FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. 

Complaint, Page 1 of 148 

1 

2 

3 

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 

Tracy S. Thorleifson (WA State Bar #16633) 

Sophie H. Calderón (CA State Bar #278135) 

Krista K. Bush (WA State Bar #30881) 

Connor Shively (WA State Bar #44043) 

Attorneys 

Federal Trade Commission 

915 2nd Ave., Suite 2896 

Seattle, WA 98174 

Email: tthorleifson@ftc.gov 

 scalderon@ftc.gov 

 kbush@ftc.gov 

 cshively@ftc.gov 

Telephone: (206) 220-6350 

Attorneys for Plaintiff Federal Trade Commission 

Elizabeth K. Korsmo (NM State Bar #8989) 

Assistant Attorney General 

Office of Attorney General Hector Balderas 

408 Galisteo St. 

Santa Fe, NM 87501 

Email: ekorsmo@nmag.gov 

Telephone: (505) 827-6000 

Attorney for Plaintiff State of New Mexico 

Kyle Beckman (AL State Bar #ASB-6046-E63B) 

Assistant Attorney General 

Office of Attorney General Luther Strange 

501 Washington Ave. 

Montgomery, AL 36104-0152 

Email: kbeckman@ago.state.al.us 

Telephone: (334) 353-2619 

Attorney for Plaintiff State of Alabama 

Cynthia C. Drinkwater (AK State Bar #8808159) 

Assistant Attorney General 

Office of Attorney General Craig W. Richards 

1031 W. 4th Ave., Suite 200 

Anchorage, AK 99501 

Email: cynthia.drinkwater@alaska.gov 

Telephone: (907) 269-5200 

Attorney for Plaintiff State of Alaska 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05/18/15 Page 1 of 148
FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. 

Complaint, Page 2 of 148 

1 

2 

3 

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 

Nancy Vottero Anger (AZ State Bar #006810) 

Matthew du Mee (AZ State Bar #028468) 

Assistant Attorneys General 

Office of Attorney General Mark Brnovich 

1275 W. Washington 

Phoenix, AZ 85007 

Email: nancy.anger@azag.gov 

 matthew.dumee@azag.gov 

Telephone: (602) 542-7710 (Anger) 

 (602) 542-7731 (DuMee) 

Attorneys for Plaintiff State of Arizona 

Kevin Wells (AR State Bar #2007-213) 

Assistant Attorney General 

Office of Attorney General Leslie Rutledge 

323 Center St., Suite 500 

Little Rock, AR 72201 

Email: kevin.wells@arkansasag.gov 

Telephone: (501) 682-8063 

Attorney for Plaintiff State of Arkansas 

Sonja K. Berndt (CA State Bar #131358) 

Deputy Attorney General 

Office of Attorney General Kamala D. Harris 

300 S. Spring St., Suite 1702 

Los Angeles, CA 90013 

Email: sonja.berndt@doj.ca.gov 

Telephone: (213) 897-2179 

Attorney for Plaintiff State of California 

Alissa Hecht Gardenswartz (CO State Bar #36126) 

First Assistant Attorney General 

John Feeney-Coyle (CO State Bar #44970) 

Assistant Attorney General 

Office of Attorney General Cynthia H. Coffman 

Ralph L. Carr Colorado Judicial Center 

1300 Broadway, 7th Floor 

Denver, CO 80203 

Email: alissa.gardenswartz@state.co.us 

 john.feeney-coyle@state.co.us 

Telephone: (720) 508-6204 (Gardenswartz) 

 (720) 508-6232 (Feeney-Coyle) 

Attorneys for Plaintiff State of Colorado 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05/18/15 Page 2 of 148
FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. 

Complaint, Page 3 of 148 

1 

2 

3 

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 

LeeAnn Morrill (CO Bar #38742) 

First Assistant Attorney General 

Public Officials Unit 

Office of Attorney General Cynthia H. Coffman 

Ralph L. Carr Colorado Judicial Center 

1300 Broadway, 6th Floor 

Denver, Colorado 80203 

Email: leeann.morrill@state.co.us 

Telephone: (720) 508-6159 

Attorney for Plaintiff Secretary of State Wayne Williams 

Gary W. Hawes (CT State Bar #415091) 

Assistant Attorney General 

Office of Attorney General George Jepsen 

55 Elm St., P.O. Box 120 

Hartford, CT 06141-0120 

Email: gary.hawes@ct.gov 

Telephone: (860) 808-5020 

Attorney for Plaintiff State of Connecticut 

Gregory C. Strong (DE State Bar #4664) 

Director 

Gillian L. Andrews (DE State Bar #5719) 

Deputy Attorney General 

Office of the Attorney General Matthew P. Denn 

Consumer Protection Unit 

820 N. French Street, 5th Floor 

Wilmington, DE 19801 

Email: gregory.strong@state.de.us

 gillian.andrews@state.de.us 

Telephone: (302) 577-8504 (Strong) 

 (302) 577-8844 (Andrews) 

Attorneys for Plaintiff State of Delaware 

Brian R. Caldwell (DC Bar #979680) 

Assistant Attorney General 

Office of Attorney General Karl A. Racine 

441 Fourth St., NW, Suite 600-N 

Washington, DC 20001 

Email: Brian.Caldwell@dc.gov 

Telephone: (202) 727-6211 

Attorney for Plaintiff District of Columbia 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05/18/15 Page 3 of 148
FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. 

Complaint, Page 4 of 148 

1 

2 

3 

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 

Rebecca Sirkle (FL State Bar #42312) 

Assistant Attorney General 

Office of Attorney General Pam Bondi 

135 W. Central Blvd., Suite 670 

Orlando, FL 32801 

Email: Rebecca.Sirkle@myfloridalegal.com 

Telephone: (407) 316-4840 

Attorney for Plaintiff State of Florida 

Daniel Walsh (GA State Bar #735040) 

Senior Assistant Attorney General 

Office of Attorney General Sam Olens 

Department of Law, State of Georgia 

40 Capitol Square, SW 

Atlanta, GA 30334-1300 

Email: dwalsh@law.ga.gov 

Telephone: (478) 207-1391 

Attorney for Plaintiff State of Georgia and Georgia Secretary of State 

Hugh R. Jones (HI State Bar #4783) 

Supervising Deputy Attorney General 

Jodi L. K. Yi (HI State Bar #6625) 

Deputy Attorney General 

Office of Attorney General Douglas S. Chin 

425 Queen St. 

Honolulu, HI 96813 

Email: Hugh.R.Jones@Hawaii.gov 

 Jodi.K.Yi@Hawaii.gov 

Telephone: (808) 586-1470 

Attorneys for Plaintiff State of Hawaii 

Jane E. Hochberg (ID State Bar #5465) 

Deputy Attorney General 

Office of Attorney General Lawrence G. Wasden 

Consumer Protection Division 

954 W. Jefferson St., 2nd Floor 

Boise, ID 83720 

Email: jane.hochberg@ag.idaho.gov 

Telephone: (208) 334-2424 

Attorney for Plaintiff State of Idaho 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05/18/15 Page 4 of 148
FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. 

Complaint, Page 5 of 148 

1 

2 

3 

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 

Therese M. Harris (IL State Bar #6190609) 

Barry S. Goldberg (IL State Bar #6269821) 

Assistant Attorneys General 

Office of Attorney General Lisa Madigan 

100 West Randolph St., 11th Floor 

Chicago, IL 60601 

Email: tharris@atg.state.il.us 

 bgoldbrg@atg.state.il.us 

Telephone: (312) 814-2595 

Attorneys for Plaintiff State of Illinois 

Richard M. Bramer (IN State Bar #15989-77) 

Deputy Attorney General and Director, Consumer Protection Division 

Office of Attorney General Gregory F. Zoeller 

302 W. Washington St., 5th Floor 

Indianapolis, IN 46204 

Email: richard.bramer@atg.in.gov 

Telephone: (317) 232-1008 

Attorney for Plaintiff State of Indiana 

Steve St. Clair (IA State Bar # AT 0007441) 

Assistant Attorney General 

Office of Attorney General Tom Miller 

1305 E. Walnut, 2nd Floor 

Des Moines, IA 50319 

Email: steven.stclair@iowa.gov 

Telephone: (515) 281-3731 

Attorney for Plaintiff State of Iowa 

Lynette R. Bakker (KS State Bar #22104) 

Assistant Attorney General 

Office of Attorney General Derek Schmidt 

120 S.W. 10th Ave., 2nd Floor 

Topeka, KS 66612 

Email: lynette.bakker@ag.ks.gov 

Telephone: (785) 296-3751 

Attorney for Plaintiff State of Kansas 

Leah Cooper Boggs (KY State Bar #83471) 

John Ghaelian (KY State Bar #94987) 

Assistant Attorneys General 

Office of Attorney General Jack Conway 

1024 Capital Center Drive 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05/18/15 Page 5 of 148
FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. 

Complaint, Page 6 of 148 

1 

2 

3 

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 

Frankfort, KY 40601 

Email: John.Ghaelian2@ky.gov 

 Leah.Boggs@ky.gov

Telephone: (502) 696-5389 

Attorneys for Plaintiff Commonwealth of Kentucky 

Cathryn E. Gits (LA State Bar #35144) 

Assistant Attorney General 

Office of Attorney General James D. “Buddy” Caldwell 

1885 N. Third St. 

Baton Rouge, LA 70802 

Email: gitsc@ag.state.la.us 

Telephone: (225) 326-6400 

Attorney for Plaintiff State of Louisiana 

Carolyn A. Silsby (ME Bar # 3030) 

Assistant Attorney General 

Office of Attorney General Janet T. Mills 

Burton M. Cross Office Building, 111 Sewall St. 

6 State House Station 

Augusta, ME 04333 

Email: carolyn.silsby@maine.gov 

Telephone: (207) 626-8829 

Attorney for Plaintiff State of Maine 

C. Beatrice Nuñez-Bellamy 

Assistant Attorney General 

Office of Attorney General Brian E. Frosh 

200 St. Paul Place 

Baltimore, MD 21202 

Email: bnunezbellamy@oag.state.md.us 

Telephone: (410) 576-6300 

Attorney for Plaintiffs State of Maryland and Secretary of State John Wobensmith 

Brett J. Blank (MA State Bar #686635) 

Assistant Attorney General 

Non-Profit Organizations/Public Charities Division 

Office of Attorney General Maura Healey 

One Ashburton Place, 18th Floor 

Boston, MA 02108 

Email: brett.blank@state.ma.us 

Telephone: (617) 727-2200 

Attorney for Plaintiff Commonwealth of Massachusetts 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05/18/15 Page 6 of 148
FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. 

