 | |
| Type | Private |
|---|---|
Key people | Que Te "Andrew" Park |
| Products | Ionized bracelet, Sport Socks |
| Website | Official website |
QT Incorporated is the manufacturer of the Q-Ray ionized bracelet and a line of sports socks. It is headed by the infomercial entrepreneur, Que Te "Andrew" Park. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has found the bracelets are part of a scheme devised to defraud consumers. [1] [2]
The company was sued by the Federal Trade Commission in 2003 for false advertising. [3]
Mayo Clinic published a study in 2002 showing definitively that Q-Ray bracelets have no effect upon muscle pain relative to the placebo effect. [4] This study prompted the Federal Trade Commission to impose an injunction on QT Inc. the following year, preventing any further claims regarding pain relief. [3]
On September 8, 2006, a federal judge ordered QT Inc. to pay back $22.5 million "in ill-gotten gains." The defendants could owe even more—up to $87 million—depending on how many Q-Ray customers seek refunds. U.S. Magistrate Judge Morton Denlow wrote a 136-page opinion and concluded: "Park made up the theory that the bracelet works like acupuncture or Eastern medicine. He has no testing or studies to support his theory." Thus, the theory was made "...to defraud consumers out of millions of dollars by preying on their desire to find a simple solution to alleviate their physical pain." [5] On January 3, 2007, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the lower court's ruling. [6]
QT Inc. continues to sell Q-Ray Bracelets online. [7]
Q-Ray also sells Q-Ray Sport Socks which are claimed to enhance energy flow, increase positive energy, increase performance, and make the wearer feel taller. [8]
In the United States, antitrust law is a collection of mostly federal laws that regulate the conduct and organization of businesses to promote competition and prevent unjustified monopolies. The three main U.S. antitrust statutes are the Sherman Act of 1890, the Clayton Act of 1914, and the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914. These acts serve three major functions. First, Section 1 of the Sherman Act prohibits price fixing and the operation of cartels, and prohibits other collusive practices that unreasonably restrain trade. Second, Section 7 of the Clayton Act restricts the mergers and acquisitions of organizations that may substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly. Third, Section 2 of the Sherman Act prohibits monopolization.
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is an independent agency of the United States government whose principal mission is the enforcement of civil (non-criminal) antitrust law and the promotion of consumer protection. The FTC shares jurisdiction over federal civil antitrust enforcement with the Department of Justice Antitrust Division. The agency is headquartered in the Federal Trade Commission Building in Washington, DC.
The ODP Corporation is an American office supply holding company headquartered in Boca Raton, Florida. The company has combined annual sales of approximately $11 billion, and employs about 38,000 associates with businesses in the United States. The company operates 1,400 retail stores, e-commerce sites and a business-to-business sales organization.
Kevin Mark Trudeau is an American author, salesman, and convicted fraudster known for promotion of his books and resulting legal cases involving the US Federal Trade Commission. His ubiquitous late-night infomercials, which promoted unsubstantiated health, diet, and financial advice, earned him a fortune but resulted in civil and criminal penalties for fraud, larceny, and contempt of court.
A laundry ball or washing ball is a product made of solid, insoluble material promoted as a substitute for laundry detergent. Producers of laundry balls often make pseudoscientific claims about their mechanisms of action and exaggerate the extent of their benefits.
BurnLounge, Inc. was a multi-level marketing online music store founded in 2004 and based in New York City. By 2006, the company reported 30,000 members using the site to sell music through its network. In 2007, the company was sued by the Federal Trade Commission for being an illegal pyramid scheme. The company lost the suit in 2012, and lost appeal in June 2014. In June 2015, the FTC began returning $1.9 million to people who had lost money in the scheme. The company is dormant pending additional appeals.
Magnesium salicylate is a common analgesic and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) used to treat mild to moderate musculoskeletal pain such as in tendons and muscles. It is also used to treat joint pain like arthritis, general back pain, and headaches.
Ionized bracelets, or ionic bracelets, are a type of metal bracelet jewelry purported to affect the chi of the wearer. No claims of effectiveness made by manufacturers have ever been substantiated by independent sources, and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has found the bracelets are "part of a scheme devised to defraud".
Sensa is an American brand of diet aid created by Alan Hirsch, an American neurologist and psychiatrist. The product lacks scientific evidence of effect and has been the subject of controversy and lawsuits. Following a $26 million fine by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission in 2014, the company ceased operations.
Fashion Originators' Guild of America v. FTC, 312 U.S. 457 (1941), is a 1941 decision of the United States Supreme Court sustaining an order of the Federal Trade Commission against a boycott agreement among manufacturers of "high-fashion" dresses. The purpose of the boycott was to suppress "style piracy". The FTC found the Fashion Guild in violation of § 5 of the FTC Act, because the challenged conduct was a per se violation of § 1 of the Sherman Act.
