Case 8:10-cv-01333-JVS -MLG Document 42 Filed 02/08/11 Page 1 of 49 Page ID #:280

t .'. - r 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 -0 

- 24 C'. .. I 

C] 

Id 25 (I-

(~i 

f...'l 26 .:1" 

I C] cn _ . .1 27 f"d '-',. 

28 p-_L .... 

,;c:) 

C-..J 

WILLARD K. TOM 

General Counsel 

ROBIN ROSEN SPECTOR 

rSQector@ftc.gov 

DC Bar No. 4Lt9324 

GREGORY J. MADDEN 

glJladden@ftc.goy 

Member Of the MD Bar 

Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW . Room M-8102B 

Washington DC 20580 

1

202j316-3740 1tel.l (Spector) 202 326-2426' tel. (Madden) 

202 326-2558 fax 

STACY PROCTER (Local Counsel) sj)rocter~ftc.gov 

CABarNo.221078 

Federal Trade Commission 

10877 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 700 

hOlso~~~~~4~~t~r~24 (310) 824-4380 (fax) 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

FILED - SOUTHERN DIVISION 

CLE~!SJL§.:....!2.ISTRICT COURT 

CENTRAL DI8T C' 

BY 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

LIGHTS OF AMERICA, INC., 

a California Corporation; 

USMAN V AKIL~ 

I- an inc[lividual; and f'- • I 

FA~Oob VAKIL, :::~ ;an individual, c ) ~.~~~ ~;~ ; f~~ ::: :,~ i Defendants. 

Case No. SACV10~01333 JVS (MLGx) 

AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR 

PERMANENT INJUNCTIVE AND 

OTHER RELIEF 

~<J~ed 
Case 8:10-cv-01333-JVS -MLG Document 42 Filed 02/08/11 Page 2 of 49 Page ID #:281

, 

1 

2 

3 1. 

4 

(r __ X" 

( \ 

\. .I 

Plaintiff, the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC"), for its Complaint 

alleges: 

The FTC brings this action under Sections 5 (a)(l ) and 13(b) of the Federal 

Trade Commission Act ("FTC Act"), 15 U.S.C. §§ 45(a)(1) and 53(b), to 

5 obtain a permanent injunction, rescission or refonnation of contracts, 

6 restitution, the refund of monies paid, disgorgement of ill-gotten monies, 

7 and other equitable relief, against Defendants Lights of America, Inc., 

8 Usman Vakil, and Farooq Vakil (collectively "Defendants") for engaging 

9 in deceptive acts or practices in connection with the advertising and sale of 

10 lighting products, in or affecting commerce, in violation of Section 5(a) of 

11 . the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a). 

12 JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

13 2. 

14 

15 3. 

16 

17 4. 

This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 

1337(a), and 1345, and 15 U.S.C. §§ 4S(a) and 53(b). 

Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)-(c), and 15 

U.S.C. § 53(b). 

At all times relevant to this Amended Complaint, the alleged acts and 

18 practices of Defendants have been in or affecting commerce, as 

19 "commerce" is defined in Section 4 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 44. 

20 PLAINTIFF 

21 5. 

22 

The FTC is an independent agency of the United States Government 

created by statute. 15 U.S.C. §§ 41-58. The FTC enforces Section 5(a) of 

23 the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a), which prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or 

24 practices in or affecting commerce. 

25 6. The FTC is authorized to initiate federal district court proceedings, by its 

26 own attorneys, to enjoin violations of the FTC Act and to secw'e such 

27 equitable relief as may be appropriate in each case, including rescission or 

28 reformation of contracts, restitution, the refund of monies paid, and the 

2 

• 
Case 8:10-cv-01333-JVS -MLG Document 42 Filed 02/08/11 Page 3 of 49 Page ID #:282

1 

2 

3 7. 

4 

5 

6 

7 8. 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 9. 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 10. 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 11. 

27 

28 

, . (' ( \ i ) " -

\ j 

disgorgement of ill-gotten monies. 15 U.S.C. § 53(b). 

DEFENDANTS 

Defendant Lights of America, Inc. ("LOA") is a California corporation 

with its principal place of business at 611 Reyes Drive, Walnut, CA 91789. 

LOA transacts or has transacted business in this district and throughout the 

United States. 

Defendant Usman Vakil founded LOA in 1978 and has been a senior 

executive with the Company since that time. Currently, Usman Vakil is 

LOA's Chairman of the Board of Directors and President. Usman Vakil 

has a 51 percent ownership interest in LOA. Defendant Usman Vakil 

transacts or has transacted business in this district and throughout the 

United States. 

Defendant Farooq Vakil has been a senior executive with LOA since at 

least 1993. Currently, Farooq Vakil is LOA's Secretary and Executive 

Vice President. Farooq VaIdl has a 49 percent ownership interest in LOA. 

Defendant Farooq Vakil transacts or has transacted business in this district 

and throughout the United States. 

DEFENDANTS' COURSE OF CONDUCT 

Since at least February 2008 and continuing thereafter, Defendants have 

advertised, marketed, promoted, distributed, offered for sale, or sold light 

emitting diode ("LED") lamps to retailers for sale to consumers. These 

LED lamps are screw light bulbs that can be used in households in place of 

incandescent bulbs. Properly manufactured LED lamps typically produce 

more light output (i.e., lumens, a measure of brightness) with less wattage 

(i.e., energy use) than traditional incandescent bulbs. 

Defendants sold their LED lamps through retailers located throughout the 

United States and Canada, including Walmart, Sam's Club, ACE 

Hardware, Costco, Kroger, as well as through other retail businesses. 

3 

.. f .r 

( 
• Case 8:10-cv-01333-JVS -MLG Document 42 Filed 02/08/11 Page 4 of 49 Page ID #:283

, ( " 

( 

1 Consumers also could purchase Defendants' LED lamps from the Internet 

2 websites of numerous retailers, such as Amazon.com, Sam's Club, and 

3 ACE Hardware through at least October 2010. 

4 12. Defendants advertised, marketed, promoted, distributed, offered for sale, or 

5 sold their LED lamps using claims: (1) comparing their LED lamps to 

6 -incandescent watt bulbs; (2) identifying the light output in lumens of their 

7 LED lamps; and (3) stating that their LED lamps would last a specified 

8 number of hours. 

9 13. From February 2008 through August 2009, Defendants sold at least 

10 LED lamps making all or some of the clainls described in 

11 Paragraph 12. Defendants continued to sell LED lamps after August 2009, 

]2 making all or some of the claims described in Paragraph 12. 

13 14. Defendants created, prepared, disseminated, or caused to be disseminated 

14 product packaging, product brochures, and other promotional materials that 

15 contained the claims identified in Paragraph 12, including, but 110t limited 

16 to, the attached Exhibits 1 to 3: 

17 a. Lights of America Packaging (Exhibit 1) 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Save $112** 

In Energy Cost Per Bulb 

900/0 

More Efficient 

(Compared to incandescent 

andhalQgen bulbs) 3"0,000 Hour LIfe 

(LIfe Rating of LED's) 

"You'll never change your bulbs again."*** 

[The asterisks after {(Save $112" and {( You'll never change your 

4 

• f I • 
Case 8:10-cv-01333-JVS -MLG Document 42 Filed 02/08/11 Page 5 of 49 Page ID #:284 1. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

, (. 

( 

bulbs again" refer consumers to text appearing 011 the back of the 

package in very small print.] . 

**Based on the lifetime 5lPerating cost difference of a 40W bulb 

when compared to a 2.5W LED Bulb Qperated 4 hours per day 365 

days per year at $0.10 kwh over 30,00ahrs. 

***Statement based on the minimum # oftimes the led [sic] bulb 

needs to be changed. 

b. Lights of America Packaging (Exhibit 2) 

Light Output: 201 lumens 

Rated Lire: 20)..000 hours 

Energy Used: j.5 Watts 

Color of Light: 5600K(Daylight) 

(Graphic: picture of a large LED light bulb equal to ten small 

lncandescent light bulbs arranged in a pyramld.) 

LASTS 10 TIMES LONGER 

r )!rap'hic described above] 

ilian 2,000 hour incandescent bulbs 

c. Lights of America Product Brochure (Exhibit 3 at FTCOO 162) 

Accent SPECIFICATIONS 

Bulb 

WATTAGE:4W 

INCANDESCENT CAMP ARISON [sic]: 45W 

COLOR TEMP: 3500K 

BULB LIFE HOURS: 30,000 

HEAT FREE TECHNOLOGY 

INCANDESCENT WATT BULB COMPARISON 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

15. In numerous instances, Defendants represented that their LED lamps 

20 

would provide light output equivalent to a particular watt incandescent 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

bulb. For example, Defendants claimed that their LED lamps use low 

wattage and either replace or are comparable to higher watt incandescent 

bulbs. 