Complaint, Page 7 of 148 

1 

2 

3 

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 

William R. Bloomfield (MI State Bar #P68515) 

Assistant Attorney General 

Department of Attorney General Bill Schuette 

Corporate Oversight Division 

525 W. Ottawa St., 6th Floor 

Lansing, MI 48933 

Email: bloomfieldw@michigan.gov 

Telephone: (517) 373-1160 

Attorney for Plaintiff State of Michigan 

Elizabeth B. Kremenak (MN Bar #0390461) 

Assistant Attorney General 

Office of Attorney General Lori Swanson 

Bremer Tower, Suite 1200 

445 Minnesota St. 

St. Paul, MN 55101-2130 

Email: elizabeth.kremenak@ag.state.mn.us 

Telephone: (651) 757-1423 

Attorney for Plaintiff State of Minnesota 

Tanya Webber (MS State Bar #99405) 

Assistant Secretary of State – Charities Division 

Office of Secretary of State Delbert Hosemann 

125 S. Congress St. 

Jackson, MS 39201 

Email: Tanya.webber@sos.ms.gov 

Telephone: (601) 359-6742 

Attorney for Plaintiff Secretary of State of Mississippi 

Robert E. Carlson (MO State Bar #54602) 

Senior Assistant Attorney General 

Office of Attorney General Chris Koster 

815 Olive St., Suite 200 

St. Louis, MO 63101 

Email: bob.carlson@ago.mo.gov 

Telephone: (314) 340-6816 

Attorney for Plaintiff State of Missouri 

E. Edwin Eck (MT State Bar #414) 

Deputy Attorney General 

Kelley L. Hubbard (MT State Bar #9604) 

Assistant Attorney General 

Office of Attorney General Timothy C. Fox 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05/18/15 Page 7 of 148
FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. 

Complaint, Page 8 of 148 

1 

2 

3 

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 

P. O. Box 200151 

Helena, MT 59601 

Email: EdEck@mt.gov 

khubbard@mt.gov 

Telephone: (406) 444-2026 

Attorneys for Plaintiff State of Montana 

Abigail M. Stempson (NE State Bar #23329) 

Daniel J. Russell (NE State Bar #25302) 

Assistant Attorneys General 

Office of Attorney General Douglas Peterson 

2115 State Capitol 

PO Box 98920 

Lincoln, NE 68509 

Email: Abigail.stempson@nebraska.gov 

 Daniel.russell@nebraska.gov 

Telephone: (402) 471-1279 

Attorneys for Plaintiff State of Nebraska 

JoAnn Gibbs (NV State Bar # 005324) 

Chief Multistate Counsel 

Office of Attorney General Adam Paul Laxalt 

Bureau of Consumer Protection 

10791 W. Twain Ave., Suite 100 

Las Vegas, NV 89135 

Email: jgibbs@ag.nv.gov 

Telephone: (702) 486-3789 

Attorney for Plaintiff State of Nevada 

Thomas J. Donovan (NH State Bar #664) 

Director of Charitable Trusts 

Office of Attorney General Joseph A. Foster 

33 Capitol St. 

Concord, NH 03301 

Email: tom.donovan@doj.nh.gov 

Telephone: (603) 271-1288 

Attorney for Plaintiff State of New Hampshire 

Erin M. Greene (NJ State Bar #0145102010) 

Deputy Attorney General 

State of New Jersey 

Office of the Attorney General 

Division of Law 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05/18/15 Page 8 of 148
FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. 

Complaint, Page 9 of 148 

1 

2 

3 

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 

124 Halsey St. 

P.O. Box 45029 

Newark, NJ 07101 

Email: erin.greene@dol.lps.state.nj.us 

Telephone: (973) 648-4846 

Attorney for Plaintiff State of New Jersey 

Sean Courtney (NY State Bar #2085363) 

Yael Fuchs (NY State Bar # 4542684) 

Assistant Attorneys General 

Office of Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman 

120 Broadway 

New York, NY 10271 

Email: sean.courtney@ag.ny.gov 

 yael.fuchs@ag.ny.gov 

Telephone: (212) 416-8402 

Attorneys for Plaintiff State of New York 

Creecy Johnson (NC State Bar #32619) 

Special Deputy Attorney General 

Office of Attorney General Roy Cooper 

9001 Mail Service Center 

Raleigh, NC 27699 

Email: ccjohnson@ncdoj.gov 

Telephone: (919) 716-6000 

Lareena J. Phillips (NC State Bar #36859) 

Assistant Attorney General 

Counsel for North Carolina Secretary of State Elaine F. Marshall 

9001 Mail Service Center 

Raleigh, NC 27699 

Email: lphillips@ncdoj.gov 

Telephone: (919) 716-6610 

Attorneys for Plaintiff State of North Carolina 

Michael C. Thompson (ND State Bar # 06550) 

Assistant Attorney General 

Office of Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem 

Gateway Professional Center 

1050 E. Interstate Ave., Ste. 200 

Bismarck, ND 58503 

Email: mcthompson@nd.gov 

Telephone: (701) 328-5570 

Attorney for Plaintiff State of North Dakota 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05/18/15 Page 9 of 148
FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. 

Complaint, Page 10 of 148 

1 

2 

3 

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 

Yvonne Tertel (OH State Bar #0019033) 

Principal Assistant Attorney General 

Office of Attorney General Mike DeWine 

150 E. Gay St., 23rd Floor 

Columbus, OH 43215 

Email: yvonne.tertel@ohioattorneygeneral.gov 

Telephone: (614) 466-3181 

Attorney for Plaintiff State of Ohio 

Malisa McPherson (OK State Bar #32070) 

Assistant Attorney General 

Public Protection Unit 

Office of Attorney General E. Scott Pruitt 

313 N.E. 21st St. 

Oklahoma City, OK 73105 

Email: Malisa.mcpherson@oag.ok.gov 

Telephone: (405) 521-6926 

Attorney for Plaintiff State of Oklahoma 

Heather L. Weigler (OR State Bar #03590) 

Assistant Attorney General 

Office of Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum 

1515 SW 5th Ave., Suite 410 

Portland, OR 97201 

Email: heather.l.weigler@state.or.us 

Telephone: (971) 673-1880 

Attorney for Plaintiff State of Oregon 

Michael T. Foerster (PA State Bar #78766) 

Senior Deputy Attorney General 

Office of Attorney General Kathleen G. Kane 

14th Floor Strawberry Square 

Harrisburg, PA 17120 

Email: mfoerster@attorneygeneral.gov 

Telephone: (717) 783-2853 

Gene J. Herne (PA State Bar #82033) 

Senior Deputy Attorney General-in-Charge 

Charitable Trusts and Organizations Section 

Office of Attorney General Kathleen G. Kane 

564 Forbes Avenue, 6th Floor Manor Complex 

Pittsburgh, PA 15219 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05/18/15 Page 10 of 148
FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. 

Complaint, Page 11 of 148 

1 

2 

3 

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 

Email: eherne@attorneygeneral.gov 

Telephone: (412) 565-3581 

Attorneys for Plaintiff Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 

Genevieve M. Martin (RI State Bar #3918) 

Assistant Attorney General 

Department of Attorney General Peter F. Kilmartin 

150 South Main St. 

Providence, RI 02903 

Email: gmartin@riag.ri.gov 

Telephone: (401) 274-4400 x2300 

Attorney for Plaintiff State of Rhode Island 

Shannon A. Wiley (SC State Bar #69806) 

Deputy General Counsel 

Office of Secretary of State Mark Hammond 

1205 Pendleton St., Suite 525 

Columbia, SC 29201 

Email: swiley@sos.sc.gov 

Telephone: (803) 734-0246 

Attorney for Plaintiff State of South Carolina 

Philip D. Carlson (SD State Bar #3913) 

Assistant Attorney General 

Office of Attorney General Marty J. Jackley 

1302 E. Highway 14, Suite 1 

Pierre, SD 57301 

Email: Phil.Carlson@state.sd.us 

Telephone: (605) 773-3215 

Attorney for Plaintiff State of South Dakota 

Janet M. Kleinfelter (TN State Bar # 13889) 

Deputy Attorney General 

Office of the Attorney General 

425 5th Ave., N. 

P.O. Box 20207 

Nashville, TN 37202 

Email: Janet.Kleinfelter@ag.tn.gov 

Telephone: (615) 741-7403 

Attorney for Plaintiff Tennessee Secretary of State Tre Hargett 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05/18/15 Page 11 of 148
FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. 

Complaint, Page 12 of 148 

1 

2 

3 

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 

Corey D. Kintzer (TX State Bar #24046219) 

Jennifer M. Roscetti (TX State Bar #24066685) 

Assistant Attorneys General 

Office of Attorney General Ken Paxton 

300 W. 15th St., 9th Floor 

Austin, TX 78701 

Email: Corey.Kintzer@texasattorneygeneral.gov 

 Jennifer.Roscetti@texasattorneygeneral.gov 

Telephone: (512) 936-0585 (Kintzer) 

 (512) 475-4183 (Roscetti) 

Attorneys for Plaintiff State of Texas 

Jeffrey Buckner (UT State Bar #4546) 

Assistant Attorney General 

Office of Attorney General Sean D. Reyes 

160 E. 300 South, Fifth Floor 

P. O. Box 140872 

Salt Lake City, UT 84114 

Email: Jbuckner@utah.gov 

Telephone: (801) 366-0310 

Attorney for Plaintiff State of Utah and Utah Division of Consumer Protection 

Todd W. Daloz (VT State Bar #4734) 

Assistant Attorney General 

Office of Attorney General William H. Sorrell 

109 State St. 

Montpelier, VT 05609 

Email: todd.daloz@state.vt.us 

Telephone: (802) 828-4605 

Attorney for Plaintiff State of Vermont 

Richard S. Schweiker, Jr. (VA State Bar #34258) 

Senior Assistant Attorney General 

Office of Attorney General Mark R. Herring 

900 E. Main St. 

Richmond, VA 23219 

Email: rschweiker@oag.state.va.us 

Telephone: (804) 786-5643 

Attorney for Plaintiff Commonwealth of Virginia 

Sarah A. Shifley (WA State Bar #39394) 

Assistant Attorney General 

Office of Attorney General Robert W. Ferguson 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05/18/15 Page 12 of 148
FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. 

Complaint, Page 13 of 148 

1 

2 

3 

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 

800 5th Ave., Suite 2000, TB-14 

Seattle, WA 98104 

Email: sarah.shifley@atg.wa.gov 

Telephone: (206) 389-3974 

Attorney for Plaintiff State of Washington 

Michael M. Morrison (WV State Bar #9822) 

Assistant Attorney General 

Office of Attorney General Patrick Morrisey 

P.O. Box 1789 

Charleston, WV 25326 

Email: Matt.M.Morrison@wvago.gov 

Telephone: (304) 558-8986 

Laurel K. Lackey (WV State Bar #10267) 

Assistant Attorney General 

Counsel for Secretary of State Natalie E. Tennant 

269 Aikens Center 

Martinsburg, WV 25404 

Email: Laurel.K.Lackey@wvago.gov 

Telephone: (304) 267-0239 

Attorneys for Plaintiff State of West Virginia 

Francis X. Sullivan (WI State Bar #1030932) 

Assistant Attorney General 

Office of Attorney General Brad D. Schimel 

17 W. Main St., P.O. Box 7857 

Madison, WI 53707-7857 

Email: sullivanfx@doj.state.wi.us 

Telephone: (608) 267-2222 

Attorney for Plaintiff State of Wisconsin 

Clyde W. Hutchins (WY State bar #6-3549) 

Senior Assistant Attorney General 

Office of Attorney General Peter K. Michael 

123 State Capitol 

Cheyenne, WY 82003 

Email: clyde.hutchins@wyo.gov 

Telephone: (307) 777-7847 

Attorney for Plaintiff State of Wyoming 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05/18/15 Page 13 of 148
FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. 