Seasilver is the trademarked name of a commercial dietary supplement produced and sold by the companies Seasilver USA, Inc. and Americaloe, Inc.
A hologram bracelet or energy bracelet is a small rubber wristband supposedly fitted with a hologram. Manufacturers have said that the holograms supposedly "optimise the natural flow of energy around the body," and, "improve an athlete's strength, balance and flexibility". Only anecdotal evidence supports these claims and tests performed by the Australian Skeptics, the University of Wales Institute, Cardiff, and the RMIT's School of Health Sciences have been unable to identify any effect on performance.
The Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act is a federal law in the United States aimed at protecting consumers from telemarketing deception and abuse. The act is enforced by the Federal Trade Commission. The act expanded controls over telemarketing and gave more control to prescribe rules to the Federal Trade Commission. After the passage of the act, the Federal Trade Commission is required to (1) define and prohibit deceptive telemarketing practices; (2) keep telemarketers from practices a reasonable consumer would see as being coercive or invasions of privacy; (3) set restrictions on the time of day and night that unsolicited calls can be made to consumers; (4) to require the nature of the call to be disclosed at the start of any unsolicited call that is made with the purpose of trying to sell something.
Power Balance is the original brand of hologram bracelets claimed by its manufacturers and vendors to use "holographic technology" to "resonate with and respond to the natural energy field of the body" to increase athletic performance. Numerous independent studies of the device have found it to be no more effective than placebo for enhancing athletic performance. As a result, in 2010, the Australian distributor, Power Balance Australia Pty Ltd, was forced by the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission (ACCC) to retract any previous claims.
FTC v. Actavis, Inc., 570 U.S. 136 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court decision in which the Court held that the FTC could make an antitrust challenge under the rule of reason against a so-called pay-for-delay agreement, also referred to as a reverse payment patent settlement. Such an agreement is one in which a drug patentee pays another company, ordinarily a generic drug manufacturer, to stay out of the market, thus avoiding generic competition and a challenge to patent validity. The FTC sought to establish a rule that such agreements were presumptively illegal, but the Court ruled only that the FTC could bring a case under more general antitrust principles permitting a defendant to assert justifications for its actions under the rule of reason.
Mitchel v Reynolds (1711) 1 PWms 181 is decision in the history of the law of restraint of trade, handed down in 1711. It is generally cited for establishing the principle that reasonable restraints of trade, unlike unreasonable restraints of trade, are permissible and therefore enforceable and not a basis for civil or criminal liability. It is largely the basis in US antitrust law for the "rule of reason." William Howard Taft, then Chief Judge of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, later US President and then Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, quoted Mitchel extensively when he first developed the antitrust rule-of-reason doctrine in Addyston Pipe & Steel Co. v. United States, which was affirmed in 1899 by the Supreme Court. The doctrine also played a major role in the 1911 Supreme Court case Standard Oil Company of New Jersey v. United States 221 U.S. 1 (1911).
FTC v. Motion Picture Advertising Service Co., 344 U.S. 392 (1953), was a 1953 decision of the United States Supreme Court in which the Court held that, where exclusive output contracts used by one company "and the three other major companies have foreclosed to competitors 75 percent of all available outlets for this business throughout the United States" the practice is "a device which has sewed up a market so tightly for the benefit of a few [that it] falls within the prohibitions of the Sherman Act, and is therefore an 'unfair method of competition' " under § 5 of the FTC Act. In so ruling, the Court extended the analysis under § 3 of the Clayton Act of requirements contracts that it made in the Standard Stations case to output contracts brought under the Sherman or FTC Acts.
Federal Trade Commission v. Qualcomm Incorporated was a noted American antitrust case, in which the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) accused Qualcomm's licensing agreements as anticompetitive, mainly because their practices excluded competition and harmed competitors in the modern chip market, which according to the FTC, violated both Section 1 and Section 2 of the Sherman Act. On May 21, 2019, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California ruled in favor of the plaintiff, the FTC, by alleging that Qualcomm had indeed violated the federal antitrust laws by (1) refusing to license its patents to direct competitors, in its relevant product market (2) by placing an extra fee on rival chip sales through its licensing of its patent, and (3) by entering in an exclusive business deal with Apple from 2011 to 2013. The case was seen as controversial when the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decided to unanimously reverse the decision of the district court by arguing that the FTC failed to prove through its rule of reason analysis that Qualcomm's policies have a considerable negative effect towards the consumer in the CDMA and cellular chips market.
AMG Capital Management, LLC v. FTC, 593 U.S. ___ (2021), was a U.S. Supreme Court case dealing with the ability of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to seek monetary relief for restitution or disgorgement from those that it found in violation of trade practices. The Court ruled unanimously that the FTC had misused its authority granted by the Federal Trade Commission Act under Section 13(b) to obtain monetary relief.
Axon Enterprise, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission is a pending United States Supreme Court case related to administrative law.