16. The claims described in Paragraph 15 appeared on product packaging for 

Defendants~ LED lamps. Those representations included, but are not 

26 

27 

28 

limited to, the following claims for the models listed below: 

a. 2001LEDIO-65K Replaces 25 watts, uses only 1 watt 

5 

, 'I 
Case 8:10-cv-01333-JVS -MLG Document 42 Filed 02/08/11 Page 6 of 49 Page ID #:285

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 17. 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

b. 2001LED53IN-65K 

c. 2001LEDE530UT-65K 

d. 2001LEDE26-65K 

e. 2002LEDP30-65K 

f. 2002LEDR30-65K 

g. 2003LEDP38-65K 

h. 2004LEDDL-35K 

i. 2025LED-30K 

j. 2025LED-65K 

k. 2025LEDE12-30K 

1. 2025LEDE12-65K 

I! 

( \ 

\ ) 

Replaces 20 watts, uses only 1 watt 

Replaces 25 watts, uses only 1 watt 

Replaces 20 watts, uses only 1 watt 

Replaces 25 watts, uses only 1 watt 

Replaces 20 watts, uses only 1 watt 

Replaces 25 watts, uses only 1 watt 

Replaces 20 watts, uses only 1 watt 

Replaces 45 watts, uses only 3.5 watts 

Replaces 45 watts, uses only 3.5 watts 

Replaces 45 watts, uses only 5 watts 

Replaces 45 watts, uses only 3.5 watts 

Replaces 40 watts, uses only 4 watts 

Replaces 40 watts, uses only 1.5 watts 

Replaces 40 watts, uses only 1.5 ~atts 

Replaces 40 watts, uses only 1.5 watts 

Replaces 40 watts, uses only 1.5 watts 

m. 2026LED-30K Replaces 40 watts, uses only 1.5 watts 

n. 2026LED-65K Replaces 40 watts, uses only 1.5 watts 

The claims described in Paragraph 15 also appeared in product brochures 

disseminated to retailers throughout the United States. Those 

representations included, but are not limited to, the following claims for 

the models listed below: 

a, 200ILEDIO-65K 

b. 2001LED53IN-65K 

Wattage: 1 W, Incandescent Canlparison: 

25W 

Wattage: 1 W, Incandescent Camparison: 

20W 

Wattage: 1 W, Incandescent Campal'ison: 

25W 

6 

'J 

, 
Case 8:10-cv-01333-JVS -MLG Document 42 Filed 02/08/11 Page 7 of 49 Page ID #:286

(( '. 

1 Wattage: lW, Incandescent Camparison: 

2 20W 

3 c. 2001LED530UT-65K Wattage: 1 W, Incandescent Camparison: 

4 25W 

5 Wattage: 1 W, Incandescent Camparison: 

6 20W 

7 d. 2001LEDE26-65K Wattage: 1 W, Incandescent Camparison: 

8 25W 

9 Wattage: 1 W, Incandescent Camparison: 

10 20W 

11 e. 2002LEDP30-65K Wattage: 3.5W, Incandescent Camparison: 

12 45W 

13 f. 2002LEDR30-65K Wattage: 3.SW, Incandescent Camparison: 

14 45W 

15 g. 2003LEDP38-65K Wattage: SW, Incandescent Camparison: 

16 45W 

17 h. 2004LEDDL-35K Wattage: 3.5W, Incandescent Cat~parison: 

18 45W 

19 Wattage: 4W, Incandescent Camparison: 

20 45W 

21 i. 2025LED-30K Wattage: 1.5W, Incandescent Camparison: 

22 40W 

23 j. 2025LED-65K Wattage: 1.5W, Incandescent Camparison: 

24 40W 

25 k.' 2025LEDE12-30K Wattage: 1.5W, Incandescent Camparison: 

26 40W 

27 1. 2025LEDE12-65K Wattage: 1.5W, Incandescent Camparison: 

28 40W 

7 
Case 8:10-cv-01333-JVS -MLG Document 42 Filed 02/08/11 Page 8 of 49 Page ID #:287

1 

2 

3 

4 

m. 2026LED:-30K 

n. 2026LED-65K 

1 ( 

(/ \ " / 

Wattage: 1.5W, Incandescent Camparison: 

40W 

Wattage: 1.5W, Incandescent Camparison: 

40W 

5 18. In addition to the "incandescent camparison [sic]" claims described in 

6 Paragraph 17 above, Defendants' product brochures included pictures of 

7 product packaging that indicated that their LED lamp "replaces" a much 

8 higher wattage incandescent bulb and "uses only" a much lower wattage 

9 than that bulb. 

10 19. A typica120-watt incandescent bulb's light output is 150 lumens. A typical 

11 25-watt incandescent bulb's light output is 200 lumens. A typical40-watt 

12 incandescent bulb's light output is 450 lumens. A typical 45-watt 

13 incandescent bulb's light output is 510 lumens. 

14 20. Defendants' own testing, as well as testing done by the Department of 

15 Energy, however, demonstrated that in numerous instances, Defendants' 

16 LED lamps produced significantly less light output than a typical 

17 incandescent light bulb at the wattage represented in Defendants' 

18 promotional materials. 

19 Defendants' Testing Results 

20 21. Defendants began selling their LED lamps as early as February 2008, but 

21 did not procure any testing for many, ifnot all, models until December 

22 2008. Defendants produced testing results from Lighting Sciences, Inc. 

23 (''LSI'') for ten of the fourteen LED lamp models identified in Paragraphs 

24 16-17 for which Defendants made watt equivalency claims. Defendants' 

25 testing for the ten LED models did not substantiate Defendants' watt 

26 equivalency ClainlS. In fact, the LSI testing results contradicted 

27 Defendants' claims. 

28 22. The lumen output identified in the LSI testing results aTe below the light 

8 

, . . 
Case 8:10-cv-01333-JVS -MLG Document 42 Filed 02/08/11 Page 9 of 49 Page ID #:288

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 23. 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 24. 

25 

26 

27 

28 

· ( 

(-" ) 

., ( \ 

\ I 

OUtput for a typical incandescent watt bulb to which Defendants compared 

these models. 

Model Watt Typical LSI 

Equivalency Li,ght Testing 

Claim Output ResultslDate 

(in lumens) (in lumens) 

a. 2001LEDE26-65K 20/25 Watts 150/200 30.6 

b. 2002LEDR30-65K 45 Watts 510 172 

c. 2003LEDP38-65K 45 Watts 510 282 

d. 2004LEDDL-35K 40/45 Watts 450/510 201/(3-26-2009) 

e. 2025LED-30K 40 Watts 450 41/(12-17-2008) 

f. 2025LED-65K 40 Watts 450 76/(12-17-2008) 

g. 2025LEDE12-30K 40 Watts 450 76/(12-17-2008) 

h. 2025LEDE12-65K 40 Watts 450 74/(12-17-2008) 

i. 2026LED-30K 40 Watts 450 43/(12-17-2008) 

j. 2026LED-65K 40 Watts 450 84/(12-17-2008) 

LOA did not have any testing that measured the lumen output of the 

following LED lamps: 

a. 2001 LED 1 0-65K 

b. 2001LED53IN-65K 

c. 2001 LEDE530UT -65K 

d. 2002LEDP30-65K 

CALiPER Testing 

The Department of Energy ("DOEH) conducted testing of several of 

Defendants' LED lamps through its Commercially Available LED Product 

Evaluation and Reporting Program ("CALiPER"), an independent testing 

program that evaluates the performance of LED lamps. DOE purchases 

LED lamps from retail stores, conducts tests, shares the results with the 

9 
Case 8:10-cv-01333-JVS -MLG Document 42 Filed 02/08/11 Page 10 of 49 Page ID

 #:289

1 

2 

3 

4 25. 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 26. 

24 

25 

26 27. 

27 

28 

, I 

() , , 

/ \ 

I 

manufacturers and invites them to comment, makes the reports available to 

the public, and releases Summary Reports on its website. See 

wwwl.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ssl/caliper_faq.html#OI. 

In August 2008 and in June 2009, DOE conducted CALiPER testing on six 

of Defendants' LED lamp models. This testing showed that Defendants' 

LED lamps produced less light output than the incandescent watt bulbs to 

which Defendants' LED lamps were compared. 