Complaint, Page 14 of 148 

1 

2 

3 

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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Federal Trade Commission; and the States of 

Alabama; Alaska; Arizona; Arkansas; 

California; Colorado; Connecticut; Delaware; 

Florida; Georgia; Hawaii; Idaho; Illinois; 

Indiana; Iowa; Kansas; Kentucky; Louisiana; 

Maine; Maryland; Massachusetts; Michigan; 

Minnesota; Mississippi; Missouri; Montana; 

Nebraska; Nevada; New Hampshire; New 

Jersey; New Mexico; New York; North 

Carolina; North Dakota; Ohio; Oklahoma; 

Oregon; Pennsylvania; Rhode Island; South 

Carolina; South Dakota; Tennessee; Texas; 

Utah; Vermont; Virginia; Washington; West 

Virginia; Wisconsin; and Wyoming; and the 

District of Columbia; 

 Plaintiffs; 

vs. 

Cancer Fund of America, Inc., also d/b/a 

Breast Cancer Financial Assistance Fund, a 

Delaware corporation; Cancer Support 

Services, Inc., a District of Columbia 

corporation; Children’s Cancer Fund of 

America, Inc., an Arizona corporation; The 

Breast Cancer Society, Inc., also d/b/a The 

Breast Cancer Society of America, a 

Delaware corporation; James Reynolds, Sr., 

individually and in his capacity as an officer 

or director of Cancer Fund of America, Inc.; 

Kyle Effler, individually and in his capacities 

as an officer or director of Cancer Fund of 

America, Inc., and Cancer Support Services, 

Inc.; Rose Perkins, individually and in her 

capacity as an officer or director of Children’s 

Cancer Fund of America, Inc.; and James 

Reynolds, II, a/k/a James Reynolds, Jr., 

individually and in his capacity as an officer 

or director of The Breast Cancer Society, Inc.; 

 Defendants. 

 CASE NO. 

COMPLAINT 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05/18/15 Page 14 of 148
FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. 

Complaint, Page 15 of 148 

1 

2 

3 

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 

COMPLAINT 

Plaintiffs, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) and the states of Alabama, 

Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, 

Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, 

Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, 

Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North 

Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South 

Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West 

Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming, and the District of Columbia (collectively 

“Plaintiffs”), for their complaint against Defendants Cancer Fund of America, Inc., also 

d/b/a Breast Cancer Financial Assistance Fund (“CFA”); Cancer Support Services, Inc. 

(“CSS”); Children’s Cancer Fund of America, Inc. (“CCFOA”); The Breast Cancer 

Society, Inc., also d/b/a The Breast Cancer Society of America (“BCS”); James 

Reynolds, Sr.; Kyle Effler; Rose Perkins; and James Reynolds, II, a/k/a James Reynolds, 

Jr. (collectively “Defendants”) allege: 

SUMMARY OF THE CASE 

1. Defendants, four sham charities and the individuals who run them, have 

engaged in a massive, nationwide fraud, telling generous Americans that their 

contributions will help people suffering from cancer, but instead, spending the 

overwhelming majority of donated funds supporting the Individual Defendants, their 

families and friends, and their fundraisers. Collectively, between 2008 and 2012, 

Defendants raised more than $187 million from donors in the United States. This case is 

about those sham charities, the individuals who ran them, and the false and deceptive 

claims they made while raising these enormous sums from an unsuspecting public. 

2. In telemarketing calls, direct mail solicitations, websites, regulatory filings, 

financial documents, and Combined Federal Campaign materials, Defendants have 

portrayed themselves as legitimate charities with substantial nationwide programs whose 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05/18/15 Page 15 of 148
FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. 

Complaint, Page 16 of 148 

1 

2 

3 

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 

primary purposes were to provide direct support to cancer patients, children with cancer, 

and breast cancer patients in the United States. They also have described specific 

programs that donors’ contributions supposedly would support, including, e.g., stating 

that donations would be used to provide pain medication to children suffering from 

cancer, transport cancer patients to chemotherapy appointments, or pay for hospice care 

for cancer patients. These were lies. Not one of the Defendants has operated a program 

that provides cancer patients with pain medication to alleviate their suffering, transports 

cancer patients to chemotherapy appointments, or pays for hospice care. Moreover, the 

vast majority of donors’ contributions have not directly assisted cancer patients in the 

United States or otherwise benefitted any charitable purpose. Rather, donations have 

enriched a small group of individuals related by familial and financial interests and the 

for-profit fundraisers they hired. This diversion of charitable funds has deceived donors 

and wasted millions of dollars that could have been spent as donors intended, to help 

Americans suffering from cancer. 

3. Defendants have hidden their high fundraising and administrative costs 

from donors by using an accounting scheme involving the shipment of pharmaceuticals 

and other goods (known as gifts-in-kind or “GIK”) to developing countries. Through this 

scheme, collectively from 2008 through 2012, Defendants improperly reported over $223 

million in revenue and program spending in their financial statements. This had the 

effect of making Defendants appear to be larger and more efficient with donors’ dollars 

than they actually were, deceiving the donating public. 

4. Defendants’ deceptive conduct has violated Section 5 of the Federal Trade 

Commission Act (“FTC Act”), 15 U.S.C. § 45(a), and the Telemarketing Sales Rule 

(“TSR”), 16 C.F.R. Part 310, as well as state statutes regarding charitable solicitations 

and prohibiting deceptive and unfair trade practices. 

5. The FTC brings this action under Sections 13(b) and 19 of the FTC Act, 15 

U.S.C. §§ 53(b) and 57b, and the Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse 

Prevention Act (“Telemarketing Act”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 6101-6108, to obtain temporary, 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05/18/15 Page 16 of 148
FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. 

Complaint, Page 17 of 148 

1 

2 

3 

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 

preliminary, and permanent injunctive relief, rescission or reformation of contracts, 

restitution, the refund of monies paid, disgorgement of ill-gotten monies, and other 

equitable relief for Defendants’ violations of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 

§ 45(a), and the TSR, 16 C.F.R. Part 310. 

6. This action is also brought, in their representative and individual capacities 

as provided by state law, by the attorneys general of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, 

Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, 

Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, 

Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New 

Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, 

Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Texas, Utah,1

 Vermont, Virginia, 

Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming (collectively the “Attorneys 

General”) and the secretaries of state of Colorado, Georgia, Maryland, North Carolina, 

South Carolina, Tennessee, Mississippi, and West Virginia (collectively the “Secretaries 

of State”). The plaintiffs identified in this paragraph are referred to collectively as the 

“Plaintiff States.” 

7. The Plaintiff States bring this action pursuant to consumer protection, 

business regulation, charitable solicitation, and/or charitable trust enforcement authority 

conferred on their attorneys general, secretaries of state, and/or state agencies by state 

law and/or pursuant to parens patriae and/or common law authority. These state laws 

authorize the Plaintiff States to seek temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctive 

relief, rescission or reformation of contracts, restitution, the refund of monies paid, 

disgorgement of ill-gotten monies, and other equitable relief, to prevent the waste, 

dissipation, and loss of charitable assets, and/or to stop ongoing donor deception caused 

by Defendants’ violations of state law. These state laws also authorize the Plaintiff States 

to obtain civil penalties, attorneys’ fees, expenses, and costs. 

 

1

 As used here, the attorney general of Utah refers to the Utah Attorney General as counsel to the Division of 

Consumer Protection, and in his capacity to enforce the TSR pursuant to the Telemarketing Act. 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05/18/15 Page 17 of 148
FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. 

Complaint, Page 18 of 148 

1 

2 

3 

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 

8. This action is also brought by the Attorneys General of the Plaintiff States 

and the Attorney General of the District of Columbia pursuant to Section 6103(a) of the 

Telemarketing Act, which authorizes attorneys general to initiate federal district court 

proceedings and seek to enjoin violations of, and enforce compliance with, the TSR, to 

obtain damages, restitution, and other compensation, and to obtain such further and other 

relief as the court may deem appropriate to stop Defendants’ violations of the TSR. 15 

U.S.C. § 6103(a). 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

9. This Court has jurisdiction over the federal law claims pursuant to 15 

U.S.C. §§ 45(a), 53(b), 57b, 6102(c), 6103(a), and 6105(b), and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 

1337(a) and 1345. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the subject matter of 

the state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. 

10. Venue in this District is proper pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §§ 53(b) and 6103(e), 

and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and (c). 

COMMERCE 

11. At all times material to this complaint, Defendants have maintained a 

substantial course of trade in or affecting commerce, as “commerce” is defined in Section 

4 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 44. 

PLAINTIFFS 

12. Plaintiff 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 the FTC Act, 

15 U.S.C. § 45(a), which prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting 

commerce. The FTC also enforces the Telemarketing Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 6101-6108. 

Pursuant to the Telemarketing Act, the FTC promulgated and enforces the TSR, 16 

C.F.R. Part 310, which prohibits deceptive and abusive telemarketing acts or practices. 

The FTC is authorized to initiate federal district court proceedings, by its own attorneys, 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05/18/15 Page 18 of 148
FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. 

Complaint, Page 19 of 148 

1 

2 

3 

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 

to enjoin violations of the FTC Act and the TSR and to secure such other equitable relief 

as may be appropriate in each case, including rescission or reformation of contracts, 

restitution, the refund of monies paid, and the disgorgement of ill-gotten monies. 15 

U.S.C. §§ 53(b), 56(a)(2)(A), 56(a)(2)(B), 57b, 6102(c), and 6105(b). 

13. The Attorneys General are the chief legal officers for their respective states 

and commonwealths. The Secretaries of State are the chief regulators of charities and 

charitable solicitations for their respective states, and are authorized to enforce their 

states’ laws regarding the solicitation of charitable donations. The Rhode Island 

Department of Business Regulation is the chief regulator of charities and charitable 

solicitations for the State of Rhode Island. The Utah Division of Consumer Protection is 

the chief regulator of charities and charitable solicitations for the State of Utah. The 

Plaintiff States bring this action pursuant to consumer protection, business regulation, 

charitable solicitation, and/or charitable trust enforcement authority conferred on them by 

the following statutes and/or pursuant to parens patriae and/or common law authority: 

Alabama: ALA. CODE §§ 8-19-1 through -15; and §§ 13A-9-70 through 76. 

