Rather ironic to consider this "invasive government overreach" but not to levy the same accusations towards the perpetrators of surveillance capitalism.
Unfortunately, I'd imagine it exists, but that it basically says "the FTC can do whatever it wants if it thinks a company is being 'abusive' or 'misleading consumers'" with some vague definition of what that means.
Yet another example of Congress legislating away their ability to legislate and/or the courts' ability to judge.
6(b) orders are essentially warrants under the FTC Act:
"Section 6 of the FTC Act provides another investigative tool. Section 6(b) empowers the Commission to require an entity to file “annual or special . . . reports or answers in writing to specific questions” to provide information about the entity’s “organization, business, conduct, practices, management, and relation to other corporations, partnerships, and individuals.” 15 U.S.C. Sec. 46(b). As with subpoenas and CIDs, the recipient of a 6(b) order may file a petition to limit or quash, and the Commission may seek a court order requiring compliance. If a party fails to comply with a 6(b) order after receiving a notice of default from the Commission, the Commission may commence suit in federal court under Section 10 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 50. After expiration of a thirty-day grace period, a defaulting party is liable for a penalty for each day of noncompliance. Id.; Commission Rule 1.98(f), 16 C.F.R. Sec. 1.98(f)."
[1] https://www.ftc.gov/about-ftc/what-we-do/enforcement-authori...
All it means (in English) is that it's clear which information should be included in the reply, not a limitation on the range of information that can be asked for.
Again, this is rather ironic given the nature of what Facebook et al are doing. Vague clauses in unreadable Privacy Policies don't really constitue an adequate defence in the mass harvesting of personal data, yet here we are.