Model Watt Typical CALiPER 

Equivalency Light Testing/ 

Claim Output Date 

(in lumens) (in lumens) 

a.2001LED530UT 20/25 Watts 150/200 26.8-29.9/ 

-65k August 2008 

b. 2003LEDP38-65K 45 Watts 510 122-1771 

August 2008 

c. 2004LEDDL.;35K 45 Watts 510 140-143/ August 

2008 

d. 2002LEDR30-65K 45 Watts 510 179-189/June 

2009 

e. 2003LEDP38-65K 45 Watts 510 268-302/June 

2009 

f. 2025LEDE12-30K 40 Watts 450 66-67/June 2009 

On September 18,2008, DOE sent the testing results described in 

Paragraph 25.a-c to Usman Vakil. On September 22, 2009, DOE sent the 

testing results described in Paragraph 25.d-fto Us man Vakil. 

In September 2008, DOE published the Summary Report for the August 

2008 testing round that included the testing of the Defendants' LED lamps. 

In October 2009, DOE published the Summary Report for the June 2009 

10 
Case 8:10-cv-01333-JVS -MLG Document 42 Filed 02/08/11 Page 11 of 49 Page ID

 #:290

, ~ I. 

/ 

\ 

1 testing round that included testing of the Defendants' LED lamps. DOE 

2 distributed the September 2008 and October 2009 Summary Reports via a 

3 DOE email listserve that included LOA's Vice President of Sales and 

4 Marketing, Brian Halliwell, as weli as other senior LOA employees. 

5 28. In summarizing the results from the 2008 round of testing that included 

6 LOA LED products and other manufacturers' products, DOE explained that 

7 ~'[i]n almost every case where product literature compares an SSL [LED] 

8 product to traditional products, the comparisons are highly overstated and 

9 misleading." See U.S. Dep't of Energy, CALiPER Summary Report, DOE 

10 Solid-State Lighting CALiPER Progam, Summary of Results: Round 6 of 

11 Product Testing at 20 (Sept. 2008). 

12 29. From February 2008 until at least August 2009, Defendants made watt 

13 equivalency claims, including but not limited to those identified in 

14 Paragraphs 16-17, in their promotional materials for most, if not all, LOA 

15 LED lamps. Defendants continued to make these claims even after 

16 receiving test results that contradicted their claims. 

17 30. For at least ten months after receiving the 2008 CALiPER test results from 

18 DOE, Defendants made claims that their LED lamps used low wattage, but 

19 replaced significantly higher wattage incandescent bulbs, including but not 

20 limited to the claims identified in Paragraph 16, on most, if not all, of their 

21 product packaging. 

22 31. As recently as December 8,2010, models 2002LEDR30-65K, 

23 2003LEDP38-65K, and 2025LEDE12-30K were being sold on the Internet 

24 at Amazon.com with incandescent bulb watt eq1.livalency claims like those 

25 in Paragraphs 16-17. In October 2010, models 2003LEDP38~65K, 

26 2004LEDDL~ and 2026LEDE26-30K were being sold on the Internet at 

27 Sam's Club with incandescent bulb watt equivalency claims like those in 

28 Paragraphs 16-17. 

11 

I I' 
Case 8:10-cv-01333-JVS -MLG Document 42 Filed 02/08/11 Page 12 of 49 Page ID

 #:291

, , 

() , . (\ 

, ) 

1 32. Defendants received consumer complaints about the light output of 

2 numerous LOA LED lamp models. Those complaints included, but are not 

3 limited to, complaints about the light output of the following models: 

4 2002LEDR30-65K, 2003LEDP38-65K, 2004LEDDL, 2025LEDE12-30K, 

5 and 2026LEDE26-30K. Each of these models had at least 

6 sales from February 2008 through August 2009. Each of these models 

7 continued to be sold after August 2009. 

8 LIGHT OUTPUT 

9 33. In numerous instances, Defendants represented that their LED lamps 

10 provided a specific level of light output in lumens. Those representations 

11 appeared on product packaging and included, but are not limited to, the 

12 following claims for the models listed below: 

13 a. 2025LED-30K Light Output: 88 lumens 

14 b. 2025LED-65K Light Output: 113 lumens 

15 

16 

17 

18 

c. 2025LEDE12-65K 

d. 2026LED-30K 

e. 2004LEDDL-35K 

f. 2025LEDE12-30K 

Light Output: 113 lumens 

Light Output: 81 and 90 lumens 

Light Output: 201 lumens 

Light Output: 76 lumens and 90 lumens 

19 34. In numerous instances, Defendants' LED lamps produced significantly less 

20 lumens than Defendants represented on their product packaging. 

21 35. In numerous instances, the Defendants' own testing, from LSI, did not 

22 support Defendants' representations regarding their LED lamps' lumens. 

23 Model Lumen Claim LSI Testing Results 

24 (in lumens) 

25 

26 

27 

28 

a. 2025LED-30K 

b. 2025LED-65K 

c. 2025LEDE 12-65K 

d. 2026LED-30K 

86 41 

113 76 

113 74 

81 and 90 43 

12 

'. 
Case 8:10-cv-01333-JVS -MLG Document 42 Filed 02/08/11 Page 13 of 49 Page ID

 #:292

, . , . () (\ 

\ / 

1 36. In August 2008 and in June 2009, DOE conducted CALiPER testing on 

2 several of Defendants' LED lamp models. This testing showed that 

3 Defendants' lumen output representations detailed in Paragraph 33.e~fwere 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

false and unsubstantiated. 

Model Lumen Claim 

a. 2004LEDDL-35K 201 

b. 2025LEDE12~30K 76 and 90 

CALiPER Testing 

(in lumens) 

140 and 143 

66"67 

9 37. Defendants made lumen representations in their promotional materials for 

10 LED lamps from July 2009 until at least August 2010. 

11 LIFETIME CLAIMS 

12 38. In numerous instances, Defendants represented that their LED lamps would 

13 last tens of thousands of hours, usually providing a specific number of 

14 hours. 

15 39. These lifetime claims appeared on product packaging for all LED models 

16 Defendants sold between February 2008 through August 2009 and for 

17 numerous models sold after August 2009. The representations included, 

18 but are not limited to, the following claims for the models listed below: 

19 a. 2001LED530UT~65K 30,000 Hour Life (Life rating of LED's); 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

b. 2001LEDE26~65K 

"You'll never change your bulbs again." 

30,000 Hour Life (Life rating of LED's); 

"You'll never change your bulbs 

again. H

*** 

Rated Life: 20,000 hours; LASTS 10 

TIMES LONGER [graphic: picture o/a 

large LED light bulb equal to 10 small 

incandescent light bulbs] than 3,000 hour 

incandescent bulbs. 

13 
Case 8:10-cv-01333-JVS -MLG Document 42 Filed 02/08/11 Page 14 of 49 Page ID

 #:293

1 c. 2002LEDP30"65K 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 d. 2002LEDR30-65K 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 e. 2003LEDP38-65K 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

, l , . ( '\ 

i 

30,000 Hour Life (Life rating of LED's); 

"You'll never change your bulbs again." 

Rated Life: 20,000 hours; LASTS 10 

TIMES LONGER [graphic: picture of a 

large LED light bulb equal to 10 small 

incandescent light bulbs] than 2,000 hr 

incandescent bulbs. 

30,000 Hour Life (Life rating of LED's); 

"You'll never change your bulbs again." 

30,000 Hour Life (Life rating of LED's); 

LASTS 15 TIMES LONGER [graphic: 

picture of a large LED light bulb equal to 

'15 small incandescent light bulbs] than 

2,000 hour incandescent bulbs. 

Rated Life: 20,000 hours; LASTS 10 

TIM:ES LONGER [graphic: picture of a 

large LED light bulb equal to 10 small 

incandescent light bulbs] than 2,000 hr 

incandescent bulbs. 

30,000 Hour Life (Life ~ating of LED's); 

"You'll never change your bulbs 

again."*** 

LASTS 10 TIMES LONGER [graphic: 

picture of a large LED light bulb equal to 

1 0 small incandescent light bulbs] than 

3,000 hour incandescent bulbs. 

Rated Life: 20,000 hours; LASTS 10 

TIMES LONGER [graphic: picture of a 

14 
Case 8:10-cv-01333-JVS -MLG Document 42 Filed 02/08/11 Page 15 of 49 Page ID

 #:294

" " 

1 large LED light bulb equal to 10 small 

2 incandescent light bulbs] than 2,000 hour 

3 incandescent bulbs. 

4 f. 2004LEDDL-35K 30,000 Hour Life (Life rating of LED's); 

5 "You'll never change your bulbs 

6 again."*** 

7 Rated Life: 30,000 Hours; LASTS 20 

8 TIMES LONGER [graphic: picture of a 

9 large LED light bulb equal to 20 small 

10 incandescent light bulbs] than 1,500 hour 

11 incandescent bulbs. 

