Complaint Counsel's Post Trial Brief - Federal Trade Commission

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Body Systems Tech., Inc., 128 F.T.C. 299 (1999) (shark carilage and cat's claw); In re Nutrivida, Inc., 126 F.T.C. 339 (1998) (shark carilage); In re Am. Life Nutrition, Inc., 113 F.T.C. 906 (1990) (bee pollen). Therefore, Complaint Counsel respectfully request that the Court enter the proposed order accompanying the Complaint. The undisputed facts and the law warant the relief sought here. See Telebrands Corp. v. FTC, 457 F.3d 354, 358 (4th Cir. 2006) ("Congress has given the FTC primar responsibility for devising orders to address... deceptive practices, and the FTC has broad discretion to do so"); FTC v. Colgate-Palmolive, 380 U.S. 374, 395 (1965) ("reasonable for the (FTC) to frame its order broadly enough to prevent respondents from engagig in similar ilegal practices in futue adversements"). The proposed order would prohibit Respondents from makg the tyes of misrepresentations challenged in the Complaint and provides fencing-in relief, requirg Respondents to possess competent and reliable scientific evidence supporting futue claims about the health benefits, perormance, safety, or effcacy of any dietar supplement, food, drg, or other health-related product, serice, or program. The proposed order also contains standard provisions regarding record-keeping, dissemation of the order to offcers and employees, prior notification of corporate changes, filing compliance reports, and sunsetting of the order. THE REST OF THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK. 38
VI. CONCLUSION The evidence at tral demonstrated that Respondents have violated Sections 5 and 12 of the FTC Act through their dissemination of unsubstantiated claims that the DCO Products prevent, treat, or cure cancer or tumors. Accordingly, Complaint Counsel respectfully request that this Cour enter the proposed order attached to the Complaint in this case. Dated: May 28, 2009 Respectfully submitted, ~ Leon L. Gordon (212) 60 -2801 Theodore Zang, Jr. (212) 607-2816 Carole A. Paynter (212) 607-2813 David W. Dulabon (212) 607-2814 Elizabeth K. Nach (202) 326-2611 Willam H. Efron (212) 607-2827 Federal Trade Commssion Alexander Hamlton U.S. Custom House One Bowling Green, Suite 318 New York, NY 10004 39
Page 1 and 2:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE
Page 3 and 4:
TABt
Page 5 and 6:
TABLE OF CONTENTS i. Complaint Coun
Page 7 and 8:
14. "The priciples of BioMolecular
Page 9 and 10:
38. Respondents have generated appr
Page 11 and 12:
Respondent DCO "is the ONLY nutrtio
Page 13 and 14:
priced with most other brands but w
Page 15 and 16:
Florida, which Respondent DCO owns.
Page 17 and 18:
C. Respondents Claim That Their Pro
Page 19 and 20:
and the tuor behind my hear has shr
Page 21 and 22:
BioMixx TM. . . GDU Caps TM. . . (d
Page 23 and 24:
east examnation by mamography. On 1
Page 25 and 26:
185. The DCO radio program and the
Page 27 and 28:
211. Universal Nutrtion has not con
Page 29 and 30:
233. Nevertheless, Dr. Miler cautio
Page 31 and 32:
262. When enterng in the MA an acti
Page 33 and 34:
292. Duke made no effort to see whe
Page 35 and 36:
nutrtional supplements and botancal
Page 37 and 38:
352. LaMont acknowledged that there
Page 39 and 40:
383. Dews never has heard of James
Page 41 and 42:
412. Dews is not famliar with any s
Page 43 and 44: 442. There are no indications in Du
Page 45 and 46: 472. LaMont does not know whether B
Page 47 and 48: 114 F.T.C. at 322; Thompson Medical
Page 49 and 50: it was not blinded or placebo-contr
Page 51 and 52: Tech., Inc., 128 F.T.C. 299 (1999)
Page 53 and 54: In the Matter of ) ) DANIEL CHAER O
Page 55 and 56: a. The Adverisements in Question Ma
Page 57 and 58: In the Matter of ) ) DANIEL CHAER O
Page 59 and 60: CCPF ~ 16-18. In 2002, James Feijo
Page 61 and 62: the ter "BioMolecular Nutrtion" to
Page 63 and 64: 1. Claims That the DCO Products Are
Page 65 and 66: above the brain stem. . . has compl
Page 67 and 68: direct statements. Id. at 318 and 3
Page 69 and 70: 12-12A; CCPF ~ 35. Respondents make
Page 71 and 72: c. Respondents Represented that GDU
Page 73 and 74: CCPF ~ 140 (emphasis in bold added)
Page 75 and 76: consistent with the FTC's approach.
Page 77 and 78: not cure the fact that the claims a
Page 79 and 80: fudamental requirements for scienti
Page 81 and 82: competent and reliable scientific e
Page 83 and 84: humans with cancer. CCPF ~ 228. il.
Page 85 and 86: lines of evidence." CCPF ~ 280. LaM
Page 87 and 88: effectiveness ofGDU, BioMixx, Bio*S
Page 89 and 90: adverisements and promotional mater
Page 91 and 92: canot, however, make deceptive stat
Page 93: dosages ofthe DCO Products. CCPF ~~
Page 97 and 98: In the Matter of DANIEL CHAPTER ONE
Page 99 and 100: CX 14 Attachment C to Administrativ
Page 101 and 102: CX33 Emails from DCO relating to FT
Page 103 and 104: 2. James Feijo Owner and President,
show all

Complaint Counsel's Post Trial Brief - Federal Trade Commission

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?