The FTC has won a $2.2 million judgment against Wellness Support Network, Inc. as the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California found that WSN’s marketing of dietary supplements to treat and prevent diabetes violated Section 5 of the FTC Act. The FTC said that any money recovered will be used to reimburse consumers.
The court also prohibited WSN and its two principals from claiming that their supplements would treat and prevent diabetes without rigorous proof to support the claims, as well as from making other deceptive claims.
One of the first Federal Trade Commission actions brought under the updated Business Opportunity Rule has led to a settlement that permanently bans the operators of Smart Tools LLC, Kristin Hegg and Curtis Dawn, from deceptive sales practices. The settlement order imposes a $7.4 million judgment that will be suspended when $234,847 has been paid. The full judgment will be due immediately if they are found to have misrepresented their financial condition.
The FTC charged Smart Tools LLC, Hegg and Dawn, with deceptively selling a work-at-home business opportunity that promised buyers earnings up to $38,943 per year as “Government Insurance Refund Processors.” As processors, the buyers of the program would find people eligible for refunds of their mortgage loan insurance premiums and charge a fee for telling them how to get the refunds.
U.S. Marshals in Norcross GA, acting at the request of the FDA, seized $2 million in dietary supplements from Hi-Tech Pharmaceuticals, Inc. According to the FDA, the products contained 1, 3-Dimethylamylamine HCl (DMAA) or its chemical equivalent.
Kevin Trudeau, who in 2010 was ordered by a federal judge to pay more than $37 million for violating a 2004 stipulated order by misrepresenting in infomercials the content of his book, “The Weight Loss Cure They Don’t Want You to Know About,” was found guilty of criminal contempt for violating that order. The jury took less than an hour to reach its verdict, which was read in a Chicago courtroom Nov. 12.
Prosecutors argued Trudeau knowingly violated the order when he used infomercials to tout the book’s plan that would “cure” obesity without requiring a special diet or needing to exercise, even though the book called for limiting calories to 500 a day and required walking an hour a day.
The defense argued that there was no violation, since the statements made in the infomercials were presented as opinions, and thus were protected speech under the First Amendment. In addition, because nothing was said in the infomercials that did not appear in the book, the defense maintained that a Trudeau was not misrepresenting the content of the book.
The Food and Drug Administration has filed a complaint seeking a permanent injunction against James G. Cole, Inc., its president, James G. Cole, and its general manager, Julie D. Graves, to stop the company’s distribution of unapproved drugs and adulterated dietary supplements in violation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
The complaint was filed by the U.S. Department of Justice in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, Portland Division.
The FTC has filed a complaint against the marketers of the HCG Platinum dietary supplements, charging them with deceptive advertising for claiming that using the product will result in substantial weight loss.
The complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, names two corporate defendants, HCG Platinum, LLC and Right Way Nutrition, LLC, company president Kevin Wright, and seven relief defendants the FTC says received money from sales of the HGC products.
The federal district court for the District of Arizona, at the Federal Trade Commission’s request, has frozen the assets of the defendants’ against whom the FTC has alleged falsely promised consumers in the U.S. and Canada that they could make money by referring merchants in their area to a non-existent money-lending service.
The court also appointed a receiver for the operation, which allegedly collected more than $6 million from consumers, as the FTC seeks to shut down the operation permanently and return money to consumers.
Every network marketing company, whether MLM, party plan or hybrid, is fine-tuning their marketing strategy trying to crack the magic nut that is social media. Whether it’s posting a polished Facebook Fan Page or an ad hoc tweet, everyone is getting into the act. But it’s independent distributors who are leading the charge; they have adapted it as their favored communication medium to broadcast their message.
Social media is indeed a communications phenomenon, and there’s simply no stopping it. Unquestionably it can quickly create the much desired “buzz” that every company desires. But direct sellers MUST understand that they are responsible for all the social chatter that goes on. The FTC has made it clear in its testimonials and endorsements guidelines that it will hold a business responsible for statements and representations made by anyone with a “material connection” to a company. Guess what – your distributors definitely have a material connection to your company, and you are responsible for what they are saying!
In January the FTC is filed a lawsuit against Fortune HiTech Marketing (FHTM) alleging that it is a pyramid scheme and that it engaged in false and deceptive practices. As evidence against FHTM, the FTC presented statements and presentations that FHTM’s independent distributors posted on social networks. Among the posts cited by the FTC are:
- A tweet wherein an FHTM distributor allegedly states: “bring ur friends & learn how 2 make $100K a YR.”
