Legal Opinion
Federal Trade Commission v. QT, Inc.
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Decided January 3, 2008No. 07-1662PublishedCited by 22 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge.
WIRED Magazine recently put the Q-Ray Ionized Bracelet on its list of the top ten Snake-Oil Gadgets. See http://blog. wired.com/gadgets/2007/ll/10-awesome-gadg.html.
[[Image here]]
The “Gold Deluxe” Q-Ray Ionized Bracelet
The Federal Trade Commission has an even less honorable title for the bracelet’s promotional campaign: fraud. In this action under 15 U.S.C. §§ 45(a), 52, 53, a magistrate judge, presiding by the parties’ consent, concluded after a bench trial that the bracelet’s promotion has been thoroughly dishonest. The court enjoined the promotional claims and…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- 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, Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross-Appellee v. Pantron I Corporation, Defendants-Appellees-Cross-AppellantsCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1994
- Kraft, Inc. v. Federal Trade CommissionCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1992
- Federal Trade Commission v. QT, Inc.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 2006
- Federal Trade Commission v. QT, Inc.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 2007
3Cited by22 opinions
- Vince Mullins v. Direct Digital, LLCCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2015
- Prime Mortgage USA, Inc. v. NicholsIndiana Court of Appeals · 2008
- Federal Trade Commission v. TrudeauCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2009
- Pom Wonderful, LLC v. Federal Trade CommissionCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2015
- State Ex Rel. Horne v. Autozone, Inc.Arizona Supreme Court · 2012
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.