12 Rated Life: 20,000 hours; LASTS 10 

13 TIMES LONGER [graphic: picture of a 

14 large LED light bulb equal to 1 0 small 

15 incandescent light bulbs] than 2,000 hour 

16 incandescent bulbs 

17 g. 2025LED-30K 30,000 Hour Life (Life rating of LED's); 

18 "You'll never change your bulbs 

19 again." * * * 

20 Rated Life: 30,000 hours; LASTS 15 

21 TIMES LONGER [graphic: picture of a 

22 LED light bulb equal to 15 small 

23 incandescent light bulbs] than 2,000 hour 

24 incandescent bulbs. 

25 h. 2025LED-65K 30,000 Hour Life (Life rating of LED's); 

26 uYou'll never change your bulbs 

27 again."*** 

28 Rated Life: 30,000 hours; LASTS 15 

15 
Case 8:10-cv-01333-JVS -MLG Document 42 Filed 02/08/11 Page 16 of 49 Page ID

 #:295

, . . . ( \ 

\ / 

1 TIMES LONGER [graphic: picture of a 

2 LED light bulb equal to 15 small 

3 incandescent light bulbs] than 2,000 hour 

4 incandescent bulbs. 

5 i. 2025LEDE12-30K 30,000 Hour Life (Life rating of LED's); 

6 "You'll never change your bulbs. 

7 again."*** 

8 Rated Life: 30,000 hours; LASTS 15 

9 TIMES LONGER [graphic: picture of a 

10 LED light bulb equal to 15 small 

11 incandescent light bulbs] than 2,000 hour 

12 incandescent bulbs. 

13 Rated Life: 20,000 hours; LASTS 10 

14 TIMES LONGER [graphic: picture of a 

15 LED light bulb equal to 1 0 small . 

16 incandescent light bulbs] than 2,000 hour 

17 incandescent bulbs. 

18 j. 2025LEDE12-65K 30,000 Hour Life (Life rating of LED's); 

19 "You'll never change your bulbs 

20 again.~'*** 

21 Rated Life: 30,000 hours; LASTS 15 

22 TIMES LONGER [graphic: picture of a 

23 LED light bulb equal to 15 small 

24 incandescent light bulbs] than 2,000 hour 

25 incandescent bulbs. 

26 k. 2025TLEDE12-30K Rated Life: 20,000 hours; LASTS 10 

27 TIMES LONGER [graphic: picture ofa 

28 LED light bulb equal to 10 small 

16 
Case 8:10-cv-01333-JVS -MLG Document 42 Filed 02/08/11 Page 17 of 49 Page ID

 #:296

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

(j 

\ . 

1. 2026LED-30K 

m. 2026LED-65K 

n. 203SLED-30K 

• • 

incandescent light bulbs] than 2,000 hour 

incandescent bulbs. 

30,000 Hour Life (Life rating of LED's); 

HYou'll never change your bulbs 

again."*** 

Rated Life: 30,000 hours; LASTS 15 

TIMES LONGER [graphic: picture of a 

LED light bulb equal to 15 small 

incandescent light bulbs] than 2,000 hour 

incandescent bulbs. 

30,000 Hour Life (Life rating of LED's); 

"You'11 never change your bulbs 

again."*** 

Rated Life: 30,000 hours; LASTS 10 

TIMES LONGER [graphic: picture of a 

LED light bulb equal to 10 small 

incandescent light bulbs] than 3,000 hour 

incandescent bulbs. 

Rated Life: 20,000 hours; LASTS 10 

20 TIMES LONGER [graphic: picture of a 

21 LED light bulb equal to 10 small 

22 incandescent light bulbs] than 2,000 hour 

23 incandescent bulbs. 

24 [The asteri/{S in the above quotations refer to the following sentence appearing 

25 on the packaging.] 

26 ***Statement based on the minimum # of 

27 times the led [sic] bulb needs to be 

28 . changed. 

17 
Case 8:10-cv-01333-JVS -MLG Document 42 Filed 02/08/11 Page 18 of 49 Page ID

 #:297

1 40. 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 41. 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 42. 

(\ 

\ ,; 

, . , " 

/ '\ 

\ 

Representations regarding lifetime claims also appeared in Defendants' 

product brochures. These representations included, but are not limited to, 

the lifetime claims for the models listed below: 

a. 2001LEDIO-65K BULB LIFE HOURS: 30,000 

h. 2001LED53IN-65K BULB LIFE HOURS: 30,000 

c. 2001LED530UT-65K BULB LIFE HOURS: 30,000 

d. 2001LEDE26-65K BULB LIFE HOURS: 30,000 

e. 2002LEDP30-65K BULB LIFE HOURS: 30,000 

f. 2002LEDR30-65K BULB LIFE HOURS: 30,000 

g. 2003LEDP38-65K BULB LIFE HOURS: 30,000 

h. 2004LEDDL-35K BULB LIFE HOURS: 30,000 

i. 2025LED-30K BULB LIFE HOURS: 30,000 

j. 2025LED-65K BULB LIFE HOURS: 30,000 

k. 2025LEDE12-30K BULB LIFE HOURS: 30,000 

1. 2025LEDE12-65K BULB LlFE HOURS: 30,000 

m. 2026LED-30K BULB LIFE HOURS: 30,000 

n. 2026LED-65K BULB LIFE HOURS: 30,000 

Defendants did not test any of their individual LED lamp models to 

support their lifetime claims. At most, Defendants tested the diodes used 

in their LED lamps. The diode is the light emitting component of an LED 

lamp. It is only one part of an integrated LED lamp and testing only the 

diode cannot substantiate lifetime claims. Defendants knew the 

importance of testing the integrated LED lamp itself. Defendants' product 

brochure explains that the "quality and efficiency of LED products still 

varies widely" because diodes are "sensitive to thermal and electrical 

conditions" and they must be "carefully integrated into lighting fixtures." 

See Exhibit 3 at FTCOO158. 

In 2009, DOE's CALiPER program conducted testing to evaluate the 

18 

, 
Case 8:10-cv-01333-JVS -MLG Document 42 Filed 02/08/11 Page 19 of 49 Page ID

 #:298

· . ( \ 

\ 

1 . lifetime claims for Defendants' models 2002LEDR30-65K, 2003LEDP38-

2 65K, and 2025LEDE12-30K by testing six samples of each model. DOE 

3 sent these results to Usman Vakil on September 22,2009. 

4 43. LED lamps do not fail in the same manner as incandescent bulbs. LED 

5 lanlp light output decreases over time and LED lamp lifetime is defined by 

6 how long it provides an acceptable light output. LED lamp life is defined 

7 by the operating time for the LED lamp to reach two perfonnance criteria, 

8 L70 and L50. Alliance for Solid-State Illumination Systems and 

9 Technologies ("ASSIST"), Lighting Research Center, Rensselaer 

10 Polytechnic Institute, LED Life for General Lighting: Life Definition, Vol. 

11 1, Issue 1 at 4 (2005). In most cases, industry practice measures general 

12 lighting products LED lamp lifetime by calculating the number of hours 

13 before the LED lamp light output depreciates by 30 percent. This is 

14 generally referred to as the L70 measurement, i.e., the number of hours of 

15 operation until the light output reaches 70 percent of initial light output. 

16 44. In some cases, industry practice measures lighting products' LED lamp 

17 lifetime by calculating the number of hours before the LED lamp light 

18 output depreciates by 50 percent. This is generally referred to as the L50 

19 measurement, i.e., the number of hours of operation until the light output 

20 reaches 50 percent of initial light output. . 

21· 45. The actual number of lifetime hours for the Defendants' CALiPER tested 

22 LED lamps using the L 70 lumen depreciation measurement were: 

23 Model Lifetime Claim CALiPER Tested L 70 

24 (in hours) Lifetime 

25 

26 

27 

28 

a, 2002LEDR30-65K 

b. 2003LEDP38-65K 

c. 2025LEDE12-30K 

30,000 

30,000 

30,000 

19 

(in hours) 

380 

270 

110 
Case 8:10-cv-01333-JVS -MLG Document 42 Filed 02/08/11 Page 20 of 49 Page ID

 #:299

, . , . 

1 46. The actual number of lifetime hours for the Defendants' CALiPER tested 

2 LED lamps using the L50 lumen depreciation measurement were: 

3 Model Lifetime Claim CALiPER Tested L50 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

a. 2002LEDR30-65K 

b. 2003LEDP38-65K 

c. 2025LEDE12-30K 

(in hours) 

30,000 

30,000 

30,000 

Lifetime 

(In hours) 

600 

435 

230 

9 47. The results in Paragraphs 45 and 46 demonstrate the falsity of Defendants' 

10 lifetime claims under either the L 70 or L50 measurement. 

