Complaint Counsel's Post Trial Brief - Federal Trade Commission

472. LaMont does not know whether BioMixx is effective in the prevention, treatment, or cure
of cancer. (LaMont, Tr. 580-81).
II. COMPLAINT COUNSEL'S PROPOSED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The acts and practices charged in the Complaint in this matter took place in or affecting
commerce within the meanng of
the Federal Trade Commssion Act, as amended.
Nationwide adverising, marketing, or sales activity ofthe sort that Respondents engaged
in constitutes "commerce" under the FTC Act. See, e.g., P.F. Coller & Son Corp. v.
FTC, 427 F.2d 261, 272 (6th Cir. 1970); see, e.g., Ford Motor Co. v. FTC, 120 F.2d 175,
183 (6th Cir. 1941) (noting that commerce also includes the actions, communcations,
and other acts or practices that are incident to those activities).
2. The Complait charges Respondents with violating Sections 5 and 12 of the FTC Act.
The Commssion has jursdiction over the subject matter of this proceeding pursuant to
those sections ofthe FTC Act. Section 5(a) provides that ''ufai or deceptive acts or
practices in or affecting commerce are hereby declared unawfuL." 15 U.S.C. § 45(a)(1).
The FTC is "empowered and directed" to prevent unfai or deceptive practices in
commerce by "persons, parnerships, or corporations." 15 U.S.C. § 45(a)(2).
3. The Commssion has jursdiction over persons, parerships, and corporations. 15 U .S.C.
§ 45(a)(2). "Corporations" are defied in Section 4 of the FTC Act as "any company. .
.which is organzed to car on business for its own profit or that of
its members." 15
U.S.C. § 44. Therefore, the Commission has jursdiction over Respondent DCO and
Respondent James Feijo.
4. Section 12 prohibits the dissemation of "any false adversement" in order to induce the
purchase of "food, drgs, devices, or cosmetics." 15 U.S.C. § 52(a)(2). For the puroses
of Section 12, the DCO Products are "food" or "drgs." 15 U.S.C. § 55(a), (b), (c)
(defig "food" as, among other thngs, "aricles used for food or drink for man," and
defig "drug" as, among other thgs, "aricles intended for use in the diagnosis, cure,
mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man"). Section 12 defines "false
adverisement" as "an adverisement, other than labeling, which is misleading in a
materal respect." 15 U.S.C. § 55.
5. Respondents' speech is not protected by the First Amendment because it is deceptive
commercial speech. The U.S. Supreme Cour has held that when the content of
commercial speech is false or misleading, it can be suppressed. "There can be no
constitutional objection to the suppression of commercial messages that do not accurately
inform the public about lawful activity. The goverent may ban forms of.
communcation more likely to deceive the public than to inform it." Central Hudson Gas
& Elec. Corp. v. Public Service Commission of New York, 447 U.S. 557, 563, 100 S.Ct.
2343,2350 (1980) (citing Friedman v. Rogers, 440 U.S. 1,99 S.Ct. 887 (1979)).
Accordingly, "(t)he more limited protection accorded commercial speech perits the
FTC to act when necessar to challenge false or deceptive advertising." In re Reynolds,
40