SOTA Instruments Inc. - FTC's legal case against SOTA

Federal Trade Commission - Legal Case against SOTA

Click HERE to start reading the events from the beginning, at the bottom of this page...

Date: Events:

January, 2002 SUCCESS!! On January 4, 2002 SOTA received a letter from the FTC. In the letter the FTC states that the case against SOTA has been closed. We did it. We won our case against the FTC. Most every company that has gone up against the FTC has lost, but we have prevailed. We wish to thank all of you who have supported our efforts in this and all other issues relating to our basic freedoms and government. The SOTA Team.

November, 2001 SOTA decides to be proactive and sends a letter of complaint against the FTC to the Bureau of Consumer Protection in the USA. No acknowledgement of the letter was sent back to SOTA, nor any action taken was indicated either.

October, 2001 SOTA is now waiting for the FTC to respond to our last request to dismiss the case. We feel that we responded in a courteous and professional way and hope that we were able to present our defense in its entirety. A win in this case would be a major victory for us. It's best now to let the outcome unfold in its own natural way. If we do not win, we will seek an appeal and request a formal Administrative Hearing.

May 15, 2001 The FTC's Freedom Of Information Agency (FOIA) office responds in writing to the FOIA request SOTA made below. The letter cites only 3 cases dismissed by the FTC. The first one was against the R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY, the second was against BLODGETT MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER, and the third was against NATIONAL TOBACCO COMPANY. Big players with big cash. What chance would SOTA (or any other small business) have against the FTC? Most people don't realize the power and scope of the Federal Trade Commission.

April 17, 2001 SOTA sends another Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) request asking the following: "a listing and/or access for the past 3 years, of all or any FTC Cases that went to an Administrative Hearing and were then dismissed." Knowing our next step was probably an Administrative Hearing, we wanted to see if there were any cases that went to Hearing and had then been dismissed. This would indicate to us if we even had a chance at defending ourselves. The FTC gives Defendants like us the impression that the FTC has never lost a case, nor ever dismissed a case.

April 2, 2001
SOTA sends another letter to the FTC outlining our actions taken in order to come into compliance with FTC rules, as well as asking the FTC to dismiss the case.

"SOTA Instruments Inc. made an innocent oversight and has done everything in its power to remedy this oversight.

SOTA Instruments Inc. made immediate steps and put into place extensive measures that would ensure customer satisfaction and truthful foreknowledge on their products. SOTA Instruments Inc. will attempt to become knowledgeable in FTC rules and policies so as to hopefully ensure that future infractions will not occur. SOTA Instruments Inc. is willing to reach an agreeable settlement with the FTC in this manner. SOTA Instruments Inc.'s intent is and has always been to be a company based on honesty and integrity with our customers and suppliers.

We hope that the FTC will feel satisfied that SOTA Instruments Inc. will in no way knowingly violate FTC laws. And in fact, SOTA Instruments Inc. has made extensive steps to ensure their products are presented to consumers in an honest and truthful manner.
Because of the actions we have taken to ensure that we are in compliance, and that no injury was done to customers, we respectfully request that the charges against SOTA Instruments Inc. be dismissed."

March 16, 2001 SOTA sends another letter to the FTC requesting all questions listed in our March 5, 2001 letter be answered in writing, and that we "wish to make it known that we have nearly exhausted our administrative resources in trying to deal with this case."
The FTC, to this date, has not answered any of our questions in writing.

March 6, 2001 SOTA decides to take the initiative and make an attempt to determine if indeed SOTA's Customers, who purchased products through the Internet during the time the link to the other website was in effect, felt they purchased under false pretences and were misled by the content of the link. In talking with the FTC lawyer, he agreed that we could have our customer database reviewed by a lawyer and a letter notarized instead of releasing our confidential customer list to the FTC. This enabled us to satisfy FTC concerns as well as protect the privacy of all of our customers. SOTA issued a letter to everyone who purchased via the Internet from __________ to ____________ asking them directly if they felt we misled them. Of the letters sent out, we got an incredible 62% returned. Thank-you all who responded! More significantly, all but one indicated that they disagreed with the FTC. Interestingly enough, even the FTC received one of the letters since they had one of their operatives anonymously purchase one of our products via the Internet! This was a perfect indication to the FTC that SOTA did indeed send letters to all customers who purchased via the Internet during that time. In a telephone conversation, the FTC lawyer was actually impressed that SOTA could correctly identify those Customers that could have been affected by the offending link. It made a significant positive contribution in our case. A huge thank you to all who supported us by returning the letters, we cannot tell you how much you made a difference...

