Federal Trade Commission v. Direct Marketing Concepts, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit

No. 09-2172

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,

Plaintiff, Appellee,

v.

DIRECT MARKETING CONCEPTS, INC., d/b/a Today's Health and Direct
Fulfillment; ITV DIRECT, INC., d/b/a Direct Fulfillment; DONALD
W. BARRETT; ROBERT A. MAIHOS; BP INTERNATIONAL, INC.,

Defendants, Appellants,

HEALTHY SOLUTIONS, LLC, d/b/a Direct Business Concepts; HEALTH
SOLUTIONS, INC.; ALEJANDRO GUERRERO, d/b/a Alex Guerrero; MICHAEL
HOWELL; GREG GEREMESZ; TRIAD ML MARKETING, INC.; KING MEDIA,
INC.; ALLEN STERN; LISA STERN; STEVEN RITCHEY,

Defendants.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[Hon. George A. O'Toole, U.S. District Judge]

Before
Boudin, Dyk,* and Thompson,
Circuit Judges.

Peter S. Brooks, with whom Susan W. Gelwick, Christopher F.
Robertson, and Seyfarth Shaw LLP were on brief, for appellants.
Lawrence DeMille-Wagman, Assistant General Counsel for
Litigation, Federal Trade Commission, with whom Willard K. Tom,
General Counsel, and John F. Daly, Deputy General Counsel for
Litigation, were on brief, for appellee.

*
Of the Federal Circuit, sitting by designation.
October 21, 2010
 THOMPSON, Circuit Judge. The Defendants in this case

made millions off infomercials shilling purported panaceas,

products that they claimed cured literally every disease, from

cancer to Parkinson's to obesity. Having been ordered to restore

these millions to the customers they deceived, the Defendants now

raise a multitude of challenges to two decisions of the district

court: first, the court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the

plaintiff Federal Trade Commission (FTC), finding the Defendants

liable for deceptive advertising; and second, the court's

determination of damages after a bench trial on that issue.

Despite the volume of the Defendants' arguments, we find no more

substance in them than the district court found in their

infomercials. We therefore affirm the district court in toto.

I. BACKGROUND

A. The Coral Calcium infomercial.

For purposes of introduction, a fairly simple recitation

of only the uncontested facts will suffice. Greater detail will

follow as necessary in the discussion section.

The Defendants on appeal are Direct Marketing Concepts,

Inc. (DMC), ITV Direct, Inc. (ITV), Donald Barrett, Robert Maihos,

and BP International (BP).1 Barrett and Maihos co-own ITV and DMC,

1
We capitalize the word Defendant to refer to the Defendants on
appeal, using lowercase when non-appellants are included, and

-3-
both Massachusetts corporations; generally, ITV produces

infomercials, and DMC distributes the infomercials, answers calls,

and processes orders. BP is a holding corporation to which Barrett

eventually (and secretly) transferred some of DMC's assets.

Beginning in late 2001, DMC, Barrett, and Maihos became

involved in marketing the product Coral Calcium by producing and

distributing an infomercial promoting that product. These

Defendants then processed calls and sold Coral Calcium to

consumers.

The infomercial for Coral Calcium relied on the purported

expertise of Robert Barefoot. In the infomercial, Barefoot

asserted a number of claims regarding coral-derived calcium2 and

its supposed biological and medical properties. Barefoot claimed

that all diseases are caused by a condition called acidosis:

Are you getting the minerals? And if you're
not, you will become acidic and you will get
one of the major diseases. You can have heart
disease, cancer, lupus, fibromyalgia, multiple
sclerosis. Name the disease, they're all
caused by acidosis.

Barefoot then claimed that calcium derived from Okinawan coral

cures these diseases:

providing clarification as appropriate.
2
The name of the product was not featured in the infomercial,
which only referred generally to the purported healing properties
of calcium derived from coral skeletons harvested off the coast of
Okinawa, Japan.

-4-
 [W]e've been studying the coral calcium and I
can tell you there are tens of millions of
people, millions of testimonials. I've had
1,000 people tell me how they've cured their
cancer. I've witnessed people get out of
wheelchairs with multiple sclerosis just by
getting on the coral.

Barefoot asserted that coral-derived calcium was an effective cure

for these diseases because it renders the body more alkaline,

thereby curing acidosis:

Barefoot: By the time the average American is
35, he has more calcium going out of his body
and into the body and that's when it starts.
By the time he's 60, 98 percent are totally
calcium deficient and that's why we have
people over 60 with heart disease, you know,
Lupus, Parkinson's. All these diseases are
caused by acidosis.

. . .

Trudeau (host3): Pain, talk about pain. Read
in your book if a person has pain, muscle
pain, joint pain –

Barefoot: Yes, yes.

Trudeau: – they take calcium –

Barefoot: Yes.

Trudeau: – their body turns from acid to
alkaline, pain goes away.

Barefoot: That's exactly –

3
Host Kevin Trudeau's issues with the FTC present a whole other
story, set forth in FTC v. Trudeau, 579 F.3d 754, 757-62 (7th Cir.
2009) (including a brief discussion of Trudeau's involvement with
the Coral Calcium infomercial).

-5-
 Trudeau: Is that common?

Barefoot: Yes, yes, very common.

Barefoot went on to claim that coral-derived calcium is superior to

other sources of calcium because it is 100% bioavailable, meaning

that all coral-derived calcium that is ingested is also absorbed

into the body. To bolster his claims, Barefoot noted that

unspecified articles from the Journal of the American Medical

Association and the New England Journal of Medicine "said that

calcium supplements reverse cancer . . . that's a quote."

The infomercial directed potential customers to call an

800 number, on the other end of which DMC-employed telemarketers

would follow a script directing them to tell potential customers

that the product Coral Calcium would be 100% absorbed by their

bodies and would combat degenerative diseases by rendering an

acidic body more alkaline. Telemarketers were also directed to

tell sick customers that they should take higher doses of Coral

Calcium, up to three times the standard dose. During the relevant

time period (from January 2002 to July 2003), the Coral Calcium

infomercial generated $54,034,394.82 in sales, of which

approximately $575,000 were transferred to Defendant BP.

