## Facts

- The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) investigated practices in the weight-loss industry and pursued regulatory objectives through investigations and enforcement matters.
- Weight Watchers International, Inc. and Weight Watchers of Greater Washington State, Inc. (collectively, Weight Watchers) believed the FTC was effectively setting new industry-wide standards without using the FTC’s trade regulation rulemaking process under 15 U.S.C. § 57a(b).
- Weight Watchers petitioned the FTC to regulate the weight-loss industry through formal rulemaking rather than through case-by-case enforcement.
- The FTC denied Weight Watchers’ petition for rulemaking.
- Weight Watchers filed suit in federal district court seeking judicial review of the denial under APA § 704, arguing that the FTC’s actions violated statutory limits and also raising a due process claim.
- The district court dismissed the case as premature and not justiciable, reasoning that the FTC had not issued a final order against Weight Watchers; the court also dismissed the due process claim sua sponte for failure to state a claim.
- Weight Watchers appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the FTC’s denial of Weight Watchers’ petition for rulemaking constituted “final agency action” reviewable under APA § 704.
2. Whether Weight Watchers’ broader challenge—seeking to attack the FTC’s alleged shift in industry standards through enforcement rather than rulemaking—was fit for review or instead unripe absent a specific final FTC order directed at Weight Watchers.
3. Whether the district court properly dismissed Weight Watchers’ due process claim sua sponte at the pleading stage.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
- The court held that the FTC’s denial of a rulemaking petition could qualify as final agency action under APA § 704 and therefore could be subject to judicial review.
- The court agreed that parts of Weight Watchers’ suit seeking broad relief aimed at potential future FTC enforcement were premature to the extent they depended on speculative applications of agency policy.
- The court reversed the district court’s sua sponte dismissal of the due process claim and remanded for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- Under APA § 704, “final agency action for which there is no other adequate remedy in a court” is subject to judicial review.
- An agency’s denial of a petition for rulemaking may be sufficiently definitive and complete to be treated as final agency action.
- Ripeness limits pre-enforcement suits that seek rulings on uncertain future applications of agency policy; the absence of a final enforcement order can matter when the requested relief would require the court to decide issues in a hypothetical posture.
- A district court should use caution before disposing of a constitutional claim sua sponte at the pleading stage, particularly where the record and briefing may affect whether the claim is adequately stated.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that Weight Watchers could seek APA review of the FTC’s denial of its rulemaking petition because that denial could constitute final agency action, but it limited review where Weight Watchers’ claims depended on speculative future enforcement; the court also reinstated the due process claim after finding the district court’s sua sponte dismissal improper and sent the case back for further proceedings.


Weight Watchers International, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission, 47 F.3d 990 (1995)