Complaint Counsel's Post Trial Brief - Federal Trade Commission

Body Systems Tech., Inc., 128 F.T.C. 299 (1999) (shark carilage and cat's claw); In re Nutrivida,
Inc., 126 F.T.C. 339 (1998) (shark carilage); In re Am. Life Nutrition, Inc., 113 F.T.C. 906 (1990)
(bee pollen).
Therefore, Complaint Counsel respectfully request that the Court enter the proposed order
accompanying the Complaint. The undisputed facts and the law warant the relief sought here.
See Telebrands Corp. v. FTC, 457 F.3d 354, 358 (4th Cir. 2006) ("Congress has given the FTC
primar responsibility for devising orders to address... deceptive practices, and the FTC has broad
discretion to do so"); FTC v. Colgate-Palmolive, 380 U.S. 374, 395 (1965) ("reasonable for the
(FTC) to frame its order broadly enough to prevent respondents from engagig in similar ilegal
practices in futue adversements"). The proposed order would prohibit Respondents from
makg the tyes of misrepresentations challenged in the Complaint and provides fencing-in relief,
requirg Respondents to possess competent and reliable scientific evidence supporting futue
claims about the health benefits, perormance, safety, or effcacy of any dietar supplement, food,
drg, or other health-related product, serice, or program. The proposed order also contains
standard provisions regarding record-keeping, dissemation of
the order to offcers and
employees, prior notification of corporate changes, filing compliance reports, and sunsetting of the
order.
THE REST OF THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK.
38