- Photos of a check presentation ceremony;
- Distributor photo’s of their commission checks;
- A top-level FHTM distributor claimed on Twitter that he made more than $5 million through FHTM.
It’s very clear that the FTC is monitoring and gathering evidence from social media outlets, and direct sellers MUST take this message to heart. Understand that social media is indeed a communications phenomenon, but you must not let it go unchecked. Your company is responsible for the statements that your sales force posts, so be clear with your field about the rules they must follow. But that’s not enough. In addition, as part of your regular compliance efforts it’s critical that also actively monitor social media posts made by your sales force and take proper measures when improper posts are discovered. After all, the FTC is watching …
For years Montana has required that multilevel distribution companies (MLMs) submit an annual filing with the Securities Division of the Montana State Auditor’s office. The filing was a “notice” filing that provided Montana with the information it felt it needed to identify persons and entities operating MLM businesses in Montana, and further gave the state the tools it believed necessary to investigate MLMs that it believed were problematic.
This May Montana revised its filing statute. It is no longer just a “notice” filing. Rather, Montana law now provides that it is “unlawful” to conduct an MLM business in Montana unless the business files an annual registration. However, there is one very notable exception to the new law; businesses that are members of the Direct Selling Association (DSA) are exempt from registering.
The new statute provides that the Securities Department will provide a form that shall be used for filing. I spoke with Lynn Egan, Montana’s Deputy Commissioner of Securities, and she indicated that they were working on a form that should be available in approximately the middle of June. Once it is available, the state will provide it to those companies that have filed their annual notices. In the meantime, Ms. Egan said MLM companies should continue to use the existing form (Form MLD-1).
All direct selling companies should take this registration requirement to heart. In the past Montana has been serious about its notice filing obligations. The new law has more teeth, so all direct sellers that utilize a multilevel compensation plan should ensure to submit their annual registration to Montana.
Various bloggers and analysts were abuzz last week reporting that Fortune HiTech Marketing (“FHTM”), which is being sued as an illegal pyramid scheme by the Federal Trade Commission and the states of North Carolina, Illinois, and Kentucky, was successful in its motion to have the case moved from the U.S. District Court in Illinois to the U.S. District Court in Kentucky. This may not seem like a big deal. After all, the case was not dismissed; it was just moved from one federal court to another. But in this situation it is a big deal, and it’s good for FHTM.
Since 1996 the FTC has claimed that MLM compensation must be derived from sales to retail customers rather than sales to the company’s own distributors. That position stems from a case decided by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals called Webster vs. Omnitrition. (Note that the FTC argues this position before the courts, but when talking to industry stake-holders, it does not assert such a firm position). In response to the Omnitrition decision, some states have enacted MLM laws that make it clear that an MLM company’s sales to its own distributors, and the payment of commissions on those sales, can indeed be legitimate sales to end-users.
Illinois is not one of the states that specifically identifies sales to an MLM company’s sales force as a proper basis for paying compensation. However, Kentucky law does specifically recognize that sales to a company’s distributors can be a proper source for paying compensation, and is contrary to the FTC’s interpretation of the Omnitrition case. This contrast in state law makes Kentucky a much more favorable forum for FHTM than Illinois.
The FTC will certainly argue that no state law applies in its case against FHTM. Rather, it will claim that prior decisions rendered by the Federal courts govern. The Commission must take this position because the foundation of its go-to expert witness’ opinion relies on the position that all sales to a company’s own sales force do not qualify as bona fide product sales to end-users. But now that the case is in Kentucky, even though it is in a Federal Court rather than a Kentucky State Court, the Court may be more receptive to an argument supported by Kentucky law that the company’s sales to its own sales force can indeed be classified as bona fide end-user sales and not a disguised head-hunting or participation fee. If the Court does take this approach, either wholly or in part, it will undermine the foundation of the FTC’s expert witness’ analysis and make it more difficult for the FTC to prove its case.
Consequently, the order granting FHTM’s change of venue request may have an impact that is far more significant than simply shuffling the case from one federal court to another. An interesting point is that neither the briefs filed by the FTC nor by FHTM point out the impact of Kentucky law. They fail to do so because whether one state’s law is better than another for a party is not a proper consideration in a motion to change venue, so the court would not have considered it had the issue been raised. But rest assured – both sides recognized the significance of moving the case to Kentucky.