F.T.C. v. Qt, Inc.
| Decision Date | 08 September 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. 03 C 3578.,03 C 3578. |
| Citation | 448 F.Supp.2d 908 |
| Parties | FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v. QT, INC., Q-Ray Company, Bio-Metal, Inc., Que Te Park, a.k.a. Andrew Q. Park, and Jung Joo Park, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
Theodore H. Hoppock, Reille C. Montague, Heather Hippsley, Janet M. Evans, Edward Glennon, Federal Trade Commission, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff.
Michael A. Ficaro, Ross E. Kimbarovsky, Richard H. Tilghman, Ungaretti & Harris, LLP, Chicago, IL, for Defendants.
"The pain just went away." "Within seconds the pain was gone." "You don't have to live with pain."
The Q-Ray® Ionized Bracelet® (Q-"Ray bracelet") achieved tremendous commercial success through a series of 30minute infomercials. The Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") brings this action claiming Defendants marketed the Q-Ray bracelet in a deceptive and misleading manner by representing that the bracelet provides immediate, significant or complete pain relief and scientific tests prove their pain-relief claims. Defendants deny their advertising was false or misleading. They contend adequate substantiation exists for the advertising claims made in connection with the promotion and sale of the Q-Ray bracelet.
The Court conducted a seven-day bench trial between June 6 and July 11, 2006. The Court has carefully considered the testimony of the witnesses who testified in person and by deposition, the Joint Stipulations of Fact for Trial, the exhibits introduced into evidence, the written submissions of the parties, and the oral arguments of counsel. The counsel on both sides presented the case in a highly professional manner.
The following constitutes the Court's findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Rule 52(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. To the extent certain findings may be deemed conclusions of law, they shall be considered conclusions. Similarly, to the extent matters contained in the conclusions of law may be deemed findings of fact, they also shall be considered findings.
The FTC brings this action under § 13(b) of the Federal Trade Commission Act ("the Act") seeking monetary and injunctive relief for alleged violations of §§ 5 and 12 of the Act. 15 U.S.C. §§ 45(a), 52 and 53(b). The FTC's complaint alleges three violations of the Act by Defendants.
In Count I, the FTC alleges Defendants represented that the Q-Ray bracelet "provides immediate significant or complete relief from various types of pain, including, but not limited to, musculoskeletal pain, sciatic pain, persistent headaches, sinus problems, tendonitis, or injuries." (Comp. ¶ 19). In Count II, the FTC alleges Defendants represented that "tests prove that the [Q-Ray bracelet] relieves pain." (Comp.¶ 21). The FTC claims these representations were false or Defendants lacked a reasonable basis for these representations in violation of the Act. In Count III, the FTC alleges Defendants falsely represented that QT's 30-day satisfaction guarantee permits "consumers to readily obtain a full refund of the purchase price if they return the [Q-Ray bracelet] within 30 days." (Comp.¶ 24). The Defendants deny these allegations.
The following issues are presented:
1. Whether the FTC has met its burden of proving that QT, Inc.'s advertising was likely to mislead a reasonable consumer in violation of the Act. Yes.
2. Whether the FTC has met its burden of proving that QT, Inc.'s advertising represented, without a sufficient basis, that tests prove that the Q-Ray bracelet relieves pain in violation of the Act. Yes.
3. Whether the FTC has met its burden of proving that the Q-Ray bracelet is a device within the meaning of § 12 of the Act. Yes.
4. Whether the FTC has met its burden of proving that QT's refund policy did not permit consumers to readily obtain a refund of the purchase price. Yes.
5. Whether Que Te Park is personally liable for the violations of the Act. Yes.
6. Whether Jung Joo Park is personal. ly liable for the violations of the Act. No.
7. Whether the Court should order equitable relief in the form of consumer redress, disgorgement and restitution. Yes.
8. Whether the FTC has established a basis for permanent injunctive relief. Yes.
On May 27, 2003, the FTC filed a Complaint for Injunctive and Other Equitable Relief ("Complaint") in this action, naming as defendants QT, Inc., Q-Ray Company, Bio-Metal, Inc., Que Te Park, a.k.a. Andrew Q. Park, and Jung JooPark. Stipulated.1
On May 29, 2003, the Court granted the FTC's motion for an ex parte temporary restraining order and asset freeze. Stipulated; Dkt. 2.
