From our private database of 14,100+ case briefs...
Federal Trade Commission v. Trudeau (Trudeau I)
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
579 F.3d 754 (2009)
Kevin Trudeau (defendant) sold purported cures for ailments such as cancer, AIDS, severe pain, hair loss, and obesity. Trudeau claimed that the government and corporations were hiding the truth about the cures. Trudeau promoted the cures through infomercials. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) (plaintiff) pursued Trudeau on various accusations of deceiving and misleading consumers to induce them to purchase his products. In 2004, a consent order (Consent Order) banned Trudeau from appearing in infomercials for any products except for books, provided he did not “misrepresent the content of the book.” Subsequently, Trudeau appeared on infomercials to promote his book, The Weight Loss Cure “They” Don’t Want You To Know About (Weight Loss Cure). The program prescribed in Weight Loss Cure involved eating only 500 calories per day, eating only organic food, receiving injections of a prescription hormone not approved for weight loss, walking an hour per day, taking supplements, and following numerous other dietary and lifestyle restrictions. However, in his infomercial, Trudeau described the program in Weight Loss Cure as “easy,” “simple,” and allowing participants to eat “anything you want,” as well as not involving diet, exercise, calorie counting, or taking pills. The FTC brought suit, alleging that Trudeau misrepresented his book in the infomercial in violation of the Consent Order. The FTC sought reimbursement from Trudeau for consumers who had purchased the book. The federal district court concluded that Trudeau had misrepresented his book, holding him in contempt of court and fining him $37.6 million to be paid to the FTC. Trudeau appealed, arguing (1) that his infomercials did not misrepresent anything, as they were merely quoting or paraphrasing the book and therefore did not violate the Consent Order, and (2) that the sanction imposed was neither coercive nor compensatory and thus was not civil.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Tinder, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.
Here's why 219,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,100 briefs, keyed to 189 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.