March 5, 2001 SOTA sends a seven page letter to the FTC asking key questions regarding such issues as Jurisdiction, Website Links and Rules, Colloidal Silver, FTC's claim that SOTA is deceptive, Substantial Injury, and Filing a Complaint against the FTC. SOTA summarizes this letter with the following:

"Does SOTA Instruments Inc. and/or myself wish to settle fairly with the FTC? Yes.
Does SOTA Instruments Inc. and/or I feel that the FTC has made a case that is weak and unfair? Absolutely.
How can SOTA Instruments Inc. and/or myself make a legal defense against the alleged charges? I have no idea.
Does SOTA Instruments Inc. and/or myself feel that the only way "out" is to sign the proposed Consent Agreement, and forfeit all of our rights? Yes.

James Madison asked in The Federalist Papers
"What prudent merchant will hazard his fortunes in any new branch of commerce when he knows not that his plans may be rendered unlawful before they can be executed?"

Charles Meachling, Jr. is an international lawyer, former Cambridge law professor and U.S. State Department official. In the BROOKINGS REVIEW he wrote:
"In the U.S. the sanctimonious maxim that 'ignorance of the law is not excuse' puts every citizen at risk. That may have been a sound rule in simpler times, when the catalog of punishable offenses was limited to traditional offenses like murder, robbery, rape and larceny, but it becomes a sinister joke when applied to the five-foot shelf of the U.S. criminal code and the even more voluminous statutes of individual states.
"Moreover, in the U.S. a citizen cannot rely on the plain meaning of a stature, or what passes for it. He must retain a lawyer to parse its legislative history and judicial evolution. So many forms of social and economic activity have now been criminalized that the discretionary power of federal and state authorities to pick and choose targets for prosecution has made enforcement utterly arbitrary.
"In the case of the tax codes, not one citizen in ten million can tell whether he has committed a trivial error or subjected himself to the risk of a felony conviction. In addition, by a grotesque inversion of legal principle, the burden is on the taxpayer to prove his innocence."

February 6, 2001
The FTC sends a letter to SOTA requesting that SOTA settle with the FTC under a "fair" (my quote) Consent Agreement. The FTC states that "It is in the public interest to dispose of this matter expeditiously." We wondered why the FTC wants us to settle as soon as possible? The proposed Consent Agreement is 3" thick, treats us like criminals and among other things requires that SOTA keep the FTC fully informed of all their business activities for the next 20 years! Additionally, it demands SOTA hand over to the FTC our entire Customer Database. After many deep breaths, we realized we had a responsibility to keep our Customer Database confidential. We also believed the charges were unfounded, as we have always tried to maintain our responsibility to our customers by encouraging education and the idea that what works for one doesn't work for all. We decided that we couldn't in good conscience sign the Consent Agreement.

The FTC lawyer made several indications that if we didn't sign the Consent Agreement he would contact the Canadian authorities. Since we were already in discussion with the Health Protection Branch that was not a concern. But we decided to contact the Free Trade Commissioner for Canada. After talking with their lawyers, they advised us that they felt the FTC was trying to extend its boundaries where they had no authorization to do so.

Did the FTC have jurisdiction over SOTA? It appeared not. But we decided in the best interest of all, to work to resolve this issue with the FTC rather than simply claim they didn't have jurisdiction.

September 22, 2000 The FOIA office of the FTC responds by letter to the request below. The FOIA makes reference to a case against SUMMIT PHOTOGRAPHIX, INC. in July 30, 1998. However, upon reading through the case no where could we find indication that the case was dismissed! It appears that the FTC won the case after all.

August 16, 2000 In order to discover how we may possibly win our case or if we may, we made a request under the FTC's Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) asking for "a listing and access to Consent Agreements and Court Orders that the FTC did NOT win and/or were dismissed, for the past 3 years."

July 27, 2000 SOTA sends a 6 page letter to the FTC's lawyer outlining our intent and explaining our actions. We make reference to our numerous disclaimers, and we ask important questions regarding the freedoms and rights on the Internet. We summarize our letter with the following

"In summary, SOTA Instruments Inc. has performed the following steps in an attempt to comply with the FTC's regulations:
1. We removed all internet links to the company that published our customer feedback letters and stories.
2. We also asked the company to remove all of our customer feedback letters and stories on their website.
3. We totally updated our website to ensure it complies, to the best of our knowledge, with the FTC's regulations.
I do hope and trust that the FTC now sees SOTA Instruments Inc. as a company of trustworthy stature that is driven by truthfulness in advertising and marketing."

