result in multimillion-dollar penalties, years-long monitoring agreements, and reputational damage that destroys consumer trust. Defense begins at the CID stage, before the Commission has built its full case. We’re available 24/7 because CIDs demand fast responses, and strategic errors in the first twenty days create disadvantages that last throughout the investigation.