Court: District Court, S.D. Florida; April 4, 2019; Federal District Court
Magistrate Judge McAliley recommended granting the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) Motion for Summary Judgment against pro se Defendants Dustin Pillonato and Justin Ramsey, proposing a permanent injunction based on allegations of deceptive practices, unfair billing, and violations of telemarketing regulations. The Defendants filed timely objections, prompting the district court to review the case de novo, as required by federal rules when objections are properly raised. The court affirmed the magistrate's report, adopting the FTC's undisputed material facts since the Defendants did not submit their own. The case involves claims against several parties for misleading consumer representations and abusive telemarketing practices, with Pillonato and Ramsey being the remaining defendants after others settled or defaulted. The FTC seeks a total monetary judgment of $3,367,666.30 against them. The court reviewed all relevant submissions and rejected the Defendants' objections, ultimately affirming the magistrate's recommendations and granting the FTC's motions concerning all claims against Pillonato and Ramsey.
Count I alleges that Pillonato and Ramsey violated Section 5(a) of the FTC Act by making false and misleading representations. To prove a violation, the Plaintiff must establish that a representation was made, it was likely to mislead reasonable customers, and it was material. The Court agrees with the Plaintiff that all elements of a Section 5(a) claim are satisfied and finds no genuine dispute over the facts, affirming that Pointbreak Media's robocalls and live sales calls violated this section.
The Plaintiff seeks to hold Pillonato and Ramsey liable for the actions of Co-Defendants (Modern Spotlight LLC, Modern Spotlight Group LLC, Perfect Image Online LLC, National Business Listings LLC, and DCP Marketing LLC) under two theories: common enterprise liability and personal liability.
In addressing common enterprise liability, the Court notes that Pillonato and Ramsey do not dispute the inclusion of several entities in a common enterprise but contest the inclusion of the Modern Spotlight Defendants. The Defendants present a declaration from Michael Pocker, asserting that while some employees worked for both entities, no one worked for both simultaneously, which they argue creates a material fact issue. The Court, however, disagrees, stating that under the FTC Act, a corporate entity can be liable for the conduct of others if their business practices reveal a common enterprise. Factors considered include shared office spaces, employee overlap, commingled funds, and coordinated efforts. The Court emphasizes the need to evaluate the overall pattern and framework of the enterprise to determine the existence of a common enterprise.
Extensive cooperation between the Modern Spotlight Defendants, Pointbreak Media, and Modern Source Media is documented, highlighting their joint efforts to attract customers. Key actions included sharing client data, with Modern Spotlight Group exclusively selling customer leads to Modern Source Media, which in turn sold services to Modern Spotlight Group's clients. Additionally, Modern Spotlight Group arranged sales calls for Modern Source Media, which provided phone numbers for robocalls made by Modern Spotlight Group. Employees from Modern Source Media did not differentiate between the two companies, presenting them as a single entity.
Pointbreak Media's reliance on Modern Spotlight Group was emphasized, as shown by internal communications indicating dependence for survival. The report presents undisputed evidence of a common enterprise, including shared credit card accounts, similar sales scripts, and the integration of office space and employees. The evidence strongly supports the conclusion that these entities operated as a common enterprise, as established in case law where shared resources and coordinated efforts led to common enterprise liability.
Defendants argued that a triable issue existed due to the lack of simultaneous shared employees and office space, but this argument was dismissed. Similar case law indicated that common enterprise liability does not necessitate contemporaneous sharing of employees or office space, and the evidence overwhelmingly supports summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiff regarding common enterprise liability. No specific number of connections or particular links needs to be demonstrated for liability to be established.
Plaintiff must demonstrate that Pointbreak Media and the Modern Spotlight Defendants operated within an "unholy alliance," which has been established. Mr. Pocker's Declaration is deemed insufficient evidence to favor the Defendants in terms of common enterprise, thus justifying summary judgment. As the Modern Spotlight Defendants are part of this common enterprise, Pointbreak Media and Modern Source Media are liable for their deceptive sales practices. Pillonato and Ramsey, as principals of both companies, are consequently liable for the entire enterprise's misconduct.