11 48. The 2009 DOE CALiPER testing concluded that LOA's LED model: 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

a. 

b. 

c. 

2002LEDR30-65K's light output depreciated approximately 70 

percent from its initiallight output after 1,000 hours; 

2003LEDP38-65K's light output depreciated approximately 78 

percent from its initial light output after 1,000 hours; and 

2025LEDE12~30K's light output depreciated approximately 90 

17 percent from its initial light output after 1,000 hours. 

18 49. DOE characterized the light output depreciation identified in Paragraphs 

19 45,46, and 48, as "exceedingly poor long-term perfoffi1ance" and the 

20 results do "not appear typical across products on the market." See U.S. 

21 Dep't of Energy, CALiPER Summary Report, DOE Solid-State Lighting 

22 CALiPER Progam, Summary of Results.' Round 9 of Product Testing at p. 

23 28 (Oct. 2009). 

24 50. DOE further noted that out of the fifteen LED lamp products tested to date, 

25 which included three LOA lamps and twelve from other manufacturers, the 

26 LOA lamps "are the only products which have exhibited light output 

27 falling below 95% of initial light output within the first 1000 hours." ld. 

28 51. Defendants received numerous consumer complaints about the lifetime of 

20 
Case 8:10-cv-01333-JVS -MLG Document 42 Filed 02/08/11 Page 21 of 49 Page ID

 #:300

, . , . r\ 

\ / 

1 many of their LED lamp models. Those complaints inc1uded~ but are not 

2 limited to, complaints about the lifetime of the following models: 

3 2002LEDR30~65K, 2003LEDP38-65K, 2004LEDDL, 2025LEDE12-30K, 

4 and 2026LEDE26-30K. Each of these models had at least III 

5 sales from February 2008 through August 2009. 

6 52. In October 2009, LOA agreed to provide refunds to Costco customers who 

7 had purchased certain LED lamp models. In a letter sent to consmners at 

8 that time, LOA stated that it was providing refunds because of test results 

9 . "indicating that the life rating on the package is incorrect and that the 

10 actual life of the product is less than that which is stated on the package." 

11 53. Each of the models identified in Paragraph 51 continued to be sold after 

12 August 2009. Eleven months later, in August 2010, models 2002LEDR30-

13 65K, 2003LEDP38-65K, 2004LEDDL, and 2025LEDE 12-3 OK, were 

14 being sold on the Internet at Amazon.com with representations that they 

15 lasted 30,000 hours. Fourteen months later, in October 2010, models 

16 2003LEDP38-65K, 2004LEDDL, and 2026LEDE26-30K were being sold 

17 on the Intelnet at Sam's Club with representations that they lasted 30,000 

18 hours. 

19 ROLE OF THE INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS 

20 Usman Vakil 

21 . 54. Usman Vakil is an owner and officer of LOA. In this capacity, he has the 

22 authority to control the acts of LOA. At all times relevant to this Amended 

23 Complaint, acting individually or in concert with others, he has formulated, 

24 directed, controlled, had authority to control, or participated in the acts or 

25 practices set forth in this Amended Complaint and knew or should have 

26 known that the acts or practices described herein were deceptive. 

27 55. Usman Vakil was involved in LOA's LED business since LOA started 

28 distributing the lamps to retailers. For example, on Apri129, 2008, Usman 

21 
Case 8:10-cv-01333-JVS -MLG Document 42 Filed 02/08/11 Page 22 of 49 Page ID

 #:301

;. '1; 

1 Vakil received an email from an LOA employee describing LOA's planned 

2 distribution of LED lamps. In this email the employee also suggested that 

3 an LOA employee attend a DOE EnergyStar Workshop regarding solid4 state lighting. 

5 56. In September 2008, Usman Vakil received from DOE the results of 

6 CALiPER tests conducted on three of Defendants' LED lamp models. 

7 These tests determined the lamps' light output. The test results showed 

8 that the watt equivalency representations that appeared on the "lamps' 

9 packaging and in the product brochures were false or unsubstantiated. 

10 57. In September 2008, Usman Vakil sent a letter to DOE in response. The 

11 letter did not contest DOE's test results and acknowledged that DOE 

12 evaluated some of Defendants' LED lamps. Usman Vakil's letter further 

13 stated that the Defendants' LED lamps were selling well at Walmart stores. 

14 Usman Valdl sent a copy of the letter to the President ofWalmart. 

15 58. After September 2008, Defendants continued to make watt equivalency 

16 claims for the models DOE tested. 

17 59. On July 31, 2009, Usman Vakil received an email from an LOA employee 

18 

19 In a separate email among LOA 

20 employees, sent on July 31, 2009, a senior LOA employee stated that. 

21 

22 

23 60. After July 2009, Defendants continued to make watt equivalency claims 

24 for LED models that were false or unsubstantiated. 

25 61. On August 9,2009, Usman Vakil received an email from an LOA 

26 

27 

28 

22 
Case 8:10-cv-01333-JVS -MLG Document 42 Filed 02/08/11 Page 23 of 49 Page ID

 #:302

.. , . (j ( \ \ J 

1 62. 

2 

3 

4 

5 63. After August 2009, Defendants continued to make lifetime claims for their 

6 LED lamps that were false or unsubstantiated. 

7 64. In September 2009, U sman Vakil received from DOE the results of 

8 CALiPER tests conducted on three of Defendants' LED lamp models. 

9 These tests detennined the lamps' light output and lifetime. The test 

10 results contradicted lifetime representations that appeared on the LED 

11 lamps' packaging or in the product brochures. 

12 65. After September 2009, Defendants continued to make lifetime claims for 

13 their LED lamps that were false or unsubstantiated. 

14 66. As late as July 2009, seventeen months after Defendants began marketing 

15 and selling LED lamps, a senior LOA employee sent an email that was 

16 copied to Usman Vakil discussing 

17 

18 

19 

20 67. As an owner and high ranking LOA corporate officer, Usman Vakil failed 

21 to establish, implement, and maintain procedures to ensure that the claims 

22 for Defendants' LED lamps were true and substantiated prior to 

23 dissemination. 

24 68. Usman Vakil knew that the claims for Defendants' LED lamps were false 

25 or unsubstantiated, was recklessly indifferent to the truth or falsity of such 

26 claims, or was aware of a high probability that the claims were fraudulent 

27 and intentionally avoided the truth. 

28 

23 
Case 8:10-cv-01333-JVS -MLG Document 42 Filed 02/08/11 Page 24 of 49 Page ID

 #:303

, . , , 

\ 

I 

1 Farooq Vakil 

2 69. Farooq Vakil is an owner and officer of LOA. In this capacity, he has the 

3 authority to control the acts of LOA. At all times relevant to this Amended 

4 Complaint, acting individually or in concert with others, he has formulated, 

5 directed, controlled, had authority to control, or participated in the acts or 

6 practices set forth in this Amended Complaint and knew or should have 

7 known that the acts or practices described herein were deceptive. 

8 70. Farooq Vakil was involved in LOA's LED business since LOA started 

9 distlibuting the lamps to retailers. For example, on April 29, 2008, Farooq 

10 Vakil received an email from an LOA employee 

11 

12 

13 

14 71. On September 25, 2008, Farooq Vakil received an email that attached 

15 Usman Vakil's response to a letter from James Brodrick of DOE regarding 

16 the September 2008 CALiPER test results. Usman Vakil's letter 

17 acknowledged that DOE evaluated some of Defendants' LED lamps. 

18 Usman Vakil's letter further stated that the Defendants' LED lamps were 

19 selling well at Walmart stores. 

20 72. On July 16, 2009, Farooq Vakil sent an email to numerous LOA 

21 

22 

23 

24 73. On July 23,2009, Farooq Vakil sent an email to certain LOA employees 

25 

26 

27 74. On July 28,2009, Farooq Vakil sent an email to celiain LOA employees 

28 requesting 

24 
Case 8:10-cv-01333-JVS -MLG Document 42 Filed 02/08/11 Page 25 of 49 Page ID

 #:304

t. , __ 

('I 

.. ) 

/ \ 

1 

2 75. On July 31, 2009, Farooq Vakil received an email from an LOA employee 

3 

4 

5 76. .on July 31, 2009, Farooq Vakil sent an email to various LOA employees 

6 concerning DOE 

7 stated that LOA's LED lamp labels resembled DOE's energy facts label, 

8 but had not been approved by DOE. 