Alaska: ALASKA STAT. §§ 45.50.471 through 45.50.561; and §§ 45.68.010 

through 45.68.900. 

Arizona: ARIZ. REV. STAT. ANN. §§ 44-1521 through 44-1534; and §§ 44-

6551 through 44-6561. 

Arkansas: ARK. CODE ANN. §§ 4-28-401 through 4-28-416; and §§ 4-88-101 

through 4-88-115. 

California: CAL. GOV. CODE §§ 12580 through 12599.6; CAL. BUS. & PROF.

CODE §§ 17200 through 17206; and §§ 17510 through 17510.95. 

Colorado: COLO. REV. STAT. §§ 6-1-101 through 115; and §§ 6-16-101 through

114.

Connecticut: CONN. GEN. STAT. §§ 21a-175 through 21a-190l; and §§ 42-110a 

through 42-110q. 

Florida: FLA. STAT. ch. 501, Part II; and ch. 496 (2013). 

Georgia: GA. CODE ANN. §§ 43-17-1 through 43-17-23 (2011). 

Hawaii: HAW. REV. STAT. § 28-5.2; §§ 467B-9.6, 467B-9.7(d), 467B-10.5; 

and § 480-15. 

Idaho: IDAHO CODE ANN. §§ 48-601 through 619; and §§ 48-1201 through 

1206. 

Illinois: 225 ILL. COMP. STAT. §§ 460/0.01 through 460/23. 

Indiana: IND. CODE §§ 23-7-8-1 through -9; and §§ 24-5-0.5-1 through -12. 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05/18/15 Page 19 of 148
FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. 

Complaint, Page 20 of 148 

1 

2 

3 

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 

Iowa: IOWA CODE § 714.16. 

Kansas: KAN. STAT. ANN. §§ 17-1759 through 17-1776. 

Kentucky: KY. REV. STAT. ANN. §§ 367.110 through 367.300. 

Louisiana: LA. REV. STAT. ANN. §§ 51:1401 through 1427; and §§ 51:1901 

through 1909.1. 

Maine: ME. REV. STAT. ANN. tit. 5, §§ 205-A through 214. 

Maryland: MD. CODE ANN., BUS. REG. §§ 6-101 through 6-701 (2010 Repl. 

Vol.) (2014 Suppl.). 

Massachusetts: MASS. GEN. LAWS ch. 12 §§ 8 through 8M, 10; ch. 68 §§ 18 through 

35; and ch. 93A §§ 1 through 11. 

Michigan: MICH. COMP. LAWS §§ 400.271 through 400.294. 

Minnesota: MINN. STAT. ch. 309. 

Mississippi: MISS. CODE ANN. §§ 79-11-501 through 79-11-529. 

Missouri: MO. REV. STAT. ch. 407. 

Montana: MONT. CODE ANN. §§ 30-14-103 and 30-14-111. 

Nebraska: NEB. REV. STAT. §§ 21-1901 through 21-19,177; §§ 59-1601 through 

59-1622; and §§ 87-301 through 87-306. 

Nevada: NEV. REV. STAT. §§ 598.1305, 598.0915(15), 598.096, and 598.0963. 

New 

Hampshire: 

N.H. REV. STAT. ANN. §§ 7:19; 7:20; 7:21; 7:24; 7:28; 7:28-c; 7:28-f; 

and 641:8. 

New Jersey: N.J. STAT. ANN. §§ 45:17A-18 through 45:17A-32(c); §§ 56:8-1 

through 56:8-20; and N.J. ADMIN. CODE §§ 13:48-1.1 through 13:48-

15.1. 

New Mexico: N.M. STAT. §§ 57-12-1 through 57-12-22; and §§ 57-22-1 through 

57-22-11 (1978). 

New York: N.Y. EXEC. LAW §§ 63(12) and 171-a through 175; N.Y. GEN. BUS.

LAW § 349; and N.Y. NOT-FOR-PROFIT CORP. LAW § 112. 

North Carolina: N.C. GEN. STAT. §§ 75-1.1 and 131F-23 and -24. 

North Dakota: N.D. CENT. CODE §§ 50-22-01 through 50-22-07; and §§ 51-15-01 

through 51-15-11. 

Ohio: OHIO REV. CODE ANN. § 1716. 

Oklahoma: OKLA. STAT. ANN. tit. 18 §§ 552.1 through 552.22. 

Oregon: OR. REV. STAT. §§ 128.886; and §§ 646.605 through 646.636. 

Pennsylvania: 10 PA. CONS. STAT. §§ 162.1 through 162.23 (1990). 

Rhode Island: R.I. GEN. LAWS §§ 5-53.1-1 through 5-53.1-18. 

South Carolina: S.C. CODE ANN. §§ 33-56-10 through 33-56-200. 

South Dakota: S.D. CODIFIED LAWS §§ 37-30-17 through 37-30-21; and §§ 21-34-1 

through 21-34-14. 

Tennessee: TENN. CODE ANN. §§ 48-101-501 through 48-101-522. 

Texas: TEX. BUS. & COM. CODE ANN. §§ 17.41 through 17.63. 

Utah: UTAH CODE ANN. §§13-22-1 through 13-22-23; 13-26-1 through 13-

26-11; and 13-11 through 13-11-23. 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05/18/15 Page 20 of 148
FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. 

Complaint, Page 21 of 148 

1 

2 

3 

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 

Vermont: VT. STAT. ANN. tit. 9 §§ 2453 through 2461; and §§ 2471 through 

2479. 

Virginia: VA. CODE ANN. §§ 57-48 through 57-69. 

Washington: WASH. REV. CODE § 19.86 and §19.09. 

West Virginia: W.VA. CODE §§ 29-19-1 -15b; and §§ 46A-1-101 through 46a-6-110.

Wisconsin: WIS. STAT. §§ 202.11-202.18. 

Wyoming: WYO. STAT. ANN. §§ 40-12-101 through 114. 

14. Pursuant to authority found in 15 U.S.C. § 6103(a), the Attorneys General 

of the Plaintiff States and the District of Columbia are also authorized to initiate federal 

district court proceedings to enjoin telemarketing activities that violate the TSR, and in 

each such case, to obtain damages, restitution, and other compensation on behalf of their 

residents, or to obtain such further and other relief as the court may deem appropriate. 

DEFENDANTS 

15. Defendant Cancer Fund of America, Inc. (“CFA”), also d/b/a Breast Cancer 

Financial Assistance Fund, is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Knoxville, 

Tennessee. CFA also maintained administrative offices in Mesa, Arizona from 2002 

through 2007, and had employees working in Arizona as recently as 2009. CFA’s 

articles of incorporation represent that it is organized and will operate as a nonprofit 

corporation. CFA has received an exemption from federal income tax from the Internal 

Revenue Service (“IRS”) pursuant to Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 

U.S.C § 501(c)(3). Notwithstanding this, CFA is organized to carry on business for its 

own profit or the profit of its members within the meaning of Section 4 of the FTC Act. 

In 2012, CFA began using the name “Breast Cancer Financial Assistance Fund” in some 

of its charitable solicitations. In the past, several states have brought legal actions against 

CFA for, among other things, inadequate board governance, improperly valuing gift-inkind contributions, and making misrepresentations about its charitable programs. Such 

actions include those brought by Connecticut (Connecticut by Riddle v. Cancer Fund of 

America, Inc., CV-89-0361764 (Superior Ct.) (stipulated order entered in 1991)); 

Pennsylvania (Com., by Preate v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., 277 M.D. 1992 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05/18/15 Page 21 of 148
FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. 

Complaint, Page 22 of 148 

1 

2 

3 

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 

(Commonwealth Ct.) (stipulated order entered in 1995)); New York (State by Vacco v. 

Cancer Fund of America, Inc., No. 95 Civ. 402993 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.) (stipulated order 

entered in 1996)); Vermont (State of Vermont v. Civic Dev. Group, et al., No. 863-98 

(Superior Ct.) (stipulated order entered in 2001)); Massachusetts (Com. of Massachusetts 

v. Chenevert, 99-0405 (Superior Ct.) (stipulated order entered in 2005)); and Georgia

(Doyle v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., 2007 CV 131522 (Superior Ct.) (complaint filed 

in 2007 and resulting in settlement)). Defendant James Reynolds, Sr. heads CFA. Acting 

alone or in concert with others, directly or indirectly, by telemarketing and other means, 

CFA has made misrepresentations to donors regarding its purported charitable programs. 

CFA transacts or has transacted business in the District of Arizona and throughout the 

United States. 

16. Defendant Cancer Support Services, Inc. (“CSS”), also d/b/a Cancer Fund 

of America Support Services, is incorporated in the District of Columbia as a nonprofit 

corporation whose purpose is to support the activities of CFA. CSS’s articles of 

incorporation represent that it is organized and will operate as a nonprofit corporation. 

Notwithstanding this, CSS is organized to carry on business for its own profit or the 

profit of its members within the meaning of Section 4 of the FTC Act. CSS sought and 

received recognition of tax exemption from the IRS as a Type III Functionally Integrated 

Section 509(a)(3) supporting organization, as defined by the Internal Revenue Code, 26 

U.S.C § 509(a)(3). The IRS requires that substantially all of such a supporting 

organization’s activities be in direct furtherance of the supported organization’s mission, 

and specifically advises that fundraising is not a direct furtherance activity. CSS’s sole 

activity is to operate a fundraising call center in Dearborn, Michigan that solicits the 

public for donations. After expenses, CSS gives virtually all funds it has raised to CFA 

as “grants.” CSS entered into an Assurance of Voluntary Compliance with the state of 

Oregon in 2008 to resolve allegations that it had made misrepresentations in charitable 

solicitations, In the Matter of Cancer Fund of America Support Services, No. 0808-

11372 (Multnomah Cnty. Circuit Ct., Aug. 11, 2008). Acting alone or in concert with 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05/18/15 Page 22 of 148
FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. 

Complaint, Page 23 of 148 

1 

2 

3 

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 

others, directly or indirectly, by telemarketing and other means, CSS has made 

misrepresentations to donors regarding its purported charitable programs. CSS transacts 

or has transacted business in the District of Arizona and throughout the United States. 

17. CSS operates and has operated as a common enterprise with CFA. From 

2008 through September 2013, Defendant Kyle Effler (“Effler”) served as the president 

and chief financial officer of CSS. Effler, who was also the chief financial officer of 

CFA, operated CSS from his CFA office in Knoxville, Tennessee. CSS did not pay 

Effler a salary; managing CSS was one of his job duties at CFA. Other CFA employees 

assisted Effler with operating CSS in the course of their employment with CFA. CFA 

has maintained CSS’s books and records on its computers and has issued CFA credit 

cards to CSS employees for business use. In addition, auditors conducted only single 

reviews of the consolidated financial records of CFA and CSS. CFA and CSS have filed 

such audits with state regulators. CFA employees have served as board members of CSS, 

undertaking CSS-related functions during CFA work hours. CFA board members have 

also served as CSS board members. CFA board meeting minutes explained that the 

arrangement with CSS “allows CFA to receive funds in the form of grants, without the 

accompanying costs of fundraising. This will greatly improve the efficiency of 

operations of CFA, and present to the public an organization that manages its resources 

with greater efficiency.” Defendant James Reynolds, Sr. became interim president 

following Effler’s resignation. 