Regarding personal liability, Plaintiff argues that Pillonato and Ramsey should be held personally accountable. For this, Plaintiff must first show that the corporations violated applicable laws, after which it must demonstrate that the individuals were aware of and participated in or controlled the deceptive practices. Knowledge can be proven through actual knowledge, reckless indifference, or avoidance of truth regarding deceptiveness. Although Defendants initially challenged the personal liability based on control, evidence shows that Pillonato and Ramsey directly participated in the Modern Spotlight Defendants' deceptive sales by providing resources for robocalling, sharing contracts, and coordinating customer transfers.
Plaintiff has legally established that Pillonato and Ramsey directly took part in deceptive practices. Defendants no longer dispute this participation but argue a factual question exists regarding their knowledge of the deceptive practices. They claim to have opposed illegal activities and instructed employees against misleading customers. However, the Court disagrees with their assertion.
Mr. Strickland's testimony is characterized as a minimal amount of evidence regarding Pillonato and Ramsey's knowledge of Pointbreak Media's deceptive practices, which also extend to other entities. They should have been aware of the deceptive sales practices, particularly those involving the Modern Spotlight Defendants. Even if Pillonato and Ramsey claimed ignorance of the illegal activities, such ignorance would stem from their intentional avoidance of the truth, given the high likelihood of the entities' deceptive behavior. Consequently, the plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment for personal liability.
In Count II, Pillonato and Ramsey did not dispute the findings related to unfair billing practices under Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, and the Court agrees that there is no triable issue of fact, granting summary judgment to the plaintiff.
Counts III and IV involve allegations that Pillonato and Ramsey violated the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR) through robocalls made by Pointbreak Media, including calls to numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry. It is undisputed that Pointbreak Media was a telemarketer and that Pillonato and Ramsey were aware of the robocalls made, which were not eligible for the business-to-business exemption asserted by the defendants.
Defendants' objections, including the claim that the calls to non-businesses were errors, were dismissed as irrelevant since the exemption applies only to calls made to businesses. The plaintiff is granted summary judgment on Counts III and IV.
Finally, the defendants' objections regarding the proposed judgment amount of $3,367,666.30 against them were also rejected, with the court noting that joint and several liability is appropriate in cases of common enterprise where individuals can be held personally liable for corporate violations of the FTC Act.
Joint and several liability holds that if multiple defendants cause harm, each is liable for the entire amount, but the plaintiff can recover only once for the total. This principle, highlighted in Honeycutt v. United States, is upheld despite defendants' objections. The court overruled these objections, affirming that while the plaintiff cannot collect twice from Pillonato and Ramsey, the overall judgment amount remains unchanged.
Defendants challenged a ban on telemarketing and remotely created payment orders (RCPOs). Although the court could dismiss these objections for being unraised, it chose to address them due to the defendants’ pro se status. Defendants argued the RCPO ban was too broad, claiming it would prevent them from accepting all checks; however, the ban only restricts checks initiated by the payee, which does not impede their ability to accept customer checks. The telemarketing ban was also claimed to be overly restrictive, but it only prohibits telemarketing campaigns, allowing general phone use for business purposes.
Additionally, defendants contested an order requiring them to surrender jewelry, asserting they do not possess it. However, receipts provided by the plaintiff indicate purchases made by Ramsey, supporting an adverse inference due to the defendants' Fifth Amendment claims during depositions. Defendants also requested a hearing on the injunction terms, but the court found no need for further deliberation, having already considered their objections.
The court affirmed the Report and granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, establishing a permanent injunction against the defendants.
Plaintiff Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has moved for summary judgment against defendants Dustin Pillonato and Justin Ramsey, referred by Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga. Pillonato and Ramsey opposed the motion, and the FTC replied, followed by a Sur-Reply from the defendants. The Court has reviewed the parties' submissions and recommends granting the FTC's motion.
This action involves violations of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act and the Telemarketing Sales Rule, alleging deceptive practices, unfair billing, and abusive telemarketing by the defendants. The FTC seeks monetary and injunctive relief against several entities, including Pillonato and Ramsey and their associated companies. A preliminary injunction was previously issued against them, excluding two companies.
The FTC requests a final summary judgment and a permanent injunction, along with a monetary judgment of $3,367,666.30 against Pillonato and Ramsey, jointly and severally. The Court identified undisputed material facts based on the FTC's Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (SUMF), noting that the defendants did not submit their own statement as required by Local Rule 56.1(a). Consequently, the Court deems the facts in the FTC's SUMF as admitted, emphasizing that pro se status does not exempt compliance with local procedural rules. The Court's findings align with the cited evidence supporting the FTC's assertions.
