engaging in future schemes involving fraudulent misrepresentation wherein they use the mails to obtain money. There is no question that the Postal Service is entrusted with the responsibility of protecting consumers from such conduct; the question is whether the regulation of future conduct by plaintiffs is justified here. In the past, Courts have often permitted the Federal Trade Commission to issue cease and desist orders regulating a broad line of products, even though a violation was discovered with respect to a single product so as “to prevent the resurrection of discontinued practices.” Lee v. Federal Trade Commission, 679 F.2d 905, 906 (D.C.Cir.1980); see also Federal Trade Commission v. Colgate-Palmolive, Co., 380 U.S. 374, 395, 85 S.Ct. 1035, 1048, 13 L.Ed.2d 904 (1965) (<HOLDING>); Federal Trade Commission v. National Lead
holding that the commission may not order reparations where a carrier complied with the commissions earlier order declaring its rate to be reasonable holding that a debtor need not have received a benefit from the fraudulent activity in order for  523a2a to prevent a discharge holding that morgan stanley is estopped from seeking a restraining order against competitive conduct which it admits to engaging in holding an order refusing to enforce a settlement agreement is not immediately appealable because it does not prevent a judgment from being rendered in the action and appellant can seek review of the current order in any appeal from final judgment holding that commission may frame its order broadly enough to prevent respondents from engaging in similarly illegal activities in the future