18. Defendant Children’s Cancer Fund of America, Inc. (“CCFOA”) is an 

Arizona nonprofit corporation currently headquartered in Powell, Tennessee. CCFOA 

was headquartered in Mesa, Arizona from its inception in 2004 to 2006, and it continues 

to station one employee in Arizona. CCFOA’s articles of incorporation represent that it 

is organized and will operate exclusively as a nonprofit corporation. CCFOA has 

received an exemption from federal income tax from the IRS pursuant to Section 

501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(3). Notwithstanding this, 

CCFOA is organized to carry on business for its own profit or that of its members within 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05/18/15 Page 23 of 148
FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. 

Complaint, Page 24 of 148 

1 

2 

3 

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 

the meaning of Section 4 of the FTC Act. Defendant Rose Perkins heads CCFOA. 

Acting alone or in concert with others, directly or indirectly, by telemarketing and other 

means, CCFOA has made misrepresentations to donors regarding its purported charitable 

programs. CCFOA transacts or has transacted business in the District of Arizona and 

throughout the United States. 

19. Defendant The Breast Cancer Society, Inc. (“BCS”), also d/b/a The Breast 

Cancer Society of America, is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Mesa, Arizona. 

BCS’s articles of incorporation represent that it is organized and will operate as a 

nonprofit corporation. BCS has received an exemption from federal income tax from the 

IRS pursuant to Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C § 501(c)(3). 

Notwithstanding this, BCS is organized to carry on business for its own profit or that of 

its members within the meaning of Section 4 of the FTC Act. Defendant James 

Reynolds, II heads BCS. Acting alone or in concert with others, directly or indirectly, by 

telemarketing and other means, BCS has made misrepresentations to donors regarding its 

purported charitable programs. BCS transacts or has transacted business in the District of 

Arizona and throughout the United States. 

20. Defendant James Reynolds, Sr. (“Reynolds, Sr.”), an individual, is the 

executive director of CFA and president of its board of directors. He has held these 

positions since 1987. He is also the interim president of CSS. Individually and in 

concert with others, he has formulated, directed, controlled, or participated in the acts and 

practices of CFA and CSS as set forth herein. Reynolds, Sr. has the authority to control 

and has controlled the conduct of CFA. Among other things, he has hired employees, 

signed contracts, hired fundraisers, approved telemarketing scripts and other solicitation 

materials, recruited board members, and overseen the financial affairs of CFA. Reynolds, 

Sr. also has the authority to control and has controlled the conduct of CSS. For example, 

on behalf of CSS, Reynolds, Sr. has recruited board members, negotiated contracts, 

approved telemarketing scripts and other solicitation materials, approved loans, 

terminated existing business relationships, and initiated new business relationships. In 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05/18/15 Page 24 of 148
FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. 

Complaint, Page 25 of 148 

1 

2 

3 

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 

addition, Effler routinely consulted with Reynolds, Sr. about the management of CSS. 

Reynolds, Sr. has personally profited from the deception alleged herein. He transacts or 

has transacted business in this District. 

21. Defendant Kyle Effler (“Effler”), an individual, was the president of CSS 

from mid-2008 through September 2013. He was also employed at CFA from 1990 to 

October 2014, first as an accountant and later as chief financial officer. Individually and 

in concert with others, he formulated, directed, controlled, or participated in the acts and 

practices of CFA and CSS as set forth herein. Among other things, Effler hired 

employees, signed contracts, approved telemarketing scripts and other fundraising 

materials, recruited board members, and oversaw the financial affairs of CSS and CFA. 

Effler has personally profited from the deception alleged herein. He transacts or has 

transacted business in this District. 

22. Defendant Rose Perkins (“Perkins”), an individual, is the former wife of 

Defendant Reynolds, Sr. She is the president of CCFOA’s board of directors and also its 

executive director. Perkins has held these positions since 2005. From 1987 to 2005, she 

was employed as vice president of CFA. Individually and in concert with others, she has 

formulated, directed, controlled, or participated in the acts and practices of CCFOA as set 

forth herein. Among other things, she has hired employees, signed contracts, hired 

fundraisers, approved telemarketing scripts and other solicitation materials, recruited 

board members, and overseen the financial affairs of CCFOA. Perkins has personally 

profited from the deception alleged herein. She transacts or has transacted business in 

this District. 

23. Defendant James Reynolds, II, a/k/a James Reynolds, Jr. (“Reynolds, II”), 

an individual, is the son of Reynolds, Sr. He is the chief executive officer of BCS and, 

until September 2013, was also president of its board of directors. He has held these 

positions since BCS’s inception in 2007. From 1992 through the end of 2008, he was 

employed by CFA in various positions, most recently as vice president of fundraising. 

Reynolds, II also was a founding board member of CSS and served as president of the 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05/18/15 Page 25 of 148
FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. 

Complaint, Page 26 of 148 

1 

2 

3 

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 

CSS board of directors until October 2008. In addition, he incorporated CCFOA in 2004 

and served as its president until turning the position over to his then-step-mother, Rose 

Perkins. Individually and in concert with others, he has formulated, directed, controlled, 

or participated in the acts and practices of BCS as set forth herein. Among other things, 

he has signed contracts, hired fundraisers, approved telemarketing scripts and other 

solicitation materials, recruited board members, overseen the financial affairs of BCS, 

and hired employees, including his current wife, Kristina Reynolds. Reynolds, II has 

personally profited from the deception alleged herein. He transacts or has transacted 

business in this District. 

24. Hereafter, CFA, CSS, CCFOA, and BCS are referred to collectively as the 

“Corporate Defendants,” and Reynolds, Sr., Effler, Perkins, and Reynolds, II are referred 

to collectively as the “Individual Defendants.” The Corporate Defendants and Individual 

Defendants are referred to collectively as “Defendants.” 

DEFENDANTS’ BUSINESS PRACTICES 

A Profitable Endeavor 

25. The Corporate Defendants are sham charities created and controlled by 

Defendant Reynolds, Sr. and his extended family and friends for their personal profit. 

Since at least 2008, and continuing to the present, Defendants have collected tens of 

millions of dollars in contributions from unwitting, generous, donors by claiming to help 

people suffering from cancer. Defendants have deceived donors into believing that their 

contributions support bona fide charities that use contributions primarily to provide cash 

grants and material supplies directly to cancer patients, children with cancer, and 

individuals with breast cancer in the United States. 

26. In reality, the Corporate Defendants do not operate as bona fide charities. 

Instead of operating for the benefit of cancer patients or otherwise serving legitimate, 

mission-related purposes, Corporate Defendants primarily support private interests. 

From 2008 through 2012, the Corporate Defendants collectively spent 87.9% of 

contributions from individual donors paying for-profit fundraisers and other fundraising 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05/18/15 Page 26 of 148
FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. 

Complaint, Page 27 of 148 

1 

2 

3 

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 

costs and compensating the Individual Defendants, related persons, and other employees. 

In contrast, Defendants collectively spent less than 3% of donors’ contributions on the 

cash and goods sent to cancer patients in the United States. 

27. In addition, charitable contributions have financed personal loans to 

Individual Defendants, employees, and other insiders, and paid for trips for the Individual 

Defendants, their families, and friends to Las Vegas, New York, Disney World, and other 

locations. Funds donated to help cancer patients have also paid for goods and services 

used primarily for the private benefit of Individual Defendants, employees, and other 

insiders. For example, donated funds were used to pay for vehicles, personal consumer 

goods, college tuition, gym memberships, Jet Ski outings, dating website subscriptions, 

luxury cruises, and tickets to concerts and professional sporting events. 

28. Defendants’ advertised charitable causes were simply the mechanisms 

through which they created employment opportunities for themselves, their friends, and 

their family members, and funded other private benefits. The Corporate Defendants 

operated as personal fiefdoms characterized by rampant nepotism, flagrant conflicts of 

interest, and excessive insider compensation, with none of the financial and governance 

controls that any bona fide charity would have adopted. 

A Shared History 

29. Family members – Defendants Reynolds, Sr., Perkins, Reynolds, II – and 

long-time associate Effler control the Corporate Defendants. In addition to these 

individuals, an inter-related group of their family members, friends, and fellow church 

members have worked as employees and served as board members of the Corporate 

Defendants. 

30. Reynolds, Sr., who spawned the deceptive fundraising scheme in 1987, has 

been in control of CFA for more than two decades. He has described CSS and CCFOA 

as “spin-offs” of CFA, and explained that setting up CCFOA and BCS helped CFA 

because CFA was “really top heavy” with executives. Reynolds, Sr. started CSS in 2002 

to help raise funds for CFA. He and Effler have directed the operations of CSS from 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05/18/15 Page 27 of 148
FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. 

Complaint, Page 28 of 148 

1 

2 

3 

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 

CFA’s headquarters. Reynolds, II and Eric Fransen (“Fransen”), the former BCS board 

chairman and current BCS vice president, have both served on the CSS board of 

directors. 

31. CCFOA started as a special project of CFA. It split off from CFA in late 

2004. Reynolds, II served as its initial president while also employed at CFA. Fransen 

also served with Reynolds, II on the CCFOA Board. They turned CCFOA over to 

Perkins, who left CFA to run CCFOA. Five other CFA employees joined Perkins at 

CCFOA, and two individuals left the CFA board to serve on the CCFOA board. In 2010, 

at Reynolds, Sr.’s direction, CFA gave CCFOA a grant of $50,000. 

32. Reynolds, II, who began working at CFA when he was 16, learned the 

cancer business from his father. Before starting BCS, while at CFA, Reynolds, II tested 

fundraising specifically for breast cancer patients, setting up a separate fundraising 

campaign with CFA’s main telemarketer, Associated Community Services. Donations 

for this campaign were deposited into CFA accounts until Reynolds, II established BCS 

and signed a separate fundraising contract with Associated Community Services. In 

2008, at Reynolds, Sr.’s direction, CFA provided BCS a grant of $50,000. 

33. With the formation of each different corporate entity, the Individual 

Defendants created new opportunities to solicit charitable contributions and new sources 

of cash to fund their personal lifestyles. With each different corporate entity, the 

Individual Defendants also created new opportunities to employ or otherwise provide 

cash compensation to family members, friends, and fellow church members. 