Pillonato and Ramsey did not contest any facts outlined in the Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (SUMF), thereby conceding those facts. Their Opposition included a declaration from a co-defendant and a deposition excerpt from a co-owner of Pointbreak, but these did not contradict the SUMF. The nonmoving party must provide sufficient evidence for a jury to reasonably favor its position; Pillonato and Ramsey failed to do so, resulting in no genuine dispute regarding the SUMF. During their depositions, they invoked their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination when questioned about the SUMF, which allows the court to infer that their responses would have been unfavorable to them. However, the court noted that adverse inferences do not automatically lead to summary judgment, and the FTC must provide additional evidence to meet its burden of proof.
The document details a telemarketing scheme operated by multiple defendants, including Pointbreak Media, LLC, from November 2016 to May 2018. This operation targeted consumers, including those on the National Do Not Call Registry, utilizing tens of millions of robocalls with prerecorded messages and live sales agents making false promises and threats to sell expensive services that were otherwise free. The scheme also included upselling a purported search engine optimization service to consumers who had already purchased claiming services. Notably, from July 3 to August 25, 2017, Pointbreak alone made nearly 75 million robocalls, with around 15 million directed at numbers on the Do Not Call Registry, often containing false threats and misleading claims of affiliation with Google.
Robocalls from companies such as Pointbreak, Modern Spotlight, and Perfect Image falsely claimed affiliations with Google, asserting that businesses risked being labeled as "permanently closed" unless they took immediate action to verify their listings. Pointbreak, described as a "data service provider for Google," misled consumers by stating that 74% of customers search online before purchasing, implying urgency for business owners to engage with their services. In reality, Pointbreak had no association with Google, which does not remove unclaimed businesses from search results.
Consumers who responded to the robocalls were connected to live sales agents from these companies, who made various false claims regarding their affiliations with Google, presenting themselves as "authorized representatives" or "Google Business Partners." These agents misrepresented the consequences of not claiming and verifying business listings, stating that businesses could be removed from search results or suffer adverse visibility impacts. However, Google does not remove unverified businesses, and the sales agents' claims about the necessity of their services to avoid removal were untrue.
Additionally, the sales pitches included claims that the service would enhance business visibility through keyword registration as part of the verification process, although this was also misleading. Overall, the document outlines a pattern of deceptive practices aimed at selling unnecessary services under false pretenses regarding Google’s policies.
Pointbreak sales agents made false claims that assigned keywords would uniquely benefit businesses by ensuring top placement in Google search results. The process for claiming and verifying business listings does not involve registering specific keywords, and third parties cannot guarantee specific positions in search results due to Google's proprietary algorithms. Despite charging hundreds of dollars for their services, Pointbreak did not provide effective claiming and verification, with some customers receiving no service at all and others reporting no improvement in search results. Following the initial service purchase, Pointbreak and Modern Source solicited customers for an additional service called the "Citation Program," again making misleading claims about its efficacy and their affiliation with Google. The sales agents falsely asserted that Google’s ranking system relied on an "online visibility score" derived from 52 directories, which is inaccurate as Google does not use such a system. Customers paid between $300-$500 for the claiming service and up to $849.99 for the Citation Program, relying on these misrepresentations without any evidence of benefit from the services provided.
Pointbreak charged customers $169.99 per month for its Citation Program, but users reported no change in search results post-purchase. The company accepted payments via credit card or remotely created checks, which it generated using customers' bank account information. In 2017, Pointbreak briefly allowed Defendant Modern Spotlight to use its merchant account in exchange for 30% of sales from claiming and verifying services. Following the termination of Pointbreak's merchant account by Bank of America Merchant Services on October 20, 2017, the company initiated unauthorized withdrawals from at least 280 consumers’ accounts, each for $100, without consent or additional services.