B. The Supreme Greens infomercial.

As with Coral Calcium, the Defendants were involved

collectively in the production and airing of an infomercial for the

-6-
product "Supreme Greens," also called "Supreme Greens with MSM."

ITV produced the infomercial, which Barrett hosted; DMC processed

calls and orders under Maihos's direction.

The infomercial for Supreme Greens relied on the

purported expertise of "Dr." Alejandro Guerrero.4 Like Barefoot,

Guerrero claimed that many major diseases are caused by acidosis,

and that these diseases can be prevented and cured by rendering the

body more alkaline:

Barrett: Dr. Guerrero claims that most chronic
degenerative diseases – such as cancer,
arthritis, diabetes, even the number one
killer out there, heart disease – can and are
being cured . . . .

Guerrero: So if we can change the body's
fluids and tissues to a more alkaline base,
now you have an environment that is no longer
conducive for the proliferation or growth of a
degenerative condition. . . .

Barrett: . . . If I alkalize my body, am I
going to come up with one of these chronic
degenerative diseases?

Guerrero: No.

Barrett: Such as cancer, arthritis –

Guerrero: No. . . . I'm very confident in
saying that, primarily because of the clinical
studies we've done. I've seen it in my – in
my – clinical practice. I've seen it every
day in my clinical practice.

4
The infomercial presented Guerrero as a "Doctor of Oriental
Medicine," but Guerrero did not have any such degree.

-7-
Going beyond even Barefoot, Guerrero also claimed that Supreme

Greens can cause weight loss by restoring alkalinity because "fat

is your body's way of protecting itself from the acidic fluids."

The infomercial directed potential customers to call an

800 number, on the other end of which DMC-employed telemarketers

would follow a script directing them to ask potential customers

about their health issues and then explain how Supreme Greens

supposedly could address those issues. For example, if a customer

said she had cancer, the telemarketer was supposed to respond that

"cancer is acidosis of the body and Supreme Greens alkalizes the

body, and that's what you need, so you really want to take this."

During the relevant time period (August 2003 to June 2004), Supreme

Greens generated $14,683,436.24 in sales.

C. The FTC action.

In June 2004, the FTC filed a complaint in the United

States District Court for the District of Massachusetts against a

number of parties,5 alleging violations of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C.

§§ 45 and 52. The FTC sought both injunctive relief and monetary

equitable relief in order to redress customers who had purchased

Coral Calcium or Supreme Greens in reliance on the Defendants'

5
Including, among others, the Defendants on appeal as listed
above, as well as Triad ML Marketing, Inc. (Triad), a corporation
which will become relevant later.

-8-
allegedly deceptive infomercials. In July 2008, the district court

granted summary judgment against the Defendants on the issue of

liability, holding that the challenged infomercials were misleading

as a matter of law. In August 2009, after a bench trial, the

district court entered two Final Orders and Judgments permanently

enjoining the Defendants from running their deceptive infomercials

and ordering disgorgement from the Defendants (excluding BP) in the

amount of $48,220,499.12 and from BP in the amount of $574,274.23.

The Defendants now appeal.

II. DISCUSSION

The Defendants take a shotgun approach to their appeal,

asserting that: (1) the district court applied an incorrect

standard in finding them liable for deceptive advertising; (2) the

record contained issues of fact as to whether they possessed

sufficient substantiation for the claims asserted in the

infomercials; (3) the claims made in the infomercials were mere

puffery and were mollified by disclaimers, and therefore were not

actionable; (4) Maihos is not individually liable as a matter of

law; (5) the district court erred in calculating damages on the

basis of the Defendants' gross receipts rather than net profits;

(6) the district court erred in determining damages from January

2002 to February 2003; (7) the district court erred in determining

-9-
damages from March 2003 to July 2003; and (8) the district court

erred in determining damages from August 2003 to June 2004.

The FTC seeks to uphold the judgment of the district

court in all respects, asserting that: (1) the district court

applied a correct standard in finding the Defendants liable for

deceptive advertising; (2) the record contained vast swaths of

uncontradicted evidence supporting the Defendants' lack of adequate

substantiation for the claims asserted in the infomercials; (3) the

claims in the infomercials were specific and definite and therefore

not exempted from liability under the puffery or disclaimer rules;

(4) as half-owner and officer of DMC, Maihos is individually

liable; (5) the district court has broad discretion to fashion an

equitable remedy, and exercised the discretion appropriately and in

accordance with precedent; (6) the district court did not err in

determining damages from January 2002 to February 2003; (7) the

district court did not err in determining damages from March 2003

to July 2003; and (8) the district court did not err in determining

damages from August 2003 to June 2004.

This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We

review de novo both the district court's decision to grant a

summary judgment motion, see Zimmerman v. Puccio, 613 F.3d 60, 70

(1st Cir. 2010), and the district court's legal determinations

after a bench trial, overturning the district court's factual

-10-
determinations after a bench trial only in the case of clear error,

see Wojciechowicz v. United States, 582 F.3d 57, 66 (1st Cir.

2009). Applying these familiar standards to the Defendants'

arguments as appropriate, we see no need to diverge from the

district court on any point.

A. The "reasonable basis" test is appropriate for deceptive
advertising claims.

The Defendants challenge both the legal and factual bases

for the district court's grant of summary judgment. We begin by

teasing out the applicable law.

Our starting point is the FTC statute, which provides

that both "unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting

commerce" (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)(1)) and "disseminat[ing], or caus[ing]

to be disseminated, any false advertisement . . . in or having an

effect upon commerce" (15 U.S.C. § 52(a)) are "unlawful." 15

U.S.C. § 55 defines the term "false advertisement" as "an

advertisement, other than labeling, which is misleading in a

material respect . . . ." Given the strong similarity between the

terms "deceptive" and "misleading", it is no surprise that sections

45 and 52 are sometimes applied in tandem as the basis for an FTC

action against an alleged false advertiser; indeed, such a tandem

reading is expressly allowed by 15 U.S.C. § 52(b).