34. Consistent with their common roots, the Corporate Defendants have 

operated in a substantially similar manner. They have hired many of the same 

fundraisers, contracted with many of the same vendors, accountants, and attorneys, and 

used similar fundraising materials. The Corporate Defendants also have engaged in 

substantially similar international GIK transactions, and have used the same improper 

methods to claim, value, and classify those transactions. Because of these similarities, 

they have deceived the public in similar ways. 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05/18/15 Page 28 of 148
FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. 

Complaint, Page 29 of 148 

1 

2 

3 

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 

Rampant Nepotism 

35. From 2008 through at least 2012, the Corporate Defendants failed to 

observe rudimentary corporate governance practices commonly followed by legitimate 

charities. Among other things, CFA, CCFOA, and BCS have served as sources of 

employment for the Individual Defendants’ extended family and friends, without regard 

for their qualifications. This has resulted in Defendants hiring and retaining unqualified 

employees, creating and staffing unnecessary jobs, and authorizing unnecessary 

employee expenses. It also has affected programming decisions. Collectively and 

individually, between 2008 and 2012, the Corporate Defendants spent more cash 

compensating the Individual Defendants and their friends and family members than on 

the cash and goods provided to cancer patients in the United States. 

36. At CFA, Reynolds, Sr. employs or has employed: his two sons, Defendant 

Reynolds, II and Michael Reynolds; his former stepson Lance Connatser (“Connatser”), 

Connatser’s wife, Julaporn Connatser, and Connatser’s sister-in-law, Sakulrat “Ootz” 

Perkins; his former stepdaughter, Michelle Morse, her husband, Brian Morse, and her 

brother-in-law, Eugene Morse; two former sons-in-law, Josh Loveless and James Tyler 

Smith; and daughters Dawn Reynolds and Lindsay Reynolds (now deceased). CFA also 

employs Kyle Effler’s son, Brandon Effler. Reynolds, Sr. has continued to employ 

family members regardless of where in the country they live. When Michael Reynolds 

and Josh Loveless moved to Montana, Reynolds, Sr. had CFA open a “chapter” in 

Montana – the only such chapter in the country – to keep them on the payroll. The 

chapter was not successful and has been closed. 

37. Between 2008 and 2012, CFA paid its employees substantially more than it 

spent on the cash and goods it provided to cancer patients in the United States. As the 

executive director of CFA, Reynolds, Sr. has hired employees, set their salaries, 

authorized employee benefits, determined bonuses and raises, authorized loans of charity 

funds to employees, and made promotion decisions – including for his relatives. 

Reynolds, Sr. has made these decisions on his own, with little or no input or supervision 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05/18/15 Page 29 of 148
FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. 

Complaint, Page 30 of 148 

1 

2 

3 

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 

from the CFA board of directors. As president of the CFA board, Reynolds, Sr. has voted 

on annual employee bonuses awarded by the board – including his own. 

38. At CCFOA, Perkins has followed a similar path. She employs or has 

employed: her sister, Claudette Sparks; her two daughters, Michelle Morse and Lindsay 

Reynolds; her son-in-law, Brian Morse; her former son-in-law James Tyler Smith; her 

daughter-in-law, Julaporn Connatser; her grandson, Hunter Morse; her long-time friend, 

Peggy Farvin; her stepdaughter’s sister-in-law, Tara Loveless Howard; and her 

daughter’s sister-in-law, Lynda Morse. CCFOA has also compensated Perkins’s stepnephew, Darby Sparks, as an independent contractor. 

39. Between 2008 and 2012, CCFOA paid these employees more than twice 

the amount it provided in financial assistance to children with cancer in the United States 

– CCFOA’s stated mission. As the executive director of CCFOA, Perkins has hired these 

friends and family members, set their salaries, determined their benefits, approved 

bonuses and raises, and made promotion decisions. Perkins has handed out across-theboard employee bonuses of up to 10% of salary twice yearly. She has set bonus amounts 

based on the cash available in CCFOA’s checking account, without regard for budget, 

spending on program services or other expenses, or employee performance. As an 

employee, Perkins has received the same perks and bonuses as other employees, so in 

effect she has been determining her own benefits and bonuses. Perkins has made these 

decisions on her own, with no input or supervision from the CCFOA board of directors 

and despite the obvious conflicts of interest. 

40. At BCS, Reynolds, II has operated similarly. After becoming romantically 

involved with his now-current wife, Kristina Reynolds, he promoted her to be his 

“Operations and Public Relations Manager” – a newly created, second-in-command 

position at a significantly higher pay scale, and for which he neither advertised nor 

interviewed other candidates. He also hired (or authorized her to hire): Kristina 

Reynolds’s two sisters, Liana Lopez and Tracy Wilson; Kristina Reynolds’s son, Chester 

Cawood; her step-nephew, Jeffrey Westerman; and her mother, Diana Tenney. None of 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05/18/15 Page 30 of 148
FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. 

Complaint, Page 31 of 148 

1 

2 

3 

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 

these employees was qualified for their respective positions. For example, Ms. Tenney, 

who was previously a caterer, was hired to write grants. Reynolds, II also hired thenchairman of the BCS board, Eric Fransen, to operate a BCS satellite location – which 

BCS decided to place in Edgemont, Pennsylvania, conveniently near Fransen’s home. 

(With Reynolds, II’s approval, Fransen then hired his wife and mother-in-law to work 

there.) 

41. Between 2008 and 2012, BCS paid these employees considerably more 

than the amount it provided in financial assistance to individuals with breast cancer in the 

United States – its stated primary purpose. As the chief executive officer of BCS, 

Reynolds, II has hired employees, set their salaries, approved a full-time work week of 35 

hours, authorized employee benefits (which he took advantage of as well), determined 

bonuses and raises, authorized loans to employees, and made promotion decisions – 

including, in each case, for his relatives. Reynolds, II has made these decisions on his 

own, with little or no input or supervision from the BCS board of directors and despite 

the obvious conflicts of interest. When he was president of the BCS board, Reynolds, II 

voted on annual employee bonuses awarded by the board. Although he did not vote on 

his own bonus, he voted on Fransen’s bonus and Fransen voted on Reynolds, II’s bonus. 

42. In each instance, rather than hiring employees, setting salaries or approving 

employee benefits with the goal of promoting genuine charitable purposes, the Individual 

Defendants have furthered their own private interests – and the corporations’ boards have 

done nothing to stop them. Bona fide charities do not engage in such conduct. 

Personal Use of Charitable Assets

43. In addition to providing the Individual Defendants, their friends, and their 

family members with steady, lucrative employment, each Corporate Defendant has spent 

significant amounts of money on goods, services, and travel purchased for the use and 

enjoyment of private individuals. These actions, too, demonstrate that the Corporate 

Defendants operated primarily for the profit of the individuals who ran them. 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05/18/15 Page 31 of 148
FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. 

Complaint, Page 32 of 148 

1 

2 

3 

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 

44. At CFA, until recently the organization paid for cars for nine individuals 

and still provides a car for Reynolds, Sr., despite no apparent need for business travel. In 

the past, CFA has also made a short-term, interest free loan, approved by Reynolds, Sr., 

to Michael Reynolds, and paid college tuition for Reynolds, II, Connatser, Josh Loveless, 

and Effler. Until recently, CFA provided employees with company credit cards, but had 

no written policies about personal use of such cards. Reimbursement for personal 

charges on company cards was not required until the end of each year, so in effect CFA 

was floating short-term, interest-free loans to its employees. Some personal charges were 

not repaid at all. Purchases of gas, car washes, meals at Hooters and other restaurants, 

cell phone apps and games, and movie tickets were all bought with CFA credit cards and 

ultimately paid for by donors. In addition, on one occasion, CFA paid for its board 

members and employees (and their spouses) to go on a Carnival cruise in the Caribbean, 

ostensibly for board training purposes. CFA has funded other such “board training” trips 

for board members, employees, and their families at other luxury destinations. 

45. CCFOA has operated in a similar manner. It too provided cars to 

employees in the past, and continues to provide a car to Perkins, despite no apparent need 

for business travel. Likewise, it paid college tuition for Perkins’s daughter-in-law, 

Julaporn Connatser. CCFOA has also allowed employees to use company credit cards 

for personal expenses. Employees were not required to repay CCFOA for these personal 

expenditures until the end of each calendar year, and thus effectively received interestfree loans from CCFOA. Perkins has routinely used her CCFOA credit card for personal 

expenditures, and no one at CCFOA has reviewed her card use to ensure that she has 

identified and repaid all such personal expenses. Corporate credit cards have also been 

used for personal expenses that have not been repaid, including numerous purchases of 

gas and food, movie tickets, and online purchases from vendors like iTunes. CCFOA has 

also paid for extravagant “training” trips for board members, employees, and their 

families, including on two occasions, all-expense paid trips to Disney World. CCFOA 

even paid a babysitter to accompany them. 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05/18/15 Page 32 of 148
FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. 

Complaint, Page 33 of 148 

1 

2 

3 

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 

46. BCS also operated in a similar manner. It previously provided employees 

with cars and continues to provide a car for Reynolds, II, despite no apparent need for 

business travel. BCS employees, including Reynolds, II, have enjoyed such perks as gym 

memberships and college tuition. BCS also allowed employees to use corporate credit 

cards for personal expenses, and did not require repayment until the end of each year, 

effectively providing them with interest-free loans. BCS credit cards were used to 

purchase movie tickets, video games, food, gas, car washes, Jet Ski rentals, meals at 

Hooters, and purchases at Victoria’s Secret. BCS has also provided loans to employees, 

repaid student loans, and footed the bill for employees’ significant others to attend out-oftown events. 

47. The cash used to buy these goods and services and to make these loans was 

contributed by donors, who were told that their contributions would be spent helping 

cancer patients. While bona fide charitable organizations may provide perks or other 

benefits as part of employee compensation, such benefits are not typically authorized by 

family members, do not extend to purely personal items, and are governed by clear 

written employee policies. Here, the employment opportunities and perks provided to 

insiders by these sham charities have far exceeded the benefits that they purported to 

provide to cancer victims. Bona fide charities do not engage in such conduct. 

Failed Board Oversight 

48. The extravagant insider benefits that the Individual Defendants conferred 

on their friends and family members have gone unchecked by each organization’s board 

of directors. This is by design: board members, hand-picked by the Individual 

Defendants, have not been independent and have not acted independently. Instead, they 

have rubber-stamped decisions by Reynolds, Sr., Effler, Perkins, and Reynolds, II. The 

boards of each organization have been populated with relatives of the Individual 

Defendants, relatives of employees, long-time family friends, employees of other 

Corporate Defendants, and members of the Individual Defendants’ church. In numerous 

instances, individual board members have had little or no experience with the 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05/18/15 Page 33 of 148
FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. 

Complaint, Page 34 of 148 

1 

2 

3 

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 

corporations’ missions or in nonprofit management, and lack the qualifications required 

for oversight of these multimillion-dollar enterprises. 