9 77. On August 9, 2009, Farooq Vakil received an email from an LOA 

10 

11 

12 

13 78. 

14 

15 

16 

17 79. On August 10, 2009, Farooq Vakil sent an email to various LOA 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 80. After August 2009, Defendants continued to make lifetime claims for their 

23 LED lamps that were false or unsubstantiated. 

24 81. In a September 2009 email to James Brodrick at DOE, Farooq Vakil 

25 discussed his direct involvement in developing the "replaces" watt 

26 equivalency claims on Defendants' LED lamp packaging. 

27 82. As late as July 2009, seventeen months after Defendants began marketing 

28 and selling LED lamps, a senior LOA employee sent Farooq Vakil an 

25 
Case 8:10-cv-01333-JVS -MLG Document 42 Filed 02/08/11 Page 26 of 49 Page ID

 #:305

1 

2 

3 

4 

/." 

\ ) 

, . • • 

(\ 

\ 

5 83. As an owner and high ranking LOA corporate officer, Farooq Vakil failed 

6 to establish, implement, and maintain procedures to ensure that the claims 

7 for Defendants' LED lamps were true and substantiated prior to 

8 dissemination. 

9 84. Farooq Vakil knew that the claims for Defendants' LED lamps were false 

10 or unsllbstantiated, was recklessly indifferent to the truth or falsity of such 

11 claims, or was aware of a high probability that the claims were fraudulent 

12 and intentionally avoided the truth. 

13 DEFENDANTS' CFL LITIGATION 

14 85. Defendants are aware of the importance of light output and lifetime claims 

15 on product packaging for light bulbs. 

16 86. Defendants have previously been involved in litigation involving light 

17 output and lifetime claims for their compact fluorescent lightbulbs 

18 ("CFLs"). 

19 87. Specifically, in June 2000, LOA sued Consumers Union in California state 

20 court due to a Consumer Reports magazine article stating that LOA's CFLs 

21 did not "provide as much light, nor do they last as long as the package 

22 claims." Complaint Lights of America, Inc. v. I & I Group, Inc., 

23 Consumers Union of United States, Inc. et al., Case No. KC033419, 2000 

24 CA Sup. Ct. Pleadings LEXIS 71 at *17 (Cal. Sup. Ct., Los Angeles 

25 County, June 29,2000). 

26 88. Defendants sought to have Consumers Union retract its article. LOA's 

27 complaint was dismissed and the appeal denied. 

28 

26 
Case 8:10-cv-01333-JVS -MLG Document 42 Filed 02/08/11 Page 27 of 49 Page ID

 #:306

1 

2 89. 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 90. 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 91. 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 92. 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 93. 

26 

27 

28 

(~\ 

\ / 

, . t • 

/ \ 

VIOLATIONS OF THE FTC ACT 

. Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a), prohibits unfair or 

deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce. As set forth below, 

Defendants have engaged in unlawful practices in connection with the 

marketing and sale of LED lamps. 

FALSE OR UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIMS 

IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 5 OF THE FTC ACT 

Count I 

Through the means described in Paragraphs 10-84 above, in connection 

with the advertising, marketing, promotion, offering for sale, sale, or 

distribution of LED lamps, Defendants have represented, expressly or by 

implication, that their LED lamps will provide light output equivalent to 

particular watt incandescent light bulbs. 

The representations set forth in Paragraph 90 are false or were not 

substantiated at the time the representations were made. Therefore, the 

making of the representations set forth in Paragraph 90, above, constitutes 

a deceptive act or practice, in or affecting commerce, in violation of 

Section 5(a) ofthe FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a). 

Count II 

Through the means described in Paragraphs 10-84 above, in connection 

with the advertising, marketing, promotion, offering for sale, sale, or 

distribution of LED lamps, Defendants have represented, expressly or by 

implication, that their LED lamps will provide a purported level of light 

output in lumens. 

The representations set forth in Paragraph 92 are false or were not 

substantiated at the time the representations were made. Therefore, the 

making of the representations set forth in Paragraph 92, above, constitutes 

a deceptive act or practice, in or affecting commerce, in violation of 

27 
Case 8:10-cv-01333-JVS -MLG Document 42 Filed 02/08/11 Page 28 of 49 Page ID

 #:307

•• . , ( \ \ I 

1 Section Sea) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a). 

2 Count III 

3 94. Through the meaJ?s described in Paragraphs 10-84 above, in connection 

4 with the advertising, marketing, promotion, offering for sale, sale, or 

5 distribution of LED lamps, Defendants have represented, expressly or by 

6 implication, that their LED lmnps will last a specified number of hours. 

7 95. The representations set forth in Paragraph 94 are false or were not 

8 substantiated at the time the representations were made. Therefore, the 

9 . making of the representations set forth in Paragraph 94, above, constitutes 

lOa deceptive act or practice, in or affecting commerce, in violation of 

11 Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 4S(a). 

12 CONSUMER INJURY 

P 96.· Consumers throughout the United States have suffered and continue to 

14 suffer substantial consumer injury as a result of Defendants' violations of 

15 the FTC Act. In addition, Defendants have been unjustly enriched as a 

16 result of their unlawful acts or practices. Absent injunctive relief by this 

17 Court, Defendants are likely to continue to injure consumers, reap unjust 

18 enrichment, and hann the public interest. 

19 THIS COURT'S POWER TO GRANT RELIEF 

20 97. Section 13(b) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 53(b), empowers this Court to 

21 grant injunctive and such other relief as the Court may deem appropriate to 

22 halt and redress violations of any provision oflaw enforced by th~ FTC. 

23 The Court, in the exercise of equitable jurisdiction, may award ancillary 

24 relief, including rescission or reformation of contracts, restitution, the 

25 refund of monies paid, and the disgorgement of ill-gotten monies, to 

26 prevent and remedy any violation of any provision of law enforced by the 

27 FTC. 

28 

28 
Case 8:10-cv-01333-JVS -MLG Document 42 Filed 02/08/11 Page 29 of 49 Page ID

 #:308

, . () ( \ 

1 PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

2 98. Wherefore, the FTC, pursuant to Section 13Cb) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 

3 § 53(b), and the Court's equitable powers, requests that the Court: 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

a. 

h. 

c. 

Enter a permanent injunction to prevent future violations of the FTC 

Act by Defendants; 

Award such relief as the Court fmds necessary to redress injury to 

consumers resulting from Defendants' violations of the FTC Act, 

including but not limited to, rescission or reformation of contracts, 

restitution, the refund of monies paid, and the disgorgement ofill~ 

gotten monies; and 

Award Plaintiff the costs of bringing this action, as well as such 

other and additional relief as the Court may determine to be just and 

proper. 

Respectfully submitted, 

WILLARD K. TOM 

General Counsel 

Dated: ;jv/ll . MADDEN 

Fe are Commission 

600 Pe sylvania Avenue, NW 

Room M-Sl 02B 

Washington DC 20580 

202l3Z6~3740 (te1.l (Spector) 202 326~2426 teL (Madden) 

202 326-2558 fax 

rspector@ftc.gov, gmadden@:ftc.gov 

STACY PROCTER (Local Counsel) Federal Trade CommIssion 

10877 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 700 

Los Angele~ CA 90024 

(310) 824-4.;43 (tel.) 

(310) 824-4380 (fax) sprocter@ftc.gov 

29 
Case 8:10-cv-01333-JVS -MLG Document 42 Filed 02/08/11 Page 30 of 49 Page ID

 #:309

EXHIBIT 1 
Case 8:10-cv-01333-JVS -MLG Document 42 Filed 02/08/11 Page 31 of 49 Page ID

 #:310

· . r\ ) 

EXIDBITI 

30 
Case 8:10-cv-01333-JVS -MLG Document 42 Filed 02/08/11 Page 32 of 49 Page ID

 #:311

.. () . , 

31 

f\ 

\ I 

Ex. 1 

FTC00120 
Case 8:10-cv-01333-JVS -MLG Document 42 Filed 02/08/11 Page 33 of 49 Page ID

 #:312

\ EXHIBIT 2 
Case 8:10-cv-01333-JVS -MLG Document 42 Filed 02/08/11 Page 34 of 49 Page ID

 #:313

· . , J 

() ( 

EXIDBIT2 

32 
." 

-f 

o 

a 

a 

...... 

(,) 

...... 

. ·;·W :W 

m 

?< 

'" 
Case 8:10-cv-01333-JVS -MLG Document 42 Filed 02/08/11 Page 36 of 49 Page ID

 #:315

\ EXHIBIT 3 ( 
Case 8:10-cv-01333-JVS -MLG Document 42 Filed 02/08/11 Page 37 of 49 Page ID

 #:316

~-) l 

. . . .. 