-11-
 When the FTC brings an action based on the theory that

advertising is deceptive because the advertisers lacked a

reasonable basis for their claims, the FTC must: (1) demonstrate

"what evidence would in fact establish such a claim in the relevant

scientific community"; and (2) "compare[] the advertisers'

substantiation evidence to that required by the scientific

community to see if the claims have been established." Removatron

Intern. Corp. v. FTC, 884 F.2d 1489, 1498 (1st Cir. 1989) (applying

to administrative determination of deceptive advertising); see also

FTC v. Garvey, 383 F.3d 891, 901 (9th Cir. 2004) (applying the same

test to claims by FTC in court). Where the advertisers lack

adequate substantiation evidence, they necessarily lack any

reasonable basis for their claims. See Removatron, 884 F.2d at

1498. And where the advertisers so lack a reasonable basis, their

ads are deceptive as a matter of law. Id.

The Defendants argue that there is a third prong to a

deceptive advertising claim, asserting that the FTC was required –

and failed – to prove that the infomercials were actually false.

However, that argument is at odds with the cases cited above.

Indeed, the Defendants cannot point to any source adequate to

disrupt the FTC's and district court's firm grounding in case law.6

6
The Defendants do cite to a footnote in FTC v. Enforma Natural
Products, Inc., 362 F.3d 1204 (9th Cir. 2004), for the proposition

-12-
 Instead, the Defendants cite haphazardly to a federal

statute (the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994,

Pub. L. No. 103-417, 108 Stat. 4325), whose legal relevance (if

any) the Defendants never explain, and to a smattering of First

Amendment case law, without engaging in any application of those

sources or attempting to produce so much as a rough sketch of a

rule that might support their proposition. We can make neither

heads nor tails of these citations, which have no clear relevance

and which are completely devoid of context or developed argument.

We therefore hold that the Defendants have waived any argument they

might have raised under those sources, if any exists. See, e.g.,

United States v. Zannino, 895 F.2d 1, 17 (1st Cir. 1990) ("[I]ssues

adverted to in a perfunctory manner, unaccompanied by some effort

at developed argumentation, are deemed waived.").

that the FTC must prove actual falsity. Id. at 1217 n.14.
However, the Ninth Circuit's footnoted aside is grounded in the
earlier case FTC v. Pantron I Corp., 33 F.3d 1088 (9th Cir. 1994),
in which the court recognized that the FTC had abandoned a
reasonable basis claim and was expressly proceeding on a theory of
actual falsity. See 33 F.3d at 1096 ("discuss[ing] only the
falsity theory" because "the F.T.C. clearly and expressly abandoned
the reasonable basis theory"). Thus, Pantron recognized the
distinction between a reasonable basis approach – the approach the
FTC favors here – and a falsity approach. See id. And, contra the
bald assertion in Enforma, the Pantron court stated plainly that "a
false advertisement need not even be false; it need only be
misleading in a material respect." 33 F.3d at 1099 (internal
quotation marks omitted). Thus, the statement in Enforma on which
the Defendants rely is not only dicta, but also incorrect.

-13-
 In light of the Defendants' failure to raise any

principled objection to the "reasonable basis" framework, which was

carefully applied by the district court, the remainder of our

analysis will follow that framework.

B. The Defendants produced no actual substantiation for their
health claims.

We must now consider the application of the Removatron

"reasonable basis" test to the record on summary judgment. To

recap, under this test (and applying the summary judgment

standard), we must determine whether there was uncontroverted

evidence regarding: (1) what sort of evidence would scientifically

establish the claims the Defendants made in their infomercials; and

(2) whether the Defendants were actually possessed of such

evidence. See Removatron, 884 F.2d at 1498. It is uncontested

that the Defendants asserted the following claims in their

infomercials: (1) coral-derived calcium supplements cure cancer,

multiple sclerosis, and other degenerative diseases by rendering

acidic bodies more alkaline, and they are 100% absorbed by the

human body; and (2) Supreme Greens cure cancer and cause weight

loss by rendering acidic bodies more alkaline. If these claims are

not supported by sufficient scientific evidence, then liability

follows. The Defendants claim that there are issues of fact on

both prongs as applied to both infomercials.

-14-
 On the first prong, the FTC produced four expert

declarations which demonstrated that the claims could be

substantiated by double-blind, placebo-controlled human studies.

Specifically, Dr. Richard Wood averred that "[i]t is generally

accepted that human studies are required to support a scientific

finding concerning the bioavailability of a test compound in the

human body." Dr. Maryfran Sowers provided specific examples of the

scientific standards for, e.g., a chemical compound's effect on

heart health: "It is generally accepted among scientists that for

a test compound or product to be considered as having a clinically

meaningful effect on blood pressure, the changes in blood pressure

caused by the compound or test must reach certain established

thresholds," which she then described in numerical detail. Dr.

Sowers outlined other contours of reliability, noting that

prospective studies of 50,000 and 90,000 subjects were "considered

very reliable because of the large cohort involved and the breadth

of information collected," whereas "the early data collected in a

longitudinal study is scientifically suspect until adequate

temporal distance is established between when the calcium intake

data was collected and the time when new or incident blood pressure

could develop." Dr. Landon King averred that "[i]n order to

evaluate whether an intervention compound . . . changed the pH

balance of the body, researchers would develop a protocol for a

-15-
controlled clinical trial that would measure the subjects' pH

balance prior to receiving the test compound (or placebo) and at an

appropriate period(s) after receiving either the test compound or

a placebo." Dr. King noted specifically that "[i]n order to claim

that a product increases alkalinity, reasonable scientists would

expect the product to have been subject to such an appropriate

clinical study." Dr. Barrie Cassileth averred that "[t]he most

scientifically valid way to determine whether Supreme Greens (or

any other product) produces any results is a double-blind, placebo

controlled study."