49. These boards have failed to observe even routine corporate governance 

procedures practiced by legitimate charities. Board members (other than the Individual 

Defendants) have not regularly reviewed financial expenditures by the organizations, and 

not even the board treasurers have engaged in financial oversight or analysis. CFA and 

CSS have not used board-approved budgets at all. At CCFOA and BCS, board members 

have not participated in creating annual budgets and have approved them without 

question. After budgets were approved, the BCS and CCFOA boards did not engage in 

any ongoing review of expenses or program accomplishments against the budgeted 

numbers. Any such review would have revealed to each of the boards the disparity 

between cash expended on fulfilling the charitable mission and cash expended on 

corporate insiders, along with other budget issues. For example, the CCFOA board 

approved a salary increase for Perkins at a time when CCFOA was scaling back its sole 

program due to lack of funds. At BCS, Reynolds, II’s salary increased in 2010 from 

$257,642 to $370,951, but that same year net donations decreased, as did the amount of 

direct cash aid the organization provided to individuals with breast cancer, its muchtouted primary program. The CFA board was equally oblivious. Having not reviewed 

corporate expenses, it authorized increases to staff bonuses and salaries in 2012, at a time 

when fundraising costs were up and CFA had suspended its main charitable program, 

supposedly due to lack of funds. 

50. The boards have not set mission-related goals, and have not engaged in 

strategic or financial planning related to programming. The boards have not conducted 

annual elections of officers or board members and have had no term limits for board 

service. Nor have they held senior management accountable for hiring unqualified 

personnel, maintaining inappropriate staff levels, improperly reviewing employee 

performance, or failing to implement financial controls. They also failed to limit 

extravagant and unnecessary employee benefits. 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05/18/15 Page 34 of 148
FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. 

Complaint, Page 35 of 148 

1 

2 

3 

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 

51. The boards also have not regularly observed conflict of interest policies 

prohibiting board members from acting on matters in which they were self-interested. 

Nor have the boards required the corporations or the staff to observe conflict of interest 

policies that prohibit self-dealing. For example, at CFA in 2008, at Reynolds, Sr.’s 

suggestion, the board, including Reynolds, Sr., voted to hold open the job of his son, 

Reynolds, II, for two years in case his venture with BCS did not succeed. (The CFA 

board had provided Perkins the same safe harbor in 2005 when she left CFA for 

CCFOA.) At CCFOA, each board member, including Perkins, signed a conflict of 

interest policy that prohibited compensating interested persons – yet the board knew that 

Perkins had hired, set salaries, determined bonuses, and set benefits for her relatives. 

And at BCS, even after then-board chairman Fransen learned that Reynolds, II was 

romantically involved with his now-current wife, Kristina Reynolds, the BCS board 

continued to allow Reynolds, II to promote her and set her salary, bonuses, and benefits, 

at least until their marriage, and to do the same for her sisters, mother, and children. 

52. Again and again, the Corporate Defendants’ boards have ratified decisions 

that furthered the private interests of the Reynolds clan, and ignored or failed to question 

policies and practices that benefitted those private interests at the expense of their 

charitable missions. Boards of bona fide charities do not engage in such conduct. 

Failed Executive Review 

53. The boards of directors have exercised no meaningful management or 

control over the organizations they purport to govern. The boards have abdicated most 

responsibilities to the Individual Defendants, over whom they have exercised no 

meaningful control. The boards have not reviewed the job performance of Reynolds, Sr., 

Effler, Perkins, or Reynolds, II. At CFA and CCFOA, board-approved bonuses were not 

related to revenue, performance, or achievement of strategic goals, and were approved for 

multi-year periods, often with minimal board-level discussion. For example, the boards 

of CFA and CCFOA authorized twice-yearly staff bonuses of up to 10% of salary, and 

allowed Reynolds, Sr. and Perkins to determine their own bonuses within that range. At 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05/18/15 Page 35 of 148
FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. 

Complaint, Page 36 of 148 

1 

2 

3 

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 

CFA, Reynolds, Sr. recommended his own salary increases to the board for approval. At 

BCS, the board approved a salary range and annual increases for Reynolds, II, but 

allowed him to set his own salary and annual increases within that range without review. 

Also at BCS, when Fransen was simultaneously chairman of the board and an employee, 

he was supervised nominally by Reynolds, II, while also ostensibly supervising 

Reynolds, II. 

54. The CFA, CCFOA, and BCS boards did not have established compensation 

committees and approved CEO compensation without independently evaluating the 

appropriate salary ranges for similarly qualified CEOs or executive directors of 

comparably sized organizations with similar programs. Instead, these boards have 

routinely approved salaries in ranges suggested to them by Reynolds, Sr., Perkins, and 

Reynolds, II, based on information (also provided to them by these individuals) about 

salaries at other, supposedly comparable organizations. These “comparable” 

organizations were chosen based in part on annual gross revenues, which for CFA, 

CCFOA, and BCS included tens of millions of dollars in GIK revenue, not cash income, 

and did not accurately reflect the size or complexity of their business operations. Boards 

of directors of bona fide charities do not operate in this manner. 

Telemarketing Contracts Confer Private Benefit on Third Party Fundraisers 

55. In addition to benefits privately inuring to the Individual Defendants, their 

families, and their friends, CFA, CCFOA, and BCS have significantly benefitted the 

private interests of for-profit fundraisers who have solicited in their names, including, for 

example, Associated Community Services. Contracts with such fundraisers typically 

have specified that the fundraisers would be paid 80% or more – sometimes as much as 

95% – of each dollar raised. As a result, between 2008 and through 2012, CFA, CCFOA, 

and BCS reported fundraising costs of more than $120 million. (This does not include 

amounts paid by CSS to its employee-fundraisers.) 

56. Fundraisers have also benefitted from unrestricted access to the lead lists of 

CFA, CCFOA, and BCS. In numerous instances, fundraising contracts signed by 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05/18/15 Page 36 of 148
FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. 

Complaint, Page 37 of 148 

1 

2 

3 

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 

Reynolds, Sr., Perkins, and Reynolds, II have provided for-profit fundraisers unrestricted 

use of the donor list developed by that fundraiser, and limited the current and future use 

of such lists by CFA, CCFOA, and BCS. Access to these lists has significantly benefited 

fundraisers, because donors who answer the phone and contribute to one cause are more 

likely to respond to solicitations for other causes. Access to names of donors who 

contributed to CFA, CCFOA, or BCS lowers the cost to fundraisers of acquiring lead lists 

and increases their response rate when soliciting for other organizations. 

57. For some charities, high fundraising costs can be attributed to start-up 

expenses or seeking support for unpopular causes. That is not the case here. CFA and 

CCFOA have been in existence for years, and seeking support for cancer-related causes is 

neither unpopular nor controversial. Moreover, because it is usually cheaper and easier 

to obtain contributions from past donors, typically fundraising expenses decline as 

organizations develop a database of loyal donors. Yet, by allowing fundraisers unfettered 

use of their donor lists, CFA, CCFOA, and BCS have never benefitted from the reduced 

costs associated with soliciting past donors, and have continued to pay even long-term 

fundraisers the same high rates. Indeed, in 2011, instead of decreasing the amount paid 

for fundraising, the largest fundraiser for CFA and CCFOA, Associated Community 

Services, increased its contractually required payment from 80% to 85% of all funds 

raised for CFA and CCFOA. Reynolds, Sr., Perkins, and Reynolds, II have routinely 

approved these fundraising contracts, and the boards of directors of CFA, CCFOA, and 

BCS have remained silent, tacitly ratifying their use. 

58. CFA, CCFOA, and BCS have also failed to police the activities of their 

fundraisers. After providing fundraisers with approved scripts and other solicitation 

materials, CFA, CCFOA, and BCS have engaged in no further oversight. Defendants 

have done nothing even after a state takes legal action against a fundraiser for making 

misrepresentations, as, for example, did Michigan in 2013, against Associated 

Community Services. In the Matter of Associated Community Services, Inc., File No. 

2013-0039412-A (Cease and Desist Order and Notice of Intended Action), available at 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05/18/15 Page 37 of 148
FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. 

Complaint, Page 38 of 148 

1 

2 

3 

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 

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/ag/05.28.13 Notice of Intended Action with exh

ibits_422463_7.pdf. Indeed, other than cashing the checks, Defendants have done little 

more than sign the fundraising contracts. 

59. Bona fide charities protect important assets like donor lists. They also seek 

to protect their reputations by monitoring their fundraisers and the representations they 

make to the public. These Defendants did neither. 

Donor Deception 

60. Through telemarketing, direct mail, websites, social media and other online 

forums, and in publicly filed documents, Corporate Defendants have represented and 

continue to represent that contributions to them go to support legitimate charities that 

primarily focus on directly assisting individuals suffering from cancer in the United 

States. In addition, in numerous instances, Corporate Defendants have represented that 

donations funded programs that provided pain medication to cancer patients, 

transportation to chemotherapy appointments, or paid for hospice care. As described 

below, these representations were false. Relying on those claims, generous Americans 

opened their pocketbooks and contributed tens of millions of dollars to aid cancer 

patients. Defendants exploited this generosity. Had donors known how their 

contributions actually would be spent, they would not have contributed. 

Misrepresentations that contributions will go to legitimate charities

61. Corporate Defendants raised more than $187 million from donors across 

the country between 2008 and 2012. Central to the success of their solicitations was the 

overarching claim, direct or implied, that contributed funds would support bona fide 

charities whose primary purposes were charitable. Defendants have made this claim in 

solicitation materials and telemarketing scripts, including, e.g., claims that: 

 CFA is “a national nonprofit charity”; “a national health agency”; “on the 

forefront of the fight against cancer” or “on the front lines for the fight 

against cancer”; 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05/18/15 Page 38 of 148
FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. 

Complaint, Page 39 of 148 

1 

2 

3 

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 

 CSS is “a nationwide charity just like the Red Cross and the Salvation 

Army”; 

 CCFOA “operates exclusively as a charitable organization”; is “a national 

nonprofit charity”; or “is on the forefront of actually helping needy children 

with cancer”; and 

 BCS is a “national breast cancer charity.” 

Implicit in every request for a “contribution” and every claim to be a “nonprofit” or a 

“charity” was the promise that the Corporate Defendants were legitimate charities serving 

charitable purposes. 

62. In fact, the Corporate Defendants operated primarily for the benefit of 

private interests. Their priorities were reflected not just in how they operated, as 

described in Paragraphs 25 – 59, above, but also in how they spent donors’ money. The 

bulk of contributed funds went first to the for-profit fundraising companies who solicited 

the contributions. The remaining funds were then used primarily for salaries and other 

benefits enjoyed by the Individual Defendants and their friends and families. Thus, 

between 2008 and 2012, CFA and CSS spent 86.4% of donors’ contributions paying 

compensation and fundraising costs. (CFA and CSS figures are reported together 

because they operated as a common enterprise and contributions to CSS supported the 

operations of CFA). In contrast, CFA and CSS spent 2.8% of donors’ contributions on 

cash and goods provided to cancer patients and nonprofits in the United States. In the 

same time period, CCFOA spent 88.8%, of donors’ contributions on compensation and 

fundraising. In contrast, CCFOA spent 3.4% of donated funds on the cash and goods it 

provided to families of children with cancer in the United States. Also between 2008 and 

2012, BCS spent 89% of donors’ contributions on compensation and fundraising costs. 

