Legal Opinion
Federal Trade Commission v. QT, Inc.
District Court, N.D. Illinois
Decided September 8, 2006No. 03 C 3578PublishedCited by 29 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
DENLOW, United States Magistrate Judge.
“The pain just went away.”
“Within seconds the pain was gone.”
“You don’t have to live with pain.”
The Q-Ray® Ionized Bracelet® (“Q-Ray bracelet”) achieved tremendous commercial success through a series of 30-minute infomercials. The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) brings this action claiming Defendants marketed the Q-Ray bracelet in a deceptive and misleading manner by representing that the bracelet provides immediate, significant or complete pain relief and scientific tests prove their pain-relief claims. Defendants deny their…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- River Park, Inc. v. City of Highland ParkIllinois Supreme Court · 1998
- Federal Trade Commission v. Colgate-Palmolive Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1965
- Federal Trade Commission v. Amy Travel Service, Inc., Resort Performance, Inc., Resort Telemarketing, Inc., Thomas P. McCann Ii, and James F. WeilandCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1989
- Federal Trade Commission v. KlesnerSupreme Court of the United States · 1929
- Federal Trade Commission, Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross-Appellee v. Pantron I Corporation, Defendants-Appellees-Cross-AppellantsCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1994
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by29 opinions
- Federal Trade Commission v. Direct Marketing Concepts, Inc.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2010
- Reid v. Unilever United States, Inc.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 2013
- Federal Trade Commission v. National Urological Group, Inc.District Court, N.D. Georgia · 2008
- Naiser v. Unilever United States, Inc.District Court, W.D. Kentucky · 2013
- State Ex Rel. Horne v. Autozone, Inc.Arizona Supreme Court · 2012
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.