July 2000 SOTA engages in many lengthy telephone conversations with the FTC lawyer during July, 2000. During the course of these telephone conversations, we start to get a bigger picture on the issues the FTC has trouble with. By providing an Internet link to another separate company, the FTC says that SOTA is fully responsible for the entire content of that link. That link to another website happened to be customer feedback letters showing how the products SOTA manufactures worked for those customers. The FTC said that since some of the letters from our customers contained key illness words (red flags) then SOTA was implying that it was advertising a cure for said illnesses. Because SOTA did not have substantial, undisputed, FDA approved scientific evidence of said cures, then SOTA was engaged in misleading and fraudulent advertising. Since we did not use the disclaimers "Results not typical" or "Individual results may vary" then we are claiming that "Results ARE typical". Since we are (allegedly) claiming this and do not have the supporting data, then we have made a fraudulent health claim and are deceiving the public. Our actions therefore would create "substantial injury" to the consumer.

June 28, 2000 SOTA responds to the FTC with this letter: "We were very surprised to receive your letter of June 13, 2000 today. Here, at SOTA Instruments we take our responsibility to our customers very seriously. We do our best to ensure no claims are made with regards to our units, and that we present truth in an honest manner. We would very much appreciate it if you would please forward to us copies of section 5, 6, 9, 10 and 12 of the Federal Trade Commission Act that you quote in your letter. Also please advise us how we are making claims so that we can make the necessary changes."

June 13, 2000: SOTA receives its first (and very lengthy) letter from the FTC. It starts out with this paragraph: "The staff of the Federal Trade Commission's Southwest Region is conducting an inquiry into advertising and promotional activities of SOTA Instruments Inc. relating to its products...".
To summarize, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") has concluded and charged SOTA Instruments Inc. ("SOTA") with engaging in deceptive acts and practices in violation of Sections 5 and 12 of the FTC Act. This government agency deems they are acting in your "the public's" best interest as they believe SOTA has caused you substantial injury by having an internet link from our website http://www.sotainstruments.com to another website. They believe substantial injury occurred because the website we linked to posted letters from customers of SOTA that shared how SOTA's products had helped them in their lives. If SOTA had stated on their website that "results are not typical" then the FTC would have had no problem with the link.

Our Action: We eliminated the link to the website that posted testimonials. We requested that this website please remove the testimonials from their site.

