QT Inc.: Difference between revisions
m →2003 FTC injunction: Journal cites, added 1 PMID using AWB (11761) |
Rescuing 1 sources and tagging 0 as dead. #IABot (v1.1) |
||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
===2006 follow-up case=== |
===2006 follow-up case=== |
||
On September 8, 2006, a federal judge ordered QT Inc. to pay back $22.5 million "in ill-gotten gains." The defendants could owe even more—up to $87 million—depending on how many Q-Ray customers seek refunds. U.S. Magistrate Judge Morton Denlow wrote a 136-page opinion and concluded: "Park made up the theory that the bracelet works like acupuncture or Eastern medicine. He has no testing or studies to support his theory." Thus, the theory was made "...to defraud consumers out of millions of dollars by preying on their desire to find a simple solution to alleviate their physical pain."<ref name="FTCruling">[http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2006/09/qray.shtm ''Court Rules In FTC's Favor In Q-Ray Bracelet Case'']; [[Federal Trade Commission]]; September 2009 article; retrieved .</ref> On January 3, 2007, the [[Seventh Circuit]] affirmed the lower court's ruling.<ref>[https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/cases/2008/01/080103qtrayseventhcircuitappealruling.pdf ''FTC v. QT Inc.'']; 7th Circuit Court ruling; January 3, 2007.</ref> |
On September 8, 2006, a federal judge ordered QT Inc. to pay back $22.5 million "in ill-gotten gains." The defendants could owe even more—up to $87 million—depending on how many Q-Ray customers seek refunds. U.S. Magistrate Judge Morton Denlow wrote a 136-page opinion and concluded: "Park made up the theory that the bracelet works like acupuncture or Eastern medicine. He has no testing or studies to support his theory." Thus, the theory was made "...to defraud consumers out of millions of dollars by preying on their desire to find a simple solution to alleviate their physical pain."<ref name="FTCruling">[http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2006/09/qray.shtm ''Court Rules In FTC's Favor In Q-Ray Bracelet Case''] {{wayback|url=http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2006/09/qray.shtm |date=20090825181525 }}; [[Federal Trade Commission]]; September 2009 article; retrieved .</ref> On January 3, 2007, the [[Seventh Circuit]] affirmed the lower court's ruling.<ref>[https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/cases/2008/01/080103qtrayseventhcircuitappealruling.pdf ''FTC v. QT Inc.'']; 7th Circuit Court ruling; January 3, 2007.</ref> |
||
==Current state of affairs== |
==Current state of affairs== |
||
Revision as of 10:24, 21 July 2016
QT Incorporated is the manufacturer of the Q-Ray ionized bracelet. It is headed by the infomercial entrepreneur, Que Te "Andrew" Park.
Products
Sport Socks
Q-Ray Sport Socks, a more recent product from QT Inc.'s Q-Ray line that claim to:
- Enhance your energy flow
- Increase positive energy in the sole of your foot and leg
- Make you feel better
- Increase your maximum performance (for daily activities as well as for professional athletes)[1]
According to the Q-Ray homepage, these socks may even "make you feel a little taller!"[1]
Legal actions
The company was sued by the Federal Trade Commission in 2003 for false advertising.[2]
2003 FTC injunction
Mayo Clinic published a study in 2002 showing definitively that Q-Ray bracelets have no effect upon muscle pain relative to the placebo effect.[3] This study prompted the Federal Trade Commission to impose an injunction on QT Inc. the following year, preventing any further claims regarding pain relief.[2]
2006 follow-up case
On September 8, 2006, a federal judge ordered QT Inc. to pay back $22.5 million "in ill-gotten gains." The defendants could owe even more—up to $87 million—depending on how many Q-Ray customers seek refunds. U.S. Magistrate Judge Morton Denlow wrote a 136-page opinion and concluded: "Park made up the theory that the bracelet works like acupuncture or Eastern medicine. He has no testing or studies to support his theory." Thus, the theory was made "...to defraud consumers out of millions of dollars by preying on their desire to find a simple solution to alleviate their physical pain."[4] On January 3, 2007, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the lower court's ruling.[5]
Current state of affairs
QT Inc. continues to sell Q-Ray Bracelets online.[6]
See also
References
- ^ a b Biometal Socks.
- ^ a b "Appeals Court Affirms Ruling in FTC's Favor in Q-Ray Bracelet Case". Federal Trade Commission.
- ^ Bratton, R. (2002). "Effect of "Ionized" Wrist Bracelets on Musculoskeletal Pain: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial". Mayo Clinic Proceedings. 77 (11): 1164–1168. doi:10.4065/77.11.1164. PMID 12440551.
{{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter|coauthors=ignored (|author=suggested) (help) - ^ Court Rules In FTC's Favor In Q-Ray Bracelet Case Template:Wayback; Federal Trade Commission; September 2009 article; retrieved .
- ^ FTC v. QT Inc.; 7th Circuit Court ruling; January 3, 2007.
- ^ Giver, Beware, Chicago Tribune; December 17, 2007 article; retrieved .