On June 11, 2003, the Court entered a stipulated preliminary injunction with asset transfer restrictions and other equitable relief. Stipulated; Dkt. 34; PX 3.
The FTC is an independent agency of the United States Government created by statute. 15 U.S.C. §§ 41-58. The FTC enforces Sections 5(a) and 12 of the Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 45(a) and 52, which prohibit, respectively, unfair or deceptive acts or practices, and false advertisements for food, drugs, devices, services, or cosmetics in or affecting commerce. The FTC is authorized to initiate federal district court proceedings, by its own attorneys, to enjoin violations of the Act and secure such equitable relief as may be appropriate in each case, including consumer redress. 15 U.S.C. § 53(b).
Defendant QT, Inc. ("QT") is an Illinois corporation with its principal place of business at 500 W. Algonquin Road, Mt. Prospect, Illinois. It transacts or has transacted business in the Northern District of Illinois and throughout the United States. Since at least 1996,, QT has advertised, marketed, and sold the Q-Ray bracelet via U.S. media outlets and identical Internet sites, www.qray.com, www.q-ray.com, and www.bio-ray.com. Stipulated.
Defendant Q-Ray Company ("QRC") is an Illinois corporation with its principal place of business at 500 W. Algonquin Road, Mt. Prospect, Illinois. It transacts or has transacted business in the Northern District of Illinois and throughout the United States through the distribution of the Q-Ray bracelet. Stipulated.
QRC has performed the fulfillment operations of QT, including shipping the Q-Ray bracelet to consumers and receiving returned products from consumers since mid-2002. Stipulated.
Defendant Bio-Metal, Inc. ("Bio-Metal"), which was formerly known as Bio-Ray International, Inc., is an Illinois corporation with its principal place of business at 500 W. Algonquin Road, Mt. Prospect, Illinois. Stipulated.
At all relevant times, defendant Que Te Park, also known as Andrew Q. Park ("Que Te Park"), was and is the President of QT, QRC, and Bio-Metal. He resides and/or transacts business in the Northern District of Illinois. Stipulated. He testified at the trial and certain of his deposition excerpts were also introduced as evidence. PX 19.
Que Te Park has been the Chief Executive Officer of QT and QRC since at least 2001. Que Te Park is the sole shareholder of QT and QRC. Stipulated.
Defendant Jung Joo Park is Que Te Park's wife. She resides in the Northern District of Illinois. Stipulated. She testified by means of a deposition. PX 311.
From at least 1987 through June 2003, Jung Joo Park was Secretary of QT. She was listed as Secretary of QT in the company's annual reports to the State of Illinois for the years 1999 through 2002. Jung Joo Park was listed as a Secretary of QT until at least June 2005. From at least 2000 through June 2003, Jung Joo Park was Secretary of QRC. She was listed as Secretary of QRC in the company's annual reports to the State of Illinois for the years 1999 through 2002. Jung Joo Park, as Secretary of those entities, had signatory authority for eight of the ten QT and QRC corporate bank accounts. Stipulated.
Jung Joo Park worked full-time at QT from 2001 through at least August of 2004. She has worked for QT for a total of 15 years. Stipulated. For her $98,000 salary, Jung Joo Park looks after the office when Que Te Park is out of the country. She also helps any place around the office that needs a hand and has no set position. T. 606-07. Jung Joo Park assists QT in areas that are short-staffed, and sometimes, for example, goes to the factory to help with assembly and shipping and handling. Stipulated.
Jung Joo Park assists with employee relations at QT, and she consults with Korean-speaking employees regarding internal conflicts among those employees. Stipulated.
Jung Joo Park was not involved in the marketing of the Q-Ray bracelet. She was not involved in the creation, review, media placement, or production of any of the Q-Ray bracelet infomercials. She had no authority over the customer service department policies. PX 311 at 21-4.