In contrast, BCS spent 2.4% of donors’ contributions on the cash, goods, and other 

services it provided to breast cancer causes in the United States.

63. Under these circumstances, it was deceptive to claim that Corporate 

Defendants were bona fide charities or that contributions would be used primarily for 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05/18/15 Page 39 of 148
FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. 

Complaint, Page 40 of 148 

1 

2 

3 

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 

charitable purposes. Donors expected that their contributions would be spent primarily 

on charitable purposes, and likely would have made different donating decisions if they 

had known the truth.

 

64. In telemarketing calls, direct mail, websites, social media, and in publicly 

filed documents, Corporate Defendants described to donors numerous worthwhile 

programs that contributions would supposedly fund. These programs included, for 

example, providing cash grants directly to indigent cancer patients and their families, 

supplying needy cancer patients directly with medicine and medical supplies, including 

pain medication, providing transportation to chemotherapy appointments, paying for 

emergency groceries and utilities, offering treatment counseling, and providing needed 

goods and supplies to hospices across the country. These programs supposedly all 

focused on aiding indigent cancer patients in the United States. Donors relied on these 

representations and contributed to support these causes. 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05/18/15 Page 40 of 148
FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. 

Complaint, Page 41 of 148 

1 

2 

3 

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 

65. In fact, in numerous instances, the Corporate Defendants spent either 

nothing, or an infinitesimal amount, on the specific programs described. The purposes 

for which contributions would be used were central to donors’ decisions to contribute 

funds to these organizations. If donors had known that most of their contributions would 

be spent in other ways and for unrelated purposes, and not been deceived, they would 

have made different donating decisions. Specific misrepresentations about program 

benefits by each of the Corporate Defendants are discussed below. 

Misrepresentations by CFA 

66. CFA, in numerous instances, has made misrepresentations about the 

purpose, size, and scope of its charitable programs. These misrepresentations have 

occurred in solicitation materials, such as direct mail pieces and telemarketing scripts that 

CFA approved for use by telemarketers, on the CFA website, and in other public 

statements, 

67. In response to these claims, in 2012 alone, generous Americans contributed 

more than $5.2 million to fundraisers soliciting for CFA. In total, from 2008 through 

2012, donors gave CFA fundraisers $29.7 million. 

68. CFA’s misrepresentations have included, but were not limited to, 

statements like: 

 CFA is a “national health agency,” “a nationwide patient assistance 

organization,” and a “national cancer organization”; 

 CFA is “making a difference in the lives of tens of thousands of 

Americans”; 

 CFA’s “number one priority is patient care,” it “concentrates its efforts on 

patient care,” is “devoted primarily to direct patient aid,” and that 

“commitment for the care of the individual is still the primary focus of our 

mission”; 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05/18/15 Page 41 of 148
FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. 

Complaint, Page 42 of 148 

1 

2 

3 

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 

 CFA helps “by providing direct services and assistance to financially needy 

cancer patients and their families, such as the loan of equipment and 

various supplies, etc.”; 

 CFA “works to provide aid to indigent patients of this devastating disease”; 

 CFA is “providing support, products, supplies and services to financially 

indigent patients”; 

 CFA is “a Tennessee-based national non-profit organization whose mission 

is to provide direct support and services to financially indigent patients....”; 

 CFA “helps tens of thousands of cancer victims and hundreds of hospice 

organizations on a yearly basis . . . .” 

69. In fact, CFA’s “direct patient aid” program consisted of sending individuals 

with cancer boxes of seemingly random items. Such noncash donations are referred to as 

“gifts-in-kind” (“GIK”). These GIK packages typically included a small quantity of 

Carnation Instant Breakfast drink, adult briefs and bed pads, and a large assortment of 

what CFA euphemistically described as “comfort items.” In the past, boxes have 

included things like sample-size soaps, shampoos, and other toiletries, over-the-counter 

medications, Little Debbie Snack Cakes, toys, disposable plates and plastic cutlery, 

scarves, batteries, women’s makeup, family-themed DVDs, adult-sized clothing, iPod 

Nano covers, gift wrap, blank seasonal greeting cards, candy, and/or children’s coloring 

books. CFA employees and volunteers pre-packed boxes with an assortment of identical 

items, until supplies of any given item ran out. Thus, every individual received the same 

items, regardless of age, gender, clothing size, or personal preference. Individual 

recipients could also request latex exam gloves, and, on some occasions, box fans and 

blankets. 

70. CFA did not consult with medical professionals about the relative need or 

usefulness to cancer patients of any of the items it provided to individuals. It had no 

health care professionals or cancer specialists on its staff. Reynolds’ explanation for 

buying Little Debbie Snack Cakes for cancer patients was because “they make people 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05/18/15 Page 42 of 148
FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. 

Complaint, Page 43 of 148 

1 

2 

3 

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 

happy.” He justified a switch to purchasing Moon Pies because they “make you 

happier.” 

71. CFA did not require recipients to demonstrate financial hardship. To 

receive “direct patient aid,” individuals submitted an application to CFA, signed by a 

medical professional verifying a cancer diagnosis. There were no other qualifications 

and no means testing. Once an individual was accepted, CFA would ship boxes of 

assorted items to that person every other month for up to two years (except for the 

months when CFA suspended its shipping due to lack of funds). After receiving the first 

package, individuals were required to call CFA to request additional shipments. In 2012, 

CFA shipped boxes to 4,378 individuals. In lieu of shipping boxes to Alaska and Hawaii, 

CFA provided individuals in those states with cash assistance, sending them checks for 

$50. Only 113 individuals received direct financial assistance from CFA from 2008 

through 2012. 

72. CFA made the same goods it shipped to individuals available to nonprofits 

in the United States. Hospices, health care providers, and other nonprofits could order up 

to four boxes of Carnation Instant Breakfast, and, when available, slightly larger 

quantities of adult diapers, bed pads, and exam gloves. They could also receive boxes of 

items like those provided to individuals, but in quantities sufficient for five to twenty 

people. 

73. On some occasions, due to a claimed lack of funds, CFA suspended its 

program and stopped shipping products to individuals and nonprofits. For example, it 

made no shipments from September 2012 to February 2013. On other occasions, CFA 

suspended or limited the number of new applicants to whom it would start sending 

packages. 

74. CFA purchased some of the products it sent to individuals and nonprofits. 

For example, it routinely bought Carnation Instant Breakfast or other liquid supplement 

drinks, adult diapers, bed pads, exam gloves, and Little Debbie Snack Cakes. 

Occasionally it also purchased air freshener, blankets, box fans, and jewelry. 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05/18/15 Page 43 of 148
FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. 

Complaint, Page 44 of 148 

1 

2 

3 

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 

75. CFA obtained most of the items it sent to individuals and nonprofits – the 

program described to donors – from procurement agents. Such agents gather and make 

available to nonprofits overstocked, out of season, or discontinued merchandise. To 

acquire these goods, CFA paid procurement agents between 2% and 5% of the goods’ 

retail value. Despite paying this relatively small percentage of the goods’ retail value, 

CFA claimed the original retail value of its GIK distributions when reporting its program 

expenses, rather than reporting the actual amount CFA paid to obtain the goods. For 

example, in 2012, CFA reported program expenditures that included donations of GIK 

goods valued at $2.65 million to individuals and nonprofits in the United States, but only 

spent $314,000 to acquire these goods. This actual expenditure amounts to less than 

2.3% of donors’ contributions to CFA and CSS in 2012. Almost none of donors’ 

contributions were spent on the actual goods and financial assistance provided to patients, 

CFA’s stated “number one priority.” 

76. Moreover, even though CFA claimed that its primary purpose was to 

provide direct aid to cancer patients or assistance to hospices and other health care 

providers on a national basis, a significant portion of CFA’s U.S. “program” has 

consisted of donating goods to nonprofits with purposes wholly unrelated to assisting 

cancer patients. Many of these organizations were located in and around Knoxville, 

Tennessee. For example, CFA contributed merchandise it valued at $688,476 to a 

Knoxville food bank. Other contributions went to the Knoxville Toys for Tots drive, a 

Knoxville Firefighters Association, a Knoxville-area youth soccer program, and a 

Knoxville nonprofit dedicated to enriching the lives of the disabled through dance. 

Senior centers, churches, and schools in the Knoxville area also benefitted. In 2012, CFA 

contributed fewer goods to nonprofits with missions related to cancer and health care 

than it contributed to other kinds of nonprofits. Donors choosing to support a “national” 

program of direct aid to cancer patients, or assistance to hospices and other health care 

providers, reasonably would have expected their contributions to be spent supporting 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05/18/15 Page 44 of 148
FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. 

Complaint, Page 45 of 148 

1 

2 

3 

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 

such programs and not spent supporting food banks, senior centers, and churches in and 

around Knoxville, Tennessee. 

77. In light of its actual program expenditures, CFA was not, in fact, a 

“national health agency” and its “number one priority” was not “patient care.” It did not 

directly help “tens of thousands of Americans,” and its resources were not devoted 

“primarily to direct patient aid.” These claims were deceptive and misled donors to 

believe that CFA was a large organization that assisted many individuals with cancer in a 

profound way. 

78. In addition, in numerous instances, CFA, directly or through its 

telemarketing agents, made misrepresentations about specific programs, including, but 

not limited to claims that: 

 CFA helps supply emergency items such as oxygen, transportation to 

chemotherapy treatment, and medications, and loans equipment to 

individual cancer patients; 

 CFA provides life-saving items to cancer patients; 

 CFA provides medical equipment and supplies to cancer patients or “helps 

provide medical support and services”; 

 CFA helps cancer patients financially; and 

 CFA helps provide cancer patients with pain medications. 

79. Most of these claims were simply false. CFA had no program that supplied 

cancer patients with emergency items such as oxygen, provided transportation to 

chemotherapy appointments, or loaned equipment to cancer patients. Nor did it provide 

meaningful “life-saving items,” “pain medication,” or “medical support and services” to 

cancer patients. 

80. CFA’s claim to provide cancer patients with “medical supplies” was also 

deceptive. Even if adult diapers, bed pads, and vinyl gloves might be construed by 

donors as “medical supplies,” so little of CFA’s program expenditures was devoted to 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05/18/15 Page 45 of 148
FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. 

Complaint, Page 46 of 148 

1 

2 

3 

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 

purchasing such items that any claims that donations would be used for such purposes 

were inherently misleading. 

81. Similarly, claims that CFA helped cancer patients financially implied the 

existence of a substantial charitable program to do so, and did not accurately represent 

the extraordinarily limited nature of the financial assistance actually provided by CFA to 

individuals