To be sure, there may be other scientific evidence that

could be sufficient, and we may assume for these purposes that a

double-blind study is not necessarily required. But the government

established that some scientific evidence is required for

substantiation, and thus satisfied the first prong of the

Removatron test. Because the FTC produced affidavits which are

more than adequate on their face to satisfy the first prong of a

"reasonable basis" claim, and because the Defendants neither

produced nor pointed to any evidence to raise even the tiniest of

fact issues, summary judgment was appropriate on the first prong.

On the second prong, the FTC relied on the same four

expert declarations, in which the experts compared the Defendants'

evidence to the available literature and concluded in each case

-16-
that the Defendants' evidence was woefully inadequate. The experts

specifically opined that: (1) there was some evidence that calcium

might help to prevent colorectal cancer but no evidence that

calcium cures cancer; (2) there was some evidence that calcium

might lower blood pressure but none that it cures heart disease;

(3) there was no evidence whatsoever that calcium has any effect on

autoimmune disorders; (4) there has been no research published in

the Journal of the American Medical Association or the New England

Journal of Medicine indicating that calcium "reverses" cancer; (5)

there is no evidence that any kind of calcium is 100% absorbed; (6)

there is no evidence that any disease is caused by "an overly

acidic body"; (7) there is no evidence that alkalinity cures cancer

or heart disease; (8) there is no evidence that any ingredient of

Supreme Greens can prevent, treat, or cure cancer, heart disease,

or diabetes; and (9) there is no evidence that Supreme Greens may

cause weight loss.

The record contains a slew of other documents, including

excerpts from Barefoot's books, excerpts from Barefoot's deposition

testimony, excerpts from Guerrero's deposition testimony, a number

of popular science and pseudoscientific articles, and one

preliminary study. The Defendants claim that this evidence

provided them with a reasonable basis for accepting the

infomercials' claims as true. However, it is clear that none of

-17-
this material comes close to establishing an issue of fact

regarding the Defendants' woefully inadequate substantiation

evidence.

Barefoot's books present jumbles of quotes from

scientists, scientific review articles, and scientific studies

interspersed with references to Reader's Digest and other

general-consumption reductions of these studies. His sources

support such uncontroversial propositions as "[t]he connection

between the electrical activity of the cell and the release of the

neurotransmitter is not direct; an essential intermediary is the

calcium ion." Robert R. Barefoot & Carl J. Reich, The Calcium

Factor (2000) (internal citation removed) (emphasis Barefoot's).

However, none of these scientists or studies supports the panacean

claims made in the Coral Calcium infomercial; the claims are

extrapolations, distortions, and sometimes, seemingly, utter

fabrications. It appears to be no accident that neither Barefoot,

nor any Defendant, nor any of the Defendants' attorneys has at any

point in these proceedings identified any particular scientific

study or studies to support the specific claims presented in the

Coral Calcium infomercial. Indeed, Barefoot's deposition testimony

primarily relies on appeals to generic authority; his standard

rhetorical practice is to assert that there are myriad studies that

-18-
support a given claim, without identifying any specifically.7 When

pressed for specificity, he generally refers the questioner to his

books.8 Nowhere in the record is there any support for, e.g., the

following propositions: all diseases are caused by acidosis;

calcium supplements cure cancer; calcium supplements cure multiple

sclerosis; or coral-derived calcium is 100% absorbed into the body.

Guerrero's testimony is even less compelling, given that

he relies primarily on his own general experience as an alternative

medicine practitioner, without reference to any studies at all.

The Defendants make much of a double-blind, controlled, but also

unpublished and preliminary study, which they assert supports the

health claims advanced in the Supreme Greens infomercial; however,

the study found, based on a sample size of sixteen people, that one

of the ingredients in Supreme Greens – Methyl-Sulfonyl-Methane, or

7
For example, Barefoot claims that he "hired the No. 1 scientist
in America . . . and he did a peer-review study all over the world
and came up with thousands and thousands of references"; and that
"I could load you up where it would take you ten years to get out
of this building before you read all the people that say calcium
prevents cancer"; and that "[t]ens of thousands of scientists are
saying that [calcium prevents cancer], and I can show you the
documents."
8
For example, when asked about the public availability of these
uncountable studies, Barefoot said "I have just finished a book
called Let's Cure Humanity, in which I give you 1,000 scientific
references. You're asking for them. I'm giving them to you. I
will also give you 100 scientific quotations from the world's best
scientists, and the quotations are startling: reverses PMS, it
reverses cancer; that it reverses diabetes . . . ."

-19-
MSM – might relieve arthritis pain and was therefore worthy of

further study. This study on its face is grossly insufficient to

support the Defendants' claims of Supreme Greens' efficacy in

treating all diseases. And even the abstracts and excerpts from

pseudoscientific articles, published in journals such as the

non-peer reviewed and now-defunct Healthy & Natural Journal and

Natural Way for Better Health, do not support the specific claims

made in either infomercial — e.g., there is no support for the

claims that the product Supreme Greens or any of their ingredients

cure cancer, cure heart disease, or cause weight loss by alkalizing

the body and thereby curing its need for fat as a protection

against acid.

Given the complete absence of support for the vast

majority of the Defendants' health claims – which absence the FTC's

four experts also testified to on the basis of their own literature

reviews – we easily could conclude that the Defendants lacked

adequate substantiation under even the most lax standard of

scientific reliability. Here, however, the FTC produced evidence

establishing a rigorous standard of scientific reliability, and the

record reveals that the Defendants fell well and unquestionably

short of this standard. In all, the strong evidence establishing

a scientific standard for evaluating the Defendants' advertising

claims, the overwhelming evidence supporting the Defendants' lack

-20-
of substantiation evidence, and the failure of the Defendants to

indicate any evidence to raise an issue of fact on either point,

compel the legal conclusion that the Defendants lacked a reasonable

basis for the health claims they used to sell their products. Cf.

