By 1964, sufficient cases had been decided to enable the Commission to identify three factors which it had taken into account in applying the prohibition of abuse of consumption. These were: (1) whether the practice harms consumers; 2. if it is contrary to public policy; and (3) whether it is unethical or unscrupulous.8 These factors were later cited with apparent approval of the Supreme Court in the 1972 Sperry & Hutchinson case.9 Since then, the Commission has further refined the standard of injustice in its cases and rules and has now come to a more detailed understanding of the definition and limits of these criteria.10 One of the uses of the standard was made in Morgan v. Virginia, 328 U.S. 373 (1946). In a 7-to-1 decision, Associate Justice Stanley Forman Reed devised an “unreasonable stress test” to decide the constitutionality of a Virginia law that imposes separate but equal racial segregation on public transit. However, there is a recognized abstract principle that can be considered a postulate for examining whether certain state laws are outside the power of the state without congressional action. This means that state legislation is invalid if it unduly burdens trade in areas where uniformity is required – necessary in the useful constitutional sense to achieve an permissible objective.  Sellers may engage in a range of practices that unjustifiably impede such free market decisions. Some may withhold or fail to produce essential price or performance data, for example by not having enough information for informed comparisons.21 Some exercise open coercion, such as dismantling an appliance for “inspection” and refusing to reassemble it until a service contract is signed.22 And some may exert undue influence on highly vulnerable groups of buyers.
for example, by promoting fraudulent “cures” for critically ill cancer patients.23 Each of these practices undermines an essential precondition for a free and informed consumer transaction and thus for the proper functioning of the market. Each of them is therefore rightly prohibited under the FTC Act as an unfair practice.24 The undue burden standard is a constitutional review conducted by the U.S. Supreme Court. The test, which was first conducted at the end of the 20th century. It is widely used in U.S. constitutional law.  In short, the unreasonable burden standard states that a legislature cannot enact a particular law that is too onerous or restricts its fundamental rights. The unreasonable burden test has been used to assess the constitutionality of tax laws, consumer product liability laws, affirmative action, voter registration laws, abortion laws, and even anti-spam legislation.  The current understanding of the norm of injustice is the result of an evolutionary process. The law was deliberately drafted in general terms, as Congress recognized that it was impossible to create a comprehensive list of UTPs that would not quickly become obsolete or leave gaps for easy circumvention.5 The task of identifying UTPs was therefore entrusted to the Commission, subject to judicial review.
6 in the hope that the underlying criteria would evolve over time. and would develop. As the Supreme Court stated as early as 1931, the prohibition of injustice “belongs to that category of expressions which do not permit a precise definition, but whose meaning and application must be obtained by what this court has elsewhere described as `the gradual process of judicial inclusion and exclusion.`” 7 Police brutality: (n.) The excessive and unjustified use of force (usually physical in nature, but also verbal abuse and psychological intimidation) by a police officer in the performance of his or her policing duties. 5See H.R. Conf. 1142, 63d Cong., 2d Sess., p. 19 (1914) (if Congress “adopted the method of definition, it would assume a never-ending task”). In 1914, the law was formulated only in relation to “unfair competitive methods” and the reference to “unfair acts or practices” was only added with the Wheeler-Lee Amendment in 1938. However, the original wording was still understood to have affected most of the behaviours that are now called consumer injustice, so the original legislative history remains relevant to the interpretation of this part of the law.
Two principles help clarify the circumstances in which a claimant cannot rely on unjust enrichment: to the extent that the Commission relies heavily on public policy to establish unfairness, the policy should be clear and well established. In other words, policy should be explained or embodied in formal sources such as laws, court decisions, or the constitution as interpreted by the courts, rather than being determined from the general sense of national values. The policy should also be generalized, rather than the isolated decision of a single state or court. If these two criteria are not met, the Directive cannot be considered an “established” public policy within the meaning of the S&H criterion. The Commission would then act only on the basis of convincing independent evidence indicating that the practice distorts the functioning of the market and thus causes undue prejudice to consumers.