EXIDBIT3 

34 

.. ( 

\ / 
Case 8:10-cv-01333-JVS -MLG Document 42 Filed 02/08/11 Page 38 of 49 Page ID

 #:317

FTC00157 
Case 8:10-cv-01333-JVS -MLG Document 42 Filed 02/08/11 Page 39 of 49 Page ID

 #:318

.. .. I • . , 

LED TECHNOLOGY 

LED technology continues to develop rapidly as a general light source. As more LED products and 

light fixtures are introduced on the market, what do retailers, energy efficiency advocates, and consumers need to know to make informed buying decisions? 

Are LEDs ready for general lighting? 

The number of white light LED products available on the market continues to grow, including portable 

desk/task lights, recessed downlights, retail display lights, and outdoor fixtures for street, parking lot, 

path, and other area lighting. Some of these products perform very well, but the quality and energy 

efficency of LED products still varies widely, for several reasons: 

1. LED technology continues to change and evolve very quickly. [\Jew generations of LED 

devices become available approximately every 4 to 6 months. 

2. Lighting fixture manufacturers face a learning curve in applying LEOs. Because they 

are sensitive to thermal and electrical conditions, LEOs must be carefully integrated into 

lighting fixtures. Few lighting fixture manufacturers are equipped to do this well today. 

3. Important differences in LED technology compared to other light sources have created 

a gap in the industry standards and test procedures that underpin all product comparisons and ratings. New standards, test procedures, and ENERGY STAR criteria are 

coming soon. In the meantime, product comparison is a fairly laborious, one-at-a-time task. 

Are LEOs energy-efficient? 

The best white LED products can meet or exceed the efficency of compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs). 

However, many white LEOs currently available in consumer products are only marginally more efficient than incandescent lamps. The best warm white LEOs available today can produce about 45-50 

lumens per watt (lm/W). In comparison, incandescent lamps typically produce 12-15 Im/W: CFLs produce at least 50 Im/W. Performance of white LEOs continues to improve rapidly. 

However, LED device efficacy doen't tell the whole story. Good LED system and luminaire design is 

imperative to energy-efficient LED lighting fixtures. For example, a new LED recessed downlight combines multicolored high efficiency LEDs, excellent thermal management, and sophisticated optical 

design to produce more tllan 700 lumens using only 12 watts, for a luminaire efficacy of 60 Im/W. 

Conversely, poorly-designed luminaires using even the best LEDs may be no more efficient than incandescent lighting. 

. .... ". 

FTC00158 
Case 8:10-cv-01333-JVS -MLG Document 42 Filed 02/08/11 Page 40 of 49 Page ID

 #:319

Background 

What makes LEOs different from other light sources? LEOs are simiconductor devices, while incandescent, fluorescent, and high-intensity discharge (HID) lamps are all based on glass enclosures 

containing a filament or electrodes, with fill gases and coatings of various ypes. 

LED lighting starts with a tiny chip (most commonly about 1 mm) comprising layers of semi-conducting material. LED packages may contain just one chip or multiple chips, mounted on heat-conducting 

material and usually enclosed in a lens or encapsulant. The resulting device, typically around 7 to 9 

mm on a side, can produce 30 to 150 lumens each, and can be used separately or in arrays. LED devices are mounted on a circuit board and attached to a lighting fixture, architectural structure, or even 

a "light bulb" package. 

Cold temperature operation 

Cold temperatures present a challenge for fluorescent lamps. At low temperatures, highter voltage is 

required to start fluorescent lamps, and luminous flux is decreased. A non-amalgam CFL, for example, will drop to 50% of full light output a O°C. The use of amalgam (an alloy of mercury and other 

metals, used to stabilize and control mercury pressure in the lamp) in CFLs largely addresses this 

oroblem, allowing the CFL to maintain light output over a wide temperature range (-17°C to 65°C). 

The trade-off is that amalgam lamps have a noticeably longer "run-up" time to full brightness, compared to non-amalgam lamps. In contrast, LED performance inherently increases as operating temperatures drop. This makes LEOs a natural fit for grocery store refrigerated and freezer cases, cold 

storage facilities, and outdoor applications. In fact, DOE testing of an LED refrigerated case light 

measured 5% higher efficacy at -5°C, compared to operation at 25°C. 

Instant on 

Fluorescent lamps, especially those containing amalgam, do not provide full brightness immediately 

upon being turned on. Fluorescents using amalgam can take three minutes or more to reach their full 

light output. HID lamps have longer warm up times, from several minutes for metal halide to 10 minutes or more for sodium lamps. HID lamps also have a "re-strike" time delay; if turned off they must 

be allowed to cool down before turning on again, usually for 10-20 minutes. Newer pulse-start HID 

ballasts provide faster restrike times of 2-8 minutes. LEOs', in contrast, come on at full brightness 

almost instantly, with no re-strike delay. This characteristic of LEOs is notable in vehicle brake lights, 

were they come on 170 to 200 milliseconds faster than standard ncandescent lamps, providing an 

estimated 19 feet of additonal stopping distance at highway speeds (65mph). In general illumination 

applications, instant on can be desirable for safety and convenience. 

37 Ex.3 

FTC00159 
Case 8:10-cv-01333-JVS -MLG Document 42 Filed 02/08/11 Page 41 of 49 Page ID

 #:320

.. 

SPECIFICATIONS 

• WATTAGE: 1 W 

• INCANDESCENT CAMPARISON: ZOW 

• COLOR TEMP: 6500K 

-BULB LIFE HOURS: 30,000 

• HEAT FREE LED TECHNOLOGY 

• ARRAY 

ITEM DESCRIPTION 

LED MR-16 ACCENT BULB, INDOOR Gu 1 0 

MCDEL# 

2001 LED 10-6 5K-24 

UPC 

755277-200102 

1:2 OF 5 

10755277200109 

PCS/INNER 

:3 

# OF" INNE.RS 

B 

PCS/MASTER 

24 

SPECIFICATIONS 

• WATTAGE: 1 W 

• INCANDESCENT CAMPARISON: 20W 

• COLOR TEMP: 6500K 

• BULB LIFE HOURS: 30,000 

• HEAT FREE LED TECHNOLOGY 

e ARRAY 

ITEM DESCRIPTION 

LED MR-16 ACCENT BULB, OUTDOOR GUS.3 

MODEL# 

2001 LED530UT-65K-24 

UPC 

755277-200133 

12 OF 5 

107552'7'7200130 

Lights of America. 

PCSIINNER 

3 

# OF INNERS 

8 

PCS/MASTER 

24 

"', 

38 Ex. 3 

FTC00160 
Case 8:10-cv-01333-JVS -MLG Document 42 Filed 02/08/11 Page 42 of 49 Page ID

 #:321

, . 

39 

• • 

SPECIFICATIONS 

• WATTAGE: 1 W 

• INCANDESCENT CAMPARISON: 20W 

• COLOR TEMP: 6500K 

• BULB LIFE HOURS: 30,000 

• HEAT FREE LED TECHNOLOGY 

• ARRAY· 

ITEM DESCRIPTION 

LED MR-16 ACCENT BULB, INDOOR I3US.3 

MCDEL# 

2001 LED53IN-65K-24 

UPC. 

755277'-200126 

I 2 OF" 5 

10755277200123 

PCS/INNER 

3 

# OF' INNERS 

B 

PCS/MASTER 

24 

SPECIFICATIONS 

• WATTAGE: 1 W 

• INCANDESCENT CAMPARISON: 20W 

• COLOR TEMP: 6500K 

• BULB LIFE HOURS: 30,000 

• HEAT FREE LED TECHNOLOGY 

• ARRAY 

ITEM DESCRIPTION 

LED MR-l 6 ACCENT BULB, INDOOR E26 

MODI;:L# 

2001 LEDEZ6-65K-24 

UPC 

755277-200119 

12.0F"S 

10755277200116 

PCSIINNER 

3 

# OF" INNERS 

B 

PCS/MASTER 

24 

lights a/America, 

Ex. 3 

FTC00161 
Case 8:10-cv-01333-JVS -MLG Document 42 Filed 02/08/11 Page 43 of 49 Page ID

 #:322

.. •• • • 

r----------------------.. -~~" .. "--.. , .. --. 