SOTA's Home Page Top of Page

Date:	Events:
January, 2002	SUCCESS!! On January 4, 2002 SOTA received a letter from the FTC. In the letter the FTC states that the case against SOTA has been closed. We did it. We won our case against the FTC. Most every company that has gone up against the FTC has lost, but we have prevailed. We wish to thank all of you who have supported our efforts in this and all other issues relating to our basic freedoms and government. The SOTA Team.
November, 2001	SOTA decides to be proactive and sends a letter of complaint against the FTC to the Bureau of Consumer Protection in the USA. No acknowledgement of the letter was sent back to SOTA, nor any action taken was indicated either.
October, 2001	SOTA is now waiting for the FTC to respond to our last request to dismiss the case. We feel that we responded in a courteous and professional way and hope that we were able to present our defense in its entirety. A win in this case would be a major victory for us. It's best now to let the outcome unfold in its own natural way. If we do not win, we will seek an appeal and request a formal Administrative Hearing.
May 15, 2001	The FTC's Freedom Of Information Agency (FOIA) office responds in writing to the FOIA request SOTA made below. The letter cites only 3 cases dismissed by the FTC. The first one was against the R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY, the second was against BLODGETT MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER, and the third was against NATIONAL TOBACCO COMPANY. Big players with big cash. What chance would SOTA (or any other small business) have against the FTC? Most people don't realize the power and scope of the Federal Trade Commission.
April 17, 2001	SOTA sends another Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) request asking the following: "a listing and/or access for the past 3 years, of all or any FTC Cases that went to an Administrative Hearing and were then dismissed." Knowing our next step was probably an Administrative Hearing, we wanted to see if there were any cases that went to Hearing and had then been dismissed. This would indicate to us if we even had a chance at defending ourselves. The FTC gives Defendants like us the impression that the FTC has never lost a case, nor ever dismissed a case.
April 2, 2001	SOTA sends another letter to the FTC outlining our actions taken in order to come into compliance with FTC rules, as well as asking the FTC to dismiss the case. "SOTA Instruments Inc. made an innocent oversight and has done everything in its power to remedy this oversight. SOTA Instruments Inc. made immediate steps and put into place extensive measures that would ensure customer satisfaction and truthful foreknowledge on their products. SOTA Instruments Inc. will attempt to become knowledgeable in FTC rules and policies so as to hopefully ensure that future infractions will not occur. SOTA Instruments Inc. is willing to reach an agreeable settlement with the FTC in this manner. SOTA Instruments Inc.'s intent is and has always been to be a company based on honesty and integrity with our customers and suppliers. We hope that the FTC will feel satisfied that SOTA Instruments Inc. will in no way knowingly violate FTC laws. And in fact, SOTA Instruments Inc. has made extensive steps to ensure their products are presented to consumers in an honest and truthful manner. Because of the actions we have taken to ensure that we are in compliance, and that no injury was done to customers, we respectfully request that the charges against SOTA Instruments Inc. be dismissed."
March 16, 2001	SOTA sends another letter to the FTC requesting all questions listed in our March 5, 2001 letter be answered in writing, and that we "wish to make it known that we have nearly exhausted our administrative resources in trying to deal with this case." The FTC, to this date, has not answered any of our questions in writing.
March 6, 2001	SOTA decides to take the initiative and make an attempt to determine if indeed SOTA's Customers, who purchased products through the Internet during the time the link to the other website was in effect, felt they purchased under false pretences and were misled by the content of the link. In talking with the FTC lawyer, he agreed that we could have our customer database reviewed by a lawyer and a letter notarized instead of releasing our confidential customer list to the FTC. This enabled us to satisfy FTC concerns as well as protect the privacy of all of our customers. SOTA issued a letter to everyone who purchased via the Internet from __________ to ____________ asking them directly if they felt we misled them. Of the letters sent out, we got an incredible 62% returned. Thank-you all who responded! More significantly, all but one indicated that they disagreed with the FTC. Interestingly enough, even the FTC received one of the letters since they had one of their operatives anonymously purchase one of our products via the Internet! This was a perfect indication to the FTC that SOTA did indeed send letters to all customers who purchased via the Internet during that time. In a telephone conversation, the FTC lawyer was actually impressed that SOTA could correctly identify those Customers that could have been affected by the offending link. It made a significant positive contribution in our case. A huge thank you to all who supported us by returning the letters, we cannot tell you how much you made a difference...
March 5, 2001	SOTA sends a seven page letter to the FTC asking key questions regarding such issues as Jurisdiction, Website Links and Rules, Colloidal Silver, FTC's claim that SOTA is deceptive, Substantial Injury, and Filing a Complaint against the FTC. SOTA summarizes this letter with the following: "Does SOTA Instruments Inc. and/or myself wish to settle fairly with the FTC? Yes. Does SOTA Instruments Inc. and/or I feel that the FTC has made a case that is weak and unfair? Absolutely. How can SOTA Instruments Inc. and/or myself make a legal defense against the alleged charges? I have no idea. Does SOTA Instruments Inc. and/or myself feel that the only way "out" is to sign the proposed Consent Agreement, and forfeit all of our rights? Yes. James Madison asked in The Federalist Papers "What prudent merchant will hazard his fortunes in any new branch of commerce when he knows not that his plans may be rendered unlawful before they can be executed?" Charles Meachling, Jr. is an international lawyer, former Cambridge law professor and U.S. State Department official. In the BROOKINGS REVIEW he wrote: "In the U.S. the sanctimonious maxim that 'ignorance of the law is not excuse' puts every citizen at risk. That may have been a sound rule in simpler times, when the catalog of punishable offenses was limited to traditional offenses like murder, robbery, rape and larceny, but it becomes a sinister joke when applied to the five-foot shelf of the U.S. criminal code and the even more voluminous statutes of individual states. "Moreover, in the U.S. a citizen cannot rely on the plain meaning of a stature, or what passes for it. He must retain a lawyer to parse its legislative history and judicial evolution. So many forms of social and economic activity have now been criminalized that the discretionary power of federal and state authorities to pick and choose targets for prosecution has made enforcement utterly arbitrary. "In the case of the tax codes, not one citizen in ten million can tell whether he has committed a trivial error or subjected himself to the risk of a felony conviction. In addition, by a grotesque inversion of legal principle, the burden is on the taxpayer to prove his innocence."