Removatron, 884 F.2d at 1498. The Defendants therefore engaged in

deceptive advertising as a matter of law. See id.

C. The Defendants made specific health claims which were not cured
by general disclaimers.

The Defendants attempt to head off the above analysis by

asserting that their infomercials advanced no actual health claims

but, instead, presented only puffery which was further attenuated

by the presence of general disclaimers. Where a claim is merely

"exaggerated advertising, blustering, and boasting upon which no

reasonable buyer would rely," it may be un-actionable puffery. See

Clorox Co. Puerto Rico v. Proctor & Gamble Comm. Co., 228 F.3d 24,

38 (1st Cir. 2000) (quotation marks omitted). However, "specific

and measurable" claims and claims that may be literally true or

false are not puffery, and may be the subject of deceptive

advertising claims. Id. (quotation marks omitted). As set forth

above, passim, the Defendants' infomercials presented specific and

measurable health claims. These claims included definite

statements that coral calcium cures cancer, autoimmune diseases,

and pain by rendering acidic bodies more alkaline, as well as

-21-
statements that Supreme Greens cure cancer, heart disease, and

cause weight loss by rendering acidic bodies more alkaline. Due to

their specificity and concreteness, such claims go far beyond

puffery as a matter of law. See id. at 39.

The presence of disclaimers does not provide any more

assistance to the Defendants. This court has held that

"[d]isclaimers or qualifications in any particular ad are not

adequate to avoid liability unless they are sufficiently prominent

and unambiguous to change the apparent meaning of the claims and to

leave an accurate impression. Anything less is only likely to

cause confusion by creating contradictory double meanings."

Removatron, 884 F.2d at 1497. The disclaimers at issue here did

nothing to affect the meaning of the infomercials' health claims

and were not even sufficient to cause confusion, given the clarity

and concreteness of the claims. The infomercial transcripts reveal

only disclaimers that the infomercials are paid advertising. The

Defendants have presented no concrete evidence of any other

attenuating messages.9 In contrast, the health claims were bold

9
The Defendants' brief claims that the infomercials contained
"disclaimers that stated the shows . . . expressed the opinions of
the speakers, and that the products were not intended to diagnose,
treat or cure any disease." The brief contains no record cites,
and the only relevant evidence below (not included in the appendix
but pointed out at oral argument) is an affidavit from Luke
Goljian, who testified that one version of the Supreme Greens
infomercial – the ninth edit, which was "sent out on several

-22-
and straightforward, presented by supposed experts as testable

observations backed up by clinical trials and studies. Given the

Defendants' lack of substantiation for these concrete claims framed

by do-nothing disclaimers, we affirm the district court's grant of

summary judgment on the issue of the Defendants' liability for

deceptive advertising.

D. Maihos is individually liable as an owner and corporate officer
who lacked appropriate substantiation.

The Defendants present one last argument on liability,

arguing that the district court erred in holding Maihos

individually liable. Individual liability for deceptive

advertising is appropriate where an individual (1) was a corporate

officer with the capacity to make decisions regarding the

challenged conduct, and (2) knew or should have known that there

was no reasonable basis for the deceptive claims. See, e.g., FTC

v. Publishing Clearing House, Inc., 104 F.3d 1168, 1170 (9th Cir.

occasions to stations" during an indeterminate time frame – did
include disclaimers fitting the description in the brief. But even
assuming that these disclaimers actually accompanied either of the
challenged infomercials – despite the absence of any concrete
support for that proposition in the record – such disclaimers would
not leave an accurate impression but instead would only cause
confusion. Cf. Removatron, 884 F.2d at 1497. A statement that
studies prove a product cures a certain disease, followed by a
disclaimer that the statement is opinion and the product actually
does not cure the disease, leaves an overall impression of
nonsense, not clarity.

-23-
1997). The FTC produced ample support for each proposition, and

the Defendants produced no evidence to the contrary.

The FTC produced evidence that Maihos was a 50% owner of

DMC and ITV, that he controlled both companies' purse strings and

day-to-day operations, and that he was the contact for an attorney

retained to review the infomercials for their legality under

federal trade law.10 Maihos (ignoring his status as an officer and

half-owner of DMC) focuses on gaps in his responsibilities, relying

on, e.g., his testimony that he did not edit the content of

advertising. This is simply irrelevant. The question is whether

he could have nipped the offending infomercials in the bud; the FTC

produced evidence that he could, and he has produced no evidence —

10
Maihos also seeks to rely on two district court cases, both of
which found straw officers and owners not individually liable. See
FTC v. QT, Inc., 448 F. Supp. 2d 908, 973 (N.D.Ill. 2006)
(corporate officer who "had no involvement in the actions that led
to corporate liability" and "has no set position and provides help
around the office" not liable); United States v. Building Inspector
of America, Inc., 894 F. Supp. 507, 519-20 (D.Mass. 1995) (finding
liability where "founder and president['s]" claim of no involvement
was "entirely implausible"; finding issue of fact as to liability
for vice president with no evidence of actual authority or direct
involvement; and finding no liability for treasurer with no
evidence of any authority or any involvement). Building Inspector
recognizes individual liability for a "founder and president." See
894 F. Supp. at 519. In addition to being a founder, Maihos was
the founding president of DMC. Maihos's extensive duties,
involvement, and ownership interest in the corporate Defendants
bring him entirely outside the ambit of these non-controlling cases
to the extent they find no liability for corporate officers. Cf.
id.

-24-
even his own testimony — to indicate that he couldn't. See FTC v.

Freecom Comm., Inc., 401 F.3d 1192, 1205 (10th Cir. 2005) (finding

individual liability where "[e]verybody knew that [the defendant]

was the principal shareholder of the company and his opinions and

advice and direction were listened to very carefully and were

generally followed or heeded").

