201 F. Supp. 3d 1300
D. Wyo.2016Background
- FTC brought §13(b) action alleging false or unsubstantiated efficacy and false proof for Grey Defence dietary supplement.
- COORGA Nutraceuticals Corp., owned by Garfield Coore (65%), developed Grey Defence marketed to reverse/prevent gray hair.
- Coore, sole COORGA employee, controlled all aspects of business, including development, advertising, and substantiation efforts.
- Grey Defence ads ran nationwide via radio, TV, internet; product sold at $69.99 per bottle with multi-bottle discounts; substantial advertising spend and some refunds recorded.
- Coore has planned new products (Grey Defence Xtreme 3.0) and other products (TumorDefence, brain-JOLT!, Sodhalose-C); FTC seeks injunctive relief and consumer redress; court grants summary judgment for FTC and orders negotiating final judgment.
- The court emphasizes Coore’s pervasive involvement and lack of medical/scientific credentials, and notes ongoing and future products indicate likelihood of continued violations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Defendants’ Grey Defence claims were deceptive | FTC argues claims were false/unsubstantiated and likely to mislead | Coore/COORGA contend claims were supported by reasonable basis | Yes; claims unsubstantiated and deceptive as a matter of law |
| What level of substantiation was required for establishment claims | FTC expert Dr. Cotsarelis requires competent evidence and randomized trials for establishment claims | Defendants rely on observational data; argue established basis exists | Defendants lacked adequate substantiation; human clinical trial required for authenticity of establishment claim |
| Whether injunctive relief and consumer redress are appropriate against Coore and COORGA | FTC seeks broad injunctive relief and consumer redress due to recurring deception and control by Coore | Defendants deny broad remedies or personal liability beyond COORGA | Granted; injunctive relief and consumer redress appropriate; Coore personally liable for consumer redress |
Key Cases Cited
- POM Wonderful, LLC v. FTC, 777 F.3d 478 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (substantiation standards for dietary supplements; factual substantiation required)
- Direct Marketing Concepts, Inc., 624 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2010) (general substantiation standards for false advertising claims)
- QT, Inc., 512 F.3d 858 (7th Cir. 2008) (new scientific principles require sufficient proof of efficacy)
- Removatron Int’l Corp., 884 F.2d 1489 (1st Cir. 1989) (establishment claims—specific vs non-specific substantiation)
- Thompson Med. Co., 791 F.2d 189 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (distinguishing efficacy vs establishment claims and Pfizer factors)
- F.T.C. v. Freecom Commc’ns, Inc., 401 F.3d 1192 (10th Cir. 2005) (section 5 deceptive practices; consumer protection goals)