Florida District Court Permanently Bars Alleged Deceptive COVID PPE Marketer from Selling Any Protective Goods or Services

The order also includes two monetary judgments against the individual, who has allegedly done business under different corporate names.  The first judgment is for $989,483.69, to be returned to consumers allegedly harmed by his violations of the FTC Act and the Commission’s Mail Order Rule.  The court also entered a second civil penalty judgment of $2,562.21 for his alleged violations of the FTC Act with regards to the COVID-19 Consumer Protection Act.

In a complaint filed in June 2021, the FTC alleged that he preyed upon consumers’ fear of COVID-19 by advertising the availability and quick delivery of PPE, including N95 facemasks, even though he had no basis to make those promises.

The complaint stated that he failed to deliver PPE on time (if at all), failed to notify consumers of delayed shipments, failed to offer the cancellations and refunds required by the Commission’s Mail Order Rule, and failed to honor refund requests.

When the individual eventually did deliver the products, he often sent supplies that were inferior in quality to what consumers ordered, according to the complaint.  Based on this conduct, the complaint alleged that his deceptive and unfair conduct violated the Mail Order Rule, the FTC Act, and the FTC Act with regards to the COVID-19 Consumer Protection Act.

The court found the individual violated the Mail Order Rule, the FTC Act, and the FTC Act with regards to the COVID-19 Consumer Protection Act.  In issuing the order for permanent injunction, the court wrote that he “ha[d] no reasonable basis to expect he would be able to ship ordered merchandise to the buyer within the times he … stated within his solicitations,” “fail[ed] to ship goods within the timeframe required by [the Mail Order Rule],” “fail[ed] to allow consumers to consent to a delay in shipping or to cancel their orders and receive a prompt refund,” and “fail[ed] to provide consumers with a prompt refund” upon their request.

The court also found he violated the FTC Act because he lacked a reasonable basis for his claims about: 1) when his facemasks would ship, 2) whether his facemasks were certified by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health or the Food and Drug Administration, and 3) the filtration efficiencies possessed by his facemasks.

Notably, the court found the defendant lacked a reasonable basis to claim the masks he sold were proper N95 facemasks.

The final judgment and order for permanent injunction was issued by the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Ocala Division, on May 15, 2023.