action in 1969. 505 U. S., at 515, and n. 11. 12 Petitioners also point to Morales as evidence that our decision in Cipollone was wrong. But Morales predated Cipollone, and it is in any event even more easily distinguishable from this case than American Airlines, Inc. v. Wolens, 513 U. S. 219 (1995). At issue in Morales were guidelines regarding the form and substance of airline fare advertising implemented by the National Association of Attorneys General to give content to state deceptive practices rules. 504 U. S., at 379. Like the regulations at issue in Reilly, the guidelines were industry-specific directives that targeted the subject matter made off-limits by the ADA’s ex press pre-emption provisions. See also Rowe v. New Hampshire Motor Transp. Assn., 552 U. S. 364 (2008) (<HOLDING>). 13 In a different action, the FTC charged a
holding the state law claims were not preempted holding that targeted ground carrier regulations were preempted by a statute modeled on the ada recognizing state laws can be preempted by federal regulations as well as by federal legislation holding that agency is bound by its regulations holding ban preempted by federal communications commission regulations