On the second prong, Maihos's knowledge, the FTC produced

Maihos's own deposition testimony admitting that DMC did not have

any substantiation for the claims made in either infomercial.

Maihos also testified about an email he received from his then-

girlfriend, a registered dietitian. The email provides both direct

and circumstantial evidence of Maihos's knowledge. The email is

direct evidence that the girlfriend informed Maihos that "[c]alcium

from anything cannot be 100 percent bioavailable" and that

"[t]here's no evidence at all that Coral Calcium is better than

ordinary calcium or has any special health-boosting properties."

The girlfriend also asked Maihos, "do you think there is a product

([over the counter] no less) that can prevent heart disease,

diabetes, arthritis AND cancer?" Maihos testified that he

dismissed the email as mere skepticism. However, the email is also

circumstantial evidence that Maihos actually requested the

information from the girlfriend, who consulted third parties on

Maihos's behalf. The email begins, "Hello, as requested here are

-25-
the responses I got." It also attached an email from the address

Wic-talk@NAL.USDA.GOV, which a quick internet search reveals is an

electronic discussion group promoted by the United States

Department of Agriculture "for use by individuals involved in

providing nutrition services." See WIC-Talk,

http://www.nal.usda.gov/wicworks/Talk/index.html (last visited Oct.

19, 2010). Thus, the imputed exchange giving rise to the

girlfriend's email implies that Maihos himself questioned the

infomercials' claims. The FTC also produced evidence that Maihos

had attended DMC meetings regarding the production of "clean" and

"re-edited" versions of the infomercials while earlier versions of

the infomercials still ran. Finally, the FTC produced evidence

that an attorney suggested to Maihos in October 2003, well before

the Defendants pulled the Supreme Greens infomercial off the air,11

that the Supreme Greens infomercial required voluminous support and

advanced "BS" claims.

Again, the Defendants point to nothing that might

challenge any of this evidence, relying instead on Maihos's

protestations that he sincerely believed in the infomercials'

11
For example, there is evidence in the record that Donald Barrett
sent an email to "All Managers" on February 23, 2004, stating that
"[w]e should now be using the original version Supreme Greens" and
that a new version would "be testing in April or the beginning of
next qtr."

-26-
health claims. It is true that two district court cases support

the proposition that sincere belief may be an element in the

individual liability calculus; however, even sincere belief is not

sufficient here to overcome the overwhelming evidence that Maihos

knew or, at the very least, should have known that the infomercials

lacked any reasonable basis in scientific fact. See FTC v. Medical

Billers Network, Inc., 543 F. Supp. 2d 283, 320-22 (S.D.N.Y. 2008)

(finding individual liability); FTC v. Patriot Alcohol Testers,

Inc., 798 F. Supp. 851, 860 n.3 (D.Mass. 1992). This is

particularly so given that the patent ridiculousness of the

infomercials' health claims was presented multiple times by

multiple people to Maihos, who chose to remain willfully blind.

Thus, there is no question that Maihos knew that the infomercials'

claims lacked substantiation, that he had the authority to control

DMC and ITV, and, nevertheless, that he did little or nothing. The

district court did not err in holding Maihos individually liable

for deceptive advertising, and we affirm.

E. Gross receipts are an appropriate basis for calculating damages.

Turning now to the issue of damages, the Defendants begin

by arguing that damages for deceptive advertising are limited to

actual profits, not gross receipts. If this were so, then at least

part of the district court's damages award would be erroneous.

However, the law allows for broad discretion in fashioning a remedy

-27-
for deceptive advertising; many cases uphold rescission

(effectively, restoring the parties to pre-sale status) or

restitution (under these facts, the same) as appropriate remedies.

See Trudeau, 579 F.3d at 771 (noting that "[c]onsumer loss is a

common measure for civil sanctions in contempt proceedings and

direct FTC actions" and listing cases). Thus, consumer loss, as

represented by the Defendants' gross receipts, would appear to be

an appropriate measure of damages.

Nevertheless, the Defendants ask us to rely on FTC v.

Verity Int'l, Ltd., 443 F.3d 48 (2d Cir. 2006), for the proposition

that the FTC's remedy is limited to the Defendants' profits rather

than their gross receipts. Verity's limited rule does not apply

here.

In Verity, a series of unrelated, non-party middlemen

partook of the proceeds from the defendants' scheme before the

defendants themselves got a bite. See 443 F.3d at 53 (describing

the relationship as a "multitiered, cascading-payment structure").

The court found this payment structure highly relevant to the issue

of damages, noting that "in many cases in which the FTC seeks

restitution, the defendant's gain will be equal to the consumer's

loss" but casting Verity's facts as an exception limited to the

situation "when some middleman not party to the lawsuit takes some

of the consumer's money before it reaches a defendant's hands."

-28-
Id. at 68 (emphasis added); see also Trudeau, 579 F.3d at 772

(describing Verity as holding only that "certain circumstances

require courts to limit disgorgement to the defendant's profits").

Here, the Defendants seek to inflate Verity's exception so that it

overshadows the rule.

We are not persuaded. Because this set of facts lacks

the non-party middleman that gave rise to the exception in Verity,

we will follow the general rule. Here, the Defendants on appeal

took in proceeds directly, except for roughly one year when fellow

defendant (but non-appellant) Triad processed Coral Calcium orders.

The FTC introduced ample evidence of the overall proceeds from

Coral Calcium during this period; however, the parties' financial

records were in such disarray that the actual split among the

parties could not be determined.12 The Defendants on appeal now

claim that Triad siphoned off the vast majority of the proceeds,

leaving them holding an empty bag, but we cannot tell whether this

is the case. Because every entity that had received consumer money

was a defendant, the district court held that gross receipts were

an appropriate measure of damages; because records were unclear as

to how much consumer money each defendant received, the district

12
The FTC perhaps ought to have made more of an effort to nail down
the details of the parties' finances during discovery, as we also
note infra at 37-38, but there is no question that the primary
fault lies with the Defendants.