Que Te Park's and Jung Joo Park's son, Charles Park, has been employed by QT since approximately 2002 and has served as an executive vice-president since May or June of 2003. He oversees the activities of the vice-presidents of operations, finance, marketing, and sales. He currently reports to Que Te Park. Before that, he was vice-president in charge of information technology and some administrative areas, including some parts of operations and some parts of finances. Stipulated. Charles Park testified at the trial.
Crystal Holloway ("Holloway") has been employed by QT as a senior customer service manager since February, 2003. She testified by means of a deposition. PX 312.
Elizabeth Ann Ciprian ("Ciprian") was employed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fed. Trade Comm'n v. AMG Servs., Inc.
...of fact.”); see also F.T.C. v. Nat'l Urological Group, Inc., 645 F.Supp.2d 1167, 1189 (N.D.Ga.2008) (citing F.T.C. v. QT, Inc., 448 F.Supp.2d 908, 958 (N.D.Ill.2006) (“The meaning of an advertisement, the claims or net impressions communicated to reasonable consumers, is fundamentally a que......
-
Reid v. Unilever United States, Inc.
...may vary depending on hair type”—does not negate the smoothing promise. (R. 34, Pls.' Resp. at 6) (citing Fed. Trade Comm'n v. QT, Inc., 448 F.Supp.2d 908 (N.D.Ill.2006)). According to Plaintiffs, this language “merely warns that the [Hair Treatment] may be less effective on some hair types......
-
Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Amg Servs., Inc.
...of fact.”); see also F.T.C. v. Nat'l Urological Group, Inc., 645 F.Supp.2d 1167, 1189 (N.D.Ga.2008) (citing F.T.C. v. QT, Inc., 448 F.Supp.2d 908, 958 (N.D.Ill.2006) (“The meaning of an advertisement, the claims or net impressions communicated to reasonable consumers, is fundamentally a que......
-
F.T.C. v. Direct Marketing Concepts, Inc.
...have had some recognizable substantiation for the representation prior to making it in an advertisement. See Fed. Trade Comm'n v. QT, Inc., 448 F.Supp.2d 908, 959 (N.D.Ill.2006) ("Defendants have the burden of establishing what substantiation they, relied on for their product claims."), ame......
-
The Federal Trade Commission
...Commc’ns , 401 F.3d at 1204; Publ’g Clearing House , 104 F.3d at 1170; Amy Travel Serv. , 875 F.2d at 573. 103. FTC v. QT, Inc., 448 F. Supp. 2d 908, 973-74 (N.D. Ill. 2006), aff’d, 512 F.3d 858 (7th Cir. 2008) (“Even though [individual defendant] Jung Joo Park was the Secretary of [corpora......
-
Table of Cases
...821 F. Supp. 2d 1205 (D. Nev. 2010), 289 FTC v. Publ’g Clearing House, 104 F.3d 1168 (9th Cir. 1997), 7, 434, 435 FTC v. QT, Inc., 448 F. Supp. 2d 908 (N.D. Ill. 2006), aff’d , 512 F.3d 858 (7th Cir. 2008), 85, 435 F.T.C. v. QT, Inc., 448 F. Supp. 2d 908 (N.D. Ill. 2006), 4, 9, 10, 16, 19 F......
-
Deceptive and Unfair Practices
...FTC, 223 F.3d 783, 786-87 (D.C. Cir. 2000); FTC v. Pantron I Corp., 33 F.3d 1088, 1096 nn.19, 22 (9th Cir. 1994); F.T.C. v. QT, Inc., 448 F. Supp. 2d 908, 960 (N.D. Ill. 2006) (stating “the FTC Deception Policy Statement may provide this Court with useful guidance regarding how to analyze a......
-
Combatting Covid Through . . . Consumer Protection? a Multi-jurisdictional Approach to Protecting Public Health Through Enforcement of Consumer Fraud Laws
...Trade Comm'n v. John Beck Amazing Profits, LLC, 865 F. Supp. 2d 1052, 1067 (C.D. Cal. 2012) (quoting Fed. Trade Comm'n v. QT, Inc., 448 F. Supp. 2d 908, 959 (N.D. Ill. 2006)).99. Id.100. Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Pantron I Corp., 33 F.3d 1088, 1096 (9th Cir. 1994).101. Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 1......