SPECIFICATIONS· 

• WATTAGE: 4W 

• INCANDESCENT DAMPARISO.N: 45W 

• DOLOR TEMP: 3500K 

• -BULB LIFE HOURS: 30.000 

• HEAT FREE TEDHNOLOGY 

ITEM DESCRIPTION 

LED ACCENT DOWNLIGHT BULB 

MODEL# 

2004LEDDL-3 SK-8 

UPC 

75S277-200409 

I Z OF 5 

1075S277200406 

PCS/INNER 

3 

# OF INNERS 

8 

PCS/MASTER 

24 

SPECIFICATIONS 

• WATTAGE: 4W 

• INCANDESCENT CAMPARISON: 40W 

• DOLOR TEMP: 6S00K 

• BULB LIFE HOURS: 30,000 

• HEAT FREE TEDHNOLOGY 

ITEM DE5DRIPTIO'N 

LED CHECK REt:;ISTER aULa 

• MODEL# 2004LEDDR-65K-l 2 

Ug/f.s Of America, 

."'. 

Ex, 3 

FTC00162 
Case 8:10-cv-01333-JVS -MLG Document 42 Filed 02/08/11 Page 44 of 49 Page ID

 #:323

I , 

\' ..... ~, 

41 

SPECIFICATIONS 

- WATTAGE: S. 5W 

-INCANDESCENT CAMPARISON: 45W 

- COLOR TEMP: SooOK OR 6500K 

• BULB LIFE HOURS: 30,000 

- HEAT i="REE TEOHNOLOGY 

ITEM DESCRIPTION 

LED PAR 30 ACCENT FLOOD - INDOOR/ OUTDOOR 

MDDEL.# , 

2002,LEOP30-30K-B 

.!:!!:£ 

N/A 

120F",5 

N/A 

PCS/INNER 

2' 

# OF" INNER5 

4 

PC5/MASTER 

B 

6500K' ... ,... .. ;-- .,,"f' ..... T.,[ 

MDDEL.# 

2002LEDP30-65K-B 

UPC 

755277-200201 

I 2 OF" S 

10755277200222 

PCS/INNER 

2 

# OF INNERS' 

4 

PCS/MASTER 

B 

5 PECIFICATiONS 

- WATTAGE: S. 5W 

• INCANDESCENT CAMPARISON: 45W 

• COLOR TEMP; 3000K OR 6500K 

e BULB LIFE HOURS: 30,000 

• HEAT FREE TECHNOLOGY 

ITEM DESCRIPTION 

LED RaO AC[;ENT BULB - INDOOR/OUTDOOR 

MDDEL# 

2002LEDR30-30K-B 

UPC 

755277-20021 B 

I Z OF S 

10755277200215 

PCS/INNER 

2' 

# OF INNERS 

4' 

PCS/MASTER 

B 

6500K, .I.~ ._ ........... u-" 

MDDEL.# 

2002LEDR30-65K-B 

UPC 

755277-20021 B 

I 2 OF" 5 

10755277200215 

PCS/INNER 

2 

# OF INNERS 

4 

PCS/MASTER 

·B 

Lights ofAtr.erica. 

Ex. 3 

FTC00163 
Case 8:10-cv-01333-JVS -MLG Document 42 Filed 02/08/11 Page 45 of 49 Page ID

 #:324

. , 

SPECIFIC.ATioNS 

• WATTAGE: 5W 

• INDANDESOENT CAMPARISON: ,45W· 

• COLOR TEMP: 3000K OR 550pi< 

• BULB LIFE HOURS: 30,000 

• HEAT'FREE TECHNOI.-DGY 

ITEM DESCRIPTION 

LED PAR :36 ACCENT FLOOD - INDOOR/OUTDOOR 

MDOEL# 

2003LEDP3B-65K-S 

UPC 

755277-200300 

I 2 OF' S 

10755277200207 

PCS/INNER 

2 

# OF INNERS 

4 

PCS/MASTER 

S 

SPECIFICATIONS 

• WATTAGE: 1. 5W 

• INDANDESOENT COMPARISON: 40W 

• COLOR TEMP: 3000K OR 6500K 

• BULB LIFE HOURS: 30,000 

• HEAT FREE TECHNOLOGY 

ITEM DESCRIPTION 

LED ACCENT CANDELA6RA 

3000K '., ~ 7 ,_. ".' " I. 

MODEL# 

2025LEDE12-30K-24 

UPC 

.755277-202502 

I 2 OF S 

10755277202509 

PDSIINNER 

3 

# OF" INNERS 

B 

PCStMASTER 

24 

Lights o/America, 

MDDEL# 

2025LEDE12-65K-24 

755277-20251 "" 

I 2 OF 5 

10755277202516 

PGS/INNER 

3 

# OF INNERS 

B 

PCS/MASTER 

24 

42 

•• 

EX.3 

FTC00164 
Case 8:10-cv-01333-JVS -MLG Document 42 Filed 02/08/11 Page 46 of 49 Page ID

 #:325

43 

SPECIFICATIONS 

• WATTAGE: 1.SW 

• INCANDESCENT CAMPARISON: 40W 

• COLOR TEMP: 3000K OR 6S00K 

• BULB LIFE HOURS: 30,000 

• HEAT FREE TECHNOLOGY 

ITEM DESCRIPTION 

LEO ACt;ENT CANDELABRA 

3000K, 

~:2&w~.:!':~ 

MCOEL#· 

2025 LED.-3IJK-24 

upr; 

755277-202571 

I Z OF 5 

10755277202578 

pr;StINNER 

3 

# OF INNERS 

8 

PCStMASTER 

24 

6500K' ... ,;~~'S..", ..... :,<"~.; 

MDCEL# 

2025LED-65K-24 

upr; 

755277-2025BB 

12 OF 5 

10755277202585 

PCSIINNER 

3 

# OF INNERS 

8 

PCStMASTER 

24 

SPECIFICATIONS 

• WATTAGE: 1. SW 

• INCANDESCENT CAMPARISON: 40W 

• COLOR TEMP: 3DODK OR 6SDDK 

• BULB LIFE HOURS: 30,000 

• HEAT FREE TECHNOLOGY 

ITEM DESCRIPTION 

LEO ACCENT MINI GLOBE 

MOOEL# 

2026LED-30K-24 

UPC 

755277-202670 

12 OF 5 

10755277202677 

PCStlNNER 

3 

# OF INNERS 

8 

PCStMASTER 

24 

Q~QPK 

MOOEL# 

2026LED-65K-24 

upr; 

755277202687 

12 OF 5 

10755277202684 

PCStlNNER 

3 

# OF INNERS 

8 

PCStMASTER 

24 

LigJY"s of America, 

Ex.3 

FTC00165 
Case 8:10-cv-01333-JVS -MLG Document 42 Filed 02/08/11 Page 47 of 49 Page ID

 #:326

..... 

lights~. 

44 Ex. 3 

FTC00166 
in 

11m --1?< Ow 

a 

0 

--\. l;:s 0> 

-...J 

(", 

Mkl2Q .. ·OIog Yladlmlrovlch r.o.v ImIopendenIly ._ 

the_LED. HIo_hod' 

though .nry d_ 

uled' In RulPllam. Gorman.net 

DrtU"" ocIontIlic I ......... 

wes Ignored. 

1955. _.Bm_ ofuMt _0 CorponrIIon of ",rnerlca reporl8d on ,_ eml"'on from oalllUm 

.""",Ide lGaAI very Important conduc:lor .lId In , 

LeD.) and other ...... lcondUc:lor IIIloy8. 

(> 

1961 • Bob Biard and Gary PI_, while _gilt 

-T_lnolnrrnenlo,lound lIoat gilUum _hide gave 

off Infrared redllllo. when Ilectric cummt .... applied. 

Biard and Plttm ....... able 10 •• l8blfeh DI. priority or 

tIIelr wod< and reCeIved the pa\8IIt rortl1e _lIgl11. 

emitting dIode. 

Late SO'.· ShuilINokamul1l 

lnvenlod lhelrothigh brlghlneo. 

GaN LED whese brinllnl blUe light, 

,when partlllly converlod to y.lfow 

by. P ..... pta- cootlng. h the key 

to wIIIl8 LED IIgMlng, and whIch wont IRID produclkln In 1993. 

1972 • M. GaoIII'> Craford, alormer graduate _ of Holony.k'e ' 

Invont.od the fire! yellow LED and ' 

lOX brighter red and _ngl' 

LElIa. 

.-_--1>v 1ftdI ....

lIIO_"'''''' _lui 

IO""' __ LED, wIII"'........,.. .

mix,..... (_ .. ...eod) 1fgIIf __ 

-, ,-':",.':'-'" 
Case 8:10-cv-01333-JVS -MLG Document 42 Filed 02/08/11 Page 49 of 49 Page ID

 #:328

FTC00168