-29-
court evenly split the total receipts between DMC and Triad for the

time period when Triad acted as a middleman. This was consistent

with Verity and within the bounds of the district court's

discretion in fashioning an equitable remedy. See Freecom, 401

F.3d at 1202 n.6 (noting that the FTC Act's "grant of authority to

provide injunctive relief carries with it the full range of

equitable remedies, including the power to grant consumer

redress").

Thus, the district court committed no error in resting

its damages determination on the Defendants' gross receipts rather

than their net profits, and we will proceed to review the court's

calculation of what those gross receipts actually were. To

determine the appropriate amount of damages in deceptive

advertising cases, courts apply a burden-shifting scheme. First,

the FTC must provide the court with a reasonable approximation of

damages.13 See FTC v. Febre, 128 F.3d 530, 535 (7th Cir. 1997).

Both gross receipts and net customer loss are appropriate measures.

See id.; Freecom, 401 F.3d at 1206. Once a reasonable

13
The Defendants argue that the district court did not hold the FTC
to its initial burden of proving a reasonable approximation of
damages, and therefore that the court engaged in premature burden
shifting by relying on the Defendants' disheveled records as
proffered by the FTC. This argument has no merit, as we uphold in
each instance the evidentiary basis for the damages award and find
that the FTC presented sufficient evidence to demonstrate a
reasonable approximation of damages.

-30-
approximation of damages has been provided, the defendant has an

opportunity to demonstrate that the figures are inaccurate. See

Febre, 128 F.3d at 535. Any fuzzy figures due to a defendant's

uncertain bookkeeping cannot carry a defendant's burden to show

inaccuracy. See id. The district court and all parties find a

rare point of agreement in the notion that this exercise may be

broken down into three constituent time periods – January 2002 to

February 2003, March 2003 to July 2003, and August 2003 to June

2004 – each of which we will address in turn.

F. The district court's determination of damages from January 2002
to February 2003 was not erroneous.

The Defendants first challenge the propriety of the

damages award for sales of Coral Calcium from January 2002 to

February 2003, during which time DMC and fellow defendant (but non-

appellant) Triad cooperated to sell Coral Calcium. The FTC

introduced Exhibit 185 to support a finding that these defendants

collectively received $40.9 million from sales of Coral Calcium

from January 2002 to February 2003. A witness – Steven Ritchey,

Triad's vice president in charge of accounting – testified that

gross receipts from this time period were $40.9 million. Even

Defendant Barrett testified that gross receipts from this time

period were around $40 million. The district court credited all of

the above, found that gross receipts were $40.9 million, found that

-31-
the records were unclear on the exact division of proceeds between

DMC and Triad, and therefore judiciously split the award in two.

This was all well within the court's discretion, and the Defendants

do not raise any serious argument to the contrary.

The Defendants do challenge Exhibit 185 as improperly

admitted. Although there is adequate evidence to support the

district court's determination even absent Exhibit 185, we will

briefly explain why that exhibit's admission was appropriate. Fed.

R. Evid. 803(6) provides that business records may be admissible if

certified according to Fed. R. Evid. 902(11). Rule 902(11)

provides that "a duplicate of a domestic record of regularly

conducted activity" is admissible "if accompanied by a written

declaration of its custodian or other qualified person." This

declaration must establish that the document:

(A) was made at or near the time of the
occurrence of the matters set forth by, or
from information transmitted by, a person with
knowledge of those matters; (B) was kept in
the course of the regularly conducted
activity; and (C) was made by the regularly
conducted activity as a regular practice.

Fed. R. Evid. 902(11).

The Defendants do not and cannot dispute that a

declaration from Ilesh Sanghavi, who worked for Triad as an

accountant, touched each of these elements, providing a solid basis

-32-
in the record supporting the district court's decision.14 Instead,

the Defendants take issue with the FTC's declarant's wording (use

of "believe" and failure to use the magic words "regular course of

business"), the format of the exhibit (arguing that CDs are not

produced in the regular course of business), and their own

speculation that the exhibit might include third party data. None

of these arguments provides any reason that we can discern to

override the district court's exercise of discretion; the only one

that might have any legal basis is the third party data argument,

which nevertheless fails.15 Similarly, the Defendants protest the

FTC's relatively late submission of the authenticating affidavit

without actually suggesting that they have suffered any prejudice

14
Specifically, the declaration identifies the documents as
spreadsheets containing Triad's financial data and further
provides: (A) that from June 2000 to July 2005, the declarant
entered Triad's financial data into spreadsheets, maintained
Triad's accounting records, and oversaw all of Triad's employees
who did any accounting work; (B) that the declarant and Triad kept
and regularly relied on these spreadsheets and the data they
contained; and (C) that the data were entered into the spreadsheets
almost daily.
15
Although some circuits have extended the business records
exception beyond its original formulation, see, e.g., United States
v. Adefehinti, 510 F.3d 319, 326 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (explaining that
"a record of which a firm takes custody is . . . 'made' by the firm
within the meaning of the rule . . . and thus is admissible if all
the other requirements are satisfied" and listing cases to that
effect), we need not reach that question. The records at issue
here were so intimately integrated into Triad and the Defendants'
own records that they were reliable enough to be admissible without
the need to consider any such extension.

-33-
or otherwise indicating that their protestations would support

reversal or remand. Again, we are reminded of and apply the

principle that insufficiently developed arguments are waived.

Zannino, 895 F.2d at 17.

The Defendants also argue that they met their burden of

demonstrating the inaccuracy of the FTC's figures by arguing that

DMC and Triad split only the proceeds from Coral Calcium sales, not

the gross receipts; however, they point to no hard evidence to

support this assertion, nor do they present any counter to the

argument that they could have been held liable for the whole $40.9

million under joint and several liability. How to weigh the

evidence is a question of fact on which we must defer to the

district court. And, in the end, the district court had plenty of

good reasons for its determination of damages from January 2002 to

February 2003, the Defendants have presented no good reasons to

upset that determination,16 and we need go no further in order to

affirm.