February 6, 2001	The FTC sends a letter to SOTA requesting that SOTA settle with the FTC under a "fair" (my quote) Consent Agreement. The FTC states that "It is in the public interest to dispose of this matter expeditiously." We wondered why the FTC wants us to settle as soon as possible? The proposed Consent Agreement is 3" thick, treats us like criminals and among other things requires that SOTA keep the FTC fully informed of all their business activities for the next 20 years! Additionally, it demands SOTA hand over to the FTC our entire Customer Database. After many deep breaths, we realized we had a responsibility to keep our Customer Database confidential. We also believed the charges were unfounded, as we have always tried to maintain our responsibility to our customers by encouraging education and the idea that what works for one doesn't work for all. We decided that we couldn't in good conscience sign the Consent Agreement. The FTC lawyer made several indications that if we didn't sign the Consent Agreement he would contact the Canadian authorities. Since we were already in discussion with the Health Protection Branch that was not a concern. But we decided to contact the Free Trade Commissioner for Canada. After talking with their lawyers, they advised us that they felt the FTC was trying to extend its boundaries where they had no authorization to do so. Did the FTC have jurisdiction over SOTA? It appeared not. But we decided in the best interest of all, to work to resolve this issue with the FTC rather than simply claim they didn't have jurisdiction.
September 22, 2000	The FOIA office of the FTC responds by letter to the request below. The FOIA makes reference to a case against SUMMIT PHOTOGRAPHIX, INC. in July 30, 1998. However, upon reading through the case no where could we find indication that the case was dismissed! It appears that the FTC won the case after all.
August 16, 2000	In order to discover how we may possibly win our case or if we may, we made a request under the FTC's Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) asking for "a listing and access to Consent Agreements and Court Orders that the FTC did NOT win and/or were dismissed, for the past 3 years."
July 27, 2000	SOTA sends a 6 page letter to the FTC's lawyer outlining our intent and explaining our actions. We make reference to our numerous disclaimers, and we ask important questions regarding the freedoms and rights on the Internet. We summarize our letter with the following "In summary, SOTA Instruments Inc. has performed the following steps in an attempt to comply with the FTC's regulations: 1. We removed all internet links to the company that published our customer feedback letters and stories. 2. We also asked the company to remove all of our customer feedback letters and stories on their website. 3. We totally updated our website to ensure it complies, to the best of our knowledge, with the FTC's regulations. I do hope and trust that the FTC now sees SOTA Instruments Inc. as a company of trustworthy stature that is driven by truthfulness in advertising and marketing."
July 2000	SOTA engages in many lengthy telephone conversations with the FTC lawyer during July, 2000. During the course of these telephone conversations, we start to get a bigger picture on the issues the FTC has trouble with. By providing an Internet link to another separate company, the FTC says that SOTA is fully responsible for the entire content of that link. That link to another website happened to be customer feedback letters showing how the products SOTA manufactures worked for those customers. The FTC said that since some of the letters from our customers contained key illness words (red flags) then SOTA was implying that it was advertising a cure for said illnesses. Because SOTA did not have substantial, undisputed, FDA approved scientific evidence of said cures, then SOTA was engaged in misleading and fraudulent advertising. Since we did not use the disclaimers "Results not typical" or "Individual results may vary" then we are claiming that "Results ARE typical". Since we are (allegedly) claiming this and do not have the supporting data, then we have made a fraudulent health claim and are deceiving the public. Our actions therefore would create "substantial injury" to the consumer.
June 28, 2000	SOTA responds to the FTC with this letter: "We were very surprised to receive your letter of June 13, 2000 today. Here, at SOTA Instruments we take our responsibility to our customers very seriously. We do our best to ensure no claims are made with regards to our units, and that we present truth in an honest manner. We would very much appreciate it if you would please forward to us copies of section 5, 6, 9, 10 and 12 of the Federal Trade Commission Act that you quote in your letter. Also please advise us how we are making claims so that we can make the necessary changes."
June 13, 2000:	SOTA receives its first (and very lengthy) letter from the FTC. It starts out with this paragraph: "The staff of the Federal Trade Commission's Southwest Region is conducting an inquiry into advertising and promotional activities of SOTA Instruments Inc. relating to its products...". To summarize, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") has concluded and charged SOTA Instruments Inc. ("SOTA") with engaging in deceptive acts and practices in violation of Sections 5 and 12 of the FTC Act. This government agency deems they are acting in your "the public's" best interest as they believe SOTA has caused you substantial injury by having an internet link from our website http://www.sotainstruments.com to another website. They believe substantial injury occurred because the website we linked to posted letters from customers of SOTA that shared how SOTA's products had helped them in their lives. If SOTA had stated on their website that "results are not typical" then the FTC would have had no problem with the link. Our Action: We eliminated the link to the website that posted testimonials. We requested that this website please remove the testimonials from their site.