Federal Trade Commission v. QT, Inc.
2008 WL 43583, 512 F.3d 858, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 33 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Federal Trade Commission Act prohibits materially false and misleading statements in advertising, and this prohibition is not excused by the argument that the deception produces a beneficial placebo effect for the consumer.
Facts:
- The promoters of the Q-Ray Ionized Bracelet advertised it as a miraculous cure for chronic pain.
- The promoters' advertisements claimed the bracelet's effectiveness was 'test-proven' and worked through 'Q-Rays' and 'ionization' to enhance 'bio-energy'.
- Scientific analysis showed there are no such things as 'Q-Rays,' the bracelet was not ionized, and the claims about bio-energy were meaningless.
- The promoters falsely claimed the bracelet's properties wear off after two years and that it has a 'memory cycle' specific to the wearer to drive new sales and prevent resale.
- The bracelets, marketed as 'gold' and 'silver', were actually made of brass.
- In infomercials, the promoters offered a 30-day money-back guarantee but provided only a 10-day return period for customers who purchased from their website.
Procedural Posture:
- The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) sued the promoters of the Q-Ray Ionized Bracelet in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
- Following a bench trial, a magistrate judge, presiding by consent, found the defendants' promotional campaign was dishonest.
- The district court enjoined the defendants from making the promotional claims and ordered them to disgorge approximately $16 million in profits.
- The defendants (appellants) appealed the district court's judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does making scientifically baseless and objectively false claims to promote a product violate the Federal Trade Commission Act, even if the product produces a beneficial placebo effect for some consumers?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Judge Easterbrook
Yes. Making scientifically baseless and objectively false claims violates the Federal Trade Commission Act, as the statute contains no exception for 'beneficial deceit' derived from a placebo effect. The court reasoned that the Act is designed to prevent material falsehoods that mislead consumers. The defendants' claims about Q-Rays, ionization, and the bracelet's composition were not just unsubstantiated, but were known falsehoods and 'techno-babble.' While a placebo effect may provide some relief, it does not justify fraud. Such deception harms the market by preventing proper price competition (e.g., charging $200 for a brass item that works no better than a sugar pill) and can lead consumers to forgo more effective, and often cheaper, medical treatments. The court affirmed that sellers making therapeutic claims for a product not based on known scientific principles must provide proof that the product actually works.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the principle that the Federal Trade Commission Act's prohibition on false advertising is absolute and does not accommodate defenses based on 'beneficial' but deceptive practices. It clarifies that while expensive, double-blind studies are not a universal requirement, claims that are scientifically implausible require a high burden of proof from the seller. The case serves as a strong precedent against using the placebo effect as a shield for making objectively false statements about a product's composition, mechanism, or efficacy, emphasizing that consumer protection and market integrity require truthfulness, not just a potentially harmless outcome.