16
Least of all the Defendants' argument based on their own sloppy
record-keeping, which we have not yet bothered to mention: "Thus,
there is no way to distinguish the amount of sales for the Coral
Calcium product that was being sold through the Coral Calcium
infomercial." We reiterate that uncertain financial records are
not sufficient to demonstrate that the FTC's reasonable estimate is
inaccurate. See Febre, 128 F.3d at 535.

-34-
G. The district court's determination of damages from March 2003 to
July 2003 was not erroneous.

The Defendants next challenge the damages award for sales

of Coral Calcium from March 2003 to July 2003, at which point Triad

was out of the picture and the Defendants on appeal acted in

concert with one another exclusively. The only argument the

Defendants can muster on this front is another challenge to the

authentication of a set of business records admitted as Exhibits

187 and 209. These records are the products of DMC spreadsheets

that show $13.1 million in sales of Coral Calcium from March 2003

to July 2003. These records were authenticated by live testimony,

so only Fed. R. Evid. 803(6) and not Fed. R. Evid. 902(11) applies.

To be admissible, a record must have been

made at or near the time by, or from
information transmitted by, a person with
knowledge, if kept in the course of a
regularly conducted business activity, and if
it was the regular practice of that business
activity to make the memorandum, report,
record or data compilation, all as shown by
the testimony of the custodian or other
qualified witness . . . .

Fed. R. Evid. 803(6).

Again, the Defendants do not and cannot dispute that an

affidavit – this one from Karen Gorewitz, a DMC employee – touched

each element of proper authentication, providing a solid basis in

-35-
the record supporting the district court's decision.17 Instead, the

Defendants generically attack Gorewitz's witness-stand testimony

regarding the content of the affidavit, arguing that her lack of

certainty on peripheral issues – e.g., she did not know much about

the "Value" column in the spreadsheets, or whether DMC kept the

records in any particular form – somehow undermines the documents'

authenticity. As is frequently the case throughout their brief,

the Defendants fail to tie their general attacks into any sort of

legal theory, conducting no analysis but citing to Fed. R. Evid.

803(6) and 902(11) without comment. Even assuming that they might

have raised a valid legal argument (although again we find

ourselves reminded of the rule that inadequately briefed issues are

waived, see Zannino, 895 F.2d at 17), their attack – concerning the

style more than the substance of the witness's testimony – presents

the sort of second-guessing, cold-record inquiry that cautions

deference to the district court. See United States v. Freeman, 208

F.3d 332, 339 (1st Cir. 2000). Accordingly, we affirm.

17
Specifically, Gorewitz testified that the records showed
information entered by DMC-employed telemarketers while they were
on the phone with customers. She further testified that she
regularly produced reports of the sort introduced into evidence and
relied on the data from the databases as presented in the report
format. Gorewitz's firsthand observation of realtime data entry
and regular reliance on reports in the same format and from the
same data as the exhibits are sufficient to meet the criteria of
Rule 803(6).

-36-
H. The district court's determination of damages from August 2003
to June 2004 was not erroneous.

Finally, the Defendants challenge the damages award for

sales of Supreme Greens from August 2003 to June 2004. They

essentially argue that the FTC did not meet its initial burden of

demonstrating a reasonable approximation of damages. This is so,

they argue, because the Defendants' own records were in such

disarray that the FTC could not draw a connection from the Supreme

Greens receipts to the particular version of the Supreme Greens

infomercial that the FTC proved to be deceptive. Purportedly,

numerous other versions of the Supreme Greens infomercial existed

and were aired at various times and places, although no one knows

which version was aired at what time in any given place.

The district court has discretion to determine a

reasonable approximation of damages, and unclear financial records

cannot carry a defendant's burden of demonstrating that such a

reasonable approximation is inaccurate. See Febre, 128 F.3d at

535. Here, the Defendants could not or would not produce an

accounting that suggested even a rough approximation of what

percentage of their Supreme Greens proceeds were based on the

offending infomercial. Instead, in response to an interrogatory,

they represented to the FTC that their records were subject to

"substantial confusion" and that "it is impossible to determine

-37-
what sales are attributable to any specific version of the Supreme

Greens infomercial." At this point, the FTC perhaps should have

filed a motion to compel, given its apparent ability to produce

order from chaos in this case. Instead, it allowed the records

regarding which version of the Supreme Greens infomercial aired

where and when to remain in disarray. This was the one hitch in an

otherwise well-conducted case, but it is not enough to overcome the

fact that, in the end, it is DMC's record-keeping that caused the

uncertainty. And this hitch certainly does not establish the sort

of clear error required to upset the district court's careful and

considered ruling. Thus, the district court was within its

discretion to estimate damages broadly based on the accounting

information available to it, and the defendants produced nothing to

overcome such an estimate. See Freecom, 401 F.3d at 1206-07. We

affirm.

III. CONCLUSION

On a well-developed record that reveals no significant

factual disputes, the district court correctly granted summary

judgment to the FTC on the issue of the Defendants' liability for

deceptive advertising. On an equally well-developed record after

a bench trial on damages, the district court correctly applied its

equitable authority to fashion an appropriate remedy, ordering the

Defendants to cure their customers in a way that their bogus

-38-
supplements could not.18 Accordingly, we affirm the district court

in all respects.

18
The Defendants argue that the district court erred in imposing
liability against BP. They present this argument as a footnoted
afterthought (see D. Br. 44 n.12); the FTC likewise responds to
this argument in a footnote (see FTC Br. 52 n.22). We continue the
trend and harken one more time to Zannino, 895 F.2d at 17. See
also Nat'l Foreign Trade Council v. Natsios, 181 F.3d 38, 60 n.17
(1st Cir. 1999) ("We have repeatedly held that arguments raised
only in a footnote or in a perfunctory manner are waived.").

-39-