By mid-November 2017, Pointbreak ceased new sales but continued operations under Defendant DCP Marketing, LLC and Modern Source Media, LLC, utilizing Pointbreak's name and merchant account to collect payments for its Citation Program. DCP deposited remotely created checks with Pointbreak identified as the payee. Modern Source, a successor entity, sold only the Citation Program and shared employees with Pointbreak, maintaining a close economic relationship with Modern Spotlight Group, which facilitated customer sales and provided client information in exchange for a sales percentage. Employees from Pointbreak transitioned to Modern Spotlight, which occupied the same office space, and both companies used similar contracts and marketing materials.
In early 2018, Defendant Perfect Image acquired Modern Spotlight's customers and employees, selling client information to Modern Source until March 2018. Shortly thereafter, National Business Listings began offering similar services using Pointbreak's scripts from the same office location. Pillonato was identified as an owner and manager for Pointbreak, Modern Source, National Business Listings, and DCP, holding signing authority for their bank accounts.
Pillonato was the sole signatory on Modern Source's credit card merchant account and opened DCP's merchant account under the alias "Point Break." He signed contracts for Pointbreak and Modern Source, managed day-to-day operations alongside Ramsey, maintained the customer relationship database, trained sales agents on upselling, and oversaw product fulfillment. Pillonato actively monitored sales agents and contributed to drafting telemarketing scripts. He was aware of the high volume of robocalls made by Pointbreak, including calls to non-businesses and numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry, as well as the content of robocalls from Modern Spotlight. Pillonato acknowledged that clients received no benefits from Pointbreak's services and that many charges related to the Citation Program were illegitimate. He was also informed of negative consumer reviews accusing Pointbreak of misrepresenting its affiliation with Google, and he monitored a high chargeback rate related to Pointbreak's transactions, which he described as "horrible." Furthermore, he knew about unauthorized checks being deposited into Pointbreak's accounts.
Ramsey, like Pillonato, was an owner and manager of Pointbreak, Modern Source, and National Business Listings, signing on Pointbreak's bank accounts and credit card merchant accounts. He trained and supervised sales agents, facilitated robocalls, and was involved in drafting telemarketing sales scripts. Ramsey recognized the economic reliance of Modern Source on Modern Spotlight Group and expressed concerns over their dependency. He was aware of the extensive robocalls made by Pointbreak, including to non-businesses and Do Not Call Registry numbers, and monitored negative consumer feedback citing fraud and illegitimate charges. Ramsey endorsed and knew about the unauthorized checks deposited into Pointbreak's accounts.
Both Pillonato and Ramsey had been previously enjoined from telemarketing fraud, with a permanent injunction issued in 2015 against Pillonato for using false statements in sales, and a similar injunction against Ramsey in 2017.
Initiating outbound telephone calls to numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry, making robocalls to non-businesses, and violating the Telemarketing Sales Rule were identified as actions prohibited under a permanent injunction against Ramsey. This injunction mandated clear disclosure of the seller's identity in telemarketing sales.
Summary judgment is appropriate when there are no genuine material facts in dispute, allowing the movant to be entitled to judgment as a matter of law, as per Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a). A genuine issue exists if a reasonable trier of fact could rule in favor of the non-moving party, and a material fact would influence the suit's outcome. The court reviews evidence favorably for the nonmoving party, who must demonstrate enough evidence for a reasonable jury to find in their favor. The moving party initially bears the burden of proving the absence of material fact issues across essential elements of the case. If successful, the nonmoving party must present significant evidence to show a triable fact exists.
The FTC seeks summary judgment on Count I, asserting that Pillonato and Ramsey misrepresented and omitted material facts to induce consumer purchases, violating Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, which prohibits unfair or deceptive practices in commerce. The FTC must establish three elements for a violation: the existence of a representation, likelihood of misleading customers, and materiality of the representation. Pillonato and Ramsey did not contest these elements, thereby conceding the FTC's position.
The Court determined that there is no genuine dispute regarding the facts that Pointbreak's robocalls and live sales agent calls violate Section 5 of the FTC Act. Pointbreak conducted transactions affecting commerce from its Florida offices nationwide. The Court identified several false representations in the calls, including claims of affiliation with Google, threats of removal from search results if services were not purchased, and misleading assurances about improved search result visibility through the Citation Program. These representations were deemed likely to mislead reasonable consumers, as they were false and lacked a reasonable basis. The Court noted that such misrepresentations are material and presumed to be relied upon by consumers, with evidence showing that customers made purchases based on these claims. The FTC is not required to prove actual consumer deception, only that the representations had a tendency to deceive.
Additionally, the FTC sought to hold Pointbreak liable for the actions of associated companies, asserting that they form a "common enterprise." Under the FTC Act, a corporate entity can be liable for the actions of other entities in a common enterprise where their organization and conduct demonstrate interconnectedness. Factors for establishing a common enterprise include shared office spaces, employees, commingled funds, coordinated advertising, and common control.
Pillonato and Ramsey concede that Modern Source, Perfect Image, National Business Listings, DCP Marketing, and Pointbreak operate as a common enterprise, supported by evidence indicating shared ownership, commingled funds, and the use of similar sales scripts. Their primary contention is against the assertion that Pointbreak is part of a common enterprise with Modern Spotlight and Modern Spotlight Group. To support their position, they reference a declaration from Michael Pocker that claims these entities do not share resources or control. However, the FTC argues that a broader interpretation of "common enterprise" is necessary, emphasizing that no single factor is decisive; instead, the overall pattern and framework of the entities must be assessed. Evidence indicates that Pointbreak and Modern Spotlight shared a merchant account, commingled funds, utilized similar scripts, and engaged in cooperative customer interactions, including sharing client data and leads. Modern Spotlight Group's former employees and office space further highlight the interconnectedness. The relationship between the entities demonstrates either vertical or horizontal commonality through interdependent economic interests and the pooling of resources.
Evidence presented indicates that Pointbreak, Modern Spotlight, and Modern Spotlight Group operated as a common enterprise, with Pillonato and Ramsey failing to demonstrate a genuine dispute regarding this classification. The court can hold Pillonato and Ramsey personally liable for the actions of these entities if the FTC can show they participated in or had control over the deceptive practices and had some knowledge of them.
Control can be established by demonstrating that an individual managed the daily operations of the enterprise. Pillonato and Ramsey do not contest their authority over several entities within the common enterprise, specifically Pointbreak, Modern Source, National Business Listings, and DCP Marketing. Their roles as owners and officers create a presumption of control. They argue that lack of control over the Modern Spotlight entities absolves them of liability, but this does not negate their responsibility for the other entities they managed.
Knowledge of the deceptive practices is another key factor for individual liability. A defendant can be found liable if they possess actual knowledge of misrepresentations, show reckless indifference to their truthfulness, or are aware of a high probability of fraud. Pillonato and Ramsey contend they were not recklessly indifferent, citing claims that they sought to clarify their business identity to avoid confusion with Google. However, this defense is deemed insufficient, as the undisputed facts indicate they had at least some awareness of Pointbreak's deceptive practices, evidenced by their involvement in creating misleading sales scripts.
Pillonato and Ramsey demonstrated awareness of customer dissatisfaction through monitoring negative reviews and chargeback rates, which Pillonato described as "horrible." They acknowledged that customers experienced no benefits or results from Pointbreak's practices, indicating their knowledge or reckless indifference to the deceptive nature of Pointbreak's robocalls and sales calls. Relevant case law supports the conclusion that individuals can be held liable for deceptive practices when they are aware of or indifferent to consumer complaints and high refund rates. Additionally, Pillonato was aware of deceptive practices employed by similar entities, such as National Business Listing, and was informed about the content of robocalls used by Modern Spotlight, further evidencing their involvement in deceptive practices within a common enterprise.
In Count II of the FTC's Amended Complaint, it is asserted that Pointbreak engaged in unfair billing practices violating Section 5(a) of the FTC Act. An unfair practice is defined as one that likely causes substantial consumer injury that is not avoidable and lacks outweighing benefits. The FTC argues that Pointbreak's actions, specifically writing checks from customers' accounts without authorization after losing its credit card processing capabilities, constitute such unfair practices. Pillonato and Ramsey did not contest their personal liability for these actions, and the evidence supports their involvement and control over Pointbreak's operations.
Pillonato and Ramsey were directly involved in and aware of Pointbreak's unfair billing practices, specifically endorsing unauthorized checks deposited into Pointbreak's accounts. Consequently, the FTC is entitled to a judgment against them for this violation. In Counts III and IV, the FTC alleges that both defendants violated the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR) through robocalls, including calls to numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry, which constitutes an unfair practice under Section 5(a) of the FTC Act. The TSR prohibits telemarketers from making calls that deliver prerecorded messages or to numbers on the Do Not Call Registry, and both defendants acknowledge that Pointbreak operated as a telemarketer and seller. Evidence indicates that Pointbreak made approximately 15 million robocalls to such restricted numbers over seven weeks, with Pillonato and Ramsey providing the numbers and being aware of the violations. They argue that some calls were made to businesses and thus fall under an exemption; however, they provide no evidence to support this claim, and unsupported speculation cannot counter a summary judgment motion. Furthermore, prior rulings from other courts have dismissed their exemption argument.
In F.T.C. v. Inc21.com Corp., the court rejected the defendants' claim that the business-to-business telemarketing exception should apply to all calls made to businesses. The court clarified that the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR) explicitly restricts the exemption to calls between telemarketers and businesses, without regard to the telemarketers' intentions. Consequently, the FTC was granted judgment against Pillonato and Ramsey on Counts III and IV.
The FTC sought a permanent injunction and a monetary judgment of $3,367,666.30 against Pillonato and Ramsey, supported by Section 13(b) of the FTC Act, which allows for permanent injunctions and equitable remedies based on the defendants’ unjust gains rather than consumer losses. The Eleventh Circuit interprets this section as allowing a full range of equitable remedies, including disgorgement, based solely on the defendants' unjust gains. The FTC demonstrated that the defendants' net revenues, calculated as gross revenues minus refunds and chargebacks, amounted to $3,367,666.30, a figure Pillonato and Ramsey did not dispute.
The court found the FTC's calculations reasonable and that Pillonato and Ramsey were jointly and severally liable for the total amount due to their roles in a common enterprise. The FTC also argued for a permanent injunction, citing a likelihood of future violations based on the defendants' past conduct, which courts consider when determining the risk of recurrence of unlawful actions.
Factors to consider in determining the necessity of a permanent injunction include the severity of the defendant's actions, whether the infraction is isolated or repeated, the level of intent, the credibility of the defendant's promises to avoid future violations, acknowledgment of wrongdoing, and the potential for future violations based on the defendant's occupation. Pillonato and Ramsey participated in unlawful practices while already under permanent injunctions prohibiting such conduct. The FTC proposed a permanent injunction, including "fencing-in" provisions that aim to prevent similar deceptive practices, which the court found reasonable and appropriate. Pillonato and Ramsey did not contest the majority of the injunction's provisions, except for one concerning the transfer of 53 jewelry items, which they claimed not to possess despite evidence to the contrary from the FTC. They failed to provide sufficient evidence to counter the FTC's claims, leading the court to recommend a permanent injunction and a monetary judgment of $3,367,666.30 against both defendants. The court concluded that the FTC is entitled to judgment on all claims in the Amended Complaint and recommended granting the FTC's motion for summary judgment, as well as entering the proposed Final Order of Permanent Injunction and Monetary Judgment.
Parties have seven days from the date of the Report and Recommendation to file written objections with Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga, who will conduct a de novo review of the disputed factual findings and legal conclusions. Only those findings and conclusions that are objected to will be eligible for appellate review. The opposing party may respond within seven days of any objections filed. A clerk's default was previously entered against Pointbreak and related entities.
The Court determined that the evidence submitted by the FTC, primarily consisting of witness declarations, is admissible at trial, despite Ramsey and Pillonato not objecting to its admissibility. The Court emphasizes that the focus at the summary judgment stage is on whether the evidence can be presented in an admissible form at trial. Both Ramsey and Pillonato have been instructed to comply with the applicable Federal Rules and Local Rules.
Pointbreak's transaction data indicates that only a small fraction of its credit card transactions were for $100, suggesting a low chargeback rate, which can indicate customer dissatisfaction or fraud. The FTC seeks to hold Pillonato and Ramsey individually liable for their involvement in deceptive practices, which they do not dispute. The FTC Act allows for relief to address consumer injuries resulting from unfair or deceptive practices.
The net revenues for the Pointbreak Defendants during the relevant period are detailed, with Pointbreak Media generating over $2 million. The proposed injunction and monetary judgment from the FTC have been slightly revised for clarity and remain largely unchanged from the FTC's original proposal. The Court has shortened the deadlines for filing objections and responses to facilitate the upcoming trial schedule.
