374 F. Supp. 3d 994
D. Nev.2019Background
- The FTC sued OMICS Group Inc., iMedPub LLC, Conference Series LLC, and founder Srinubabu Gedela under Section 5 of the FTC Act for deceptive practices in academic publishing and conference promotion, seeking injunctive and monetary relief.
- The FTC alleged Defendants misrepresented peer review, editorial board membership, indexing (e.g., PubMed/Medline), and impact factors, while obscuring or failing to disclose author publication fees.
- Evidence included archived websites and solicitation emails, consumer complaints and declarations, statements from purported editors who denied affiliation, sting submissions that were accepted without substantive review, and National Library of Medicine refusals to index Defendants’ journals.
- Defendants operated multiple interrelated corporate entities with common addresses, shared resources, and Gedela as sole owner/founding director; the FTC argued they formed a common enterprise and Gedela had authority and knowledge.
- The Court granted the FTC summary judgment, denied Defendants’ summary judgment, struck portions of a counsel declaration as inadmissible, found pervasive deceptive practices, held the corporate defendants jointly and severally liable, and held Gedela individually liable for injunctive and monetary relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendants made deceptive misrepresentations about journal peer review, editors, impact factors, and indexing | Defendants widely represented rigorous peer review, large editorial boards, high impact factors, and indexing in reputable services—representations that were false or misleading | Defendants disputed characterization and relied on buried qualifications, alternative metrics, and some disclosed materials; argued some consumers were not misled | Court: Uncontroverted record shows sham peer review, unauthorized/editor denials, no Thomson Reuters (Clarivate) impact factors, and false indexing claims; summary judgment for FTC |
| Whether defendants misrepresented conference participation and organizers | FTC: conferences advertised participation/organizers without consent; sampling showed many false listings | Defendants contended some invitations or appreciation letters existed and disputed extent of false listings | Court: FTC evidence showed pervasive unauthorized listings (~60% in sample); summary judgment for FTC |
| Whether defendants failed to adequately disclose publication fees when soliciting submissions | FTC: solicitation emails and submission pages often omitted fee disclosures; disclosure practice was not reasonably prominent, causing consumer injury | Defendants claimed fees were disclosed elsewhere (homepage, secondary pages) and some authors saw fees | Court: Net impression and industry practice require clear pre-submission disclosure; omissions/deceptive placement support summary judgment for FTC |
| Whether corporate entities formed a common enterprise and whether Gedela is individually liable for injunction and monetary relief | FTC: common ownership, comingled assets, shared management, and Gedela’s control/support full enterprise and personal liability (knowledge/control) | Defendants disputed distinctions among entities and opposed remedies as overbroad | Court: Entities formed a common enterprise; Gedela had control, knowledge, and signatory authority—liable for injunctive and monetary relief; permanent injunction and $50,130,810 judgment entered |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment standard and weighing evidence)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (movant's initial burden on summary judgment)
- Pantron I Corp. v. FTC, 33 F.3d 1088 (9th Cir. 1994) (express claims presumed material in FTC deception analysis)
- Stefanchik v. FTC, 559 F.3d 924 (9th Cir. 2009) (restitution and proof of consumer injury under FTC Act)
- FTC v. Network Servs. Depot, Inc., 617 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2010) (common enterprise/joint liability factors)
- United States v. W.T. Grant Co., 345 U.S. 629 (U.S. 1953) (standard for permanent injunction where risk of recurrence exists)