This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Consumer Law
Consumer Protection
Deceptive Marketing

Federal Trade Commission v. Bunzai Media Group Inc., Pinnacle Logistics Inc.

Published: Jul. 25, 2015 | Result Date: Jun. 25, 2015 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: CV-15-04527 Bench Decision –  TRO Granted

Court

USDC Central


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Reid A. Tepfer
(Federal Trade Commission)

Dama J. Brown
(Federal Trade Commission)

Luis Gallegos
(Federal Trade Commission)

Jonathan E. Nuechterlein
(Federal Trade Commission)

Raymond E. McKown
(Federal Trade Commission)


Defendant

David B. Dyer

William Rothbard

Robert J. Younger

Marc S. Harris
(Scheper, Kim & Harris LLP)

Kelly M. Crawford


Facts

The Federal Trade Commission filed a complaint against Banzai Media Group Inc. also doing business as Auria Vie, Miracle Face Kit and Attitude Cosmetics, and several other defendants. The FTC sought permanent injunction and other equitable relief under various laws, including the FTC Act, Restore Online Shoppers' Confidence Act, and the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, in connection with defendants' sale of skin care products through a negative option continuity plan.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiff alleged that defendants marketed skincare products over the Internet using deceptive offers, such as hidden costs, negative option features, and return policies. Plaintiff contended that defendants offered "risk-free" trials of skincare products then later refused to issue refunds and charged customers for the full cost of the product. Plaintiff asserted various violations of the law related to defendants' failure to disclose adequately material terms of offer, false "risk-free" trial claim, false Better Business Bureau accreditation and rating claims, unfairly charging customers without authorization, instituting auto-renewal continuity plan, and unauthorized debiting from consumers' accounts.

Result

The court issued a temporary restraining order restraining defendants from further deceiving customers by freezing defendants' assets and appointing a receiver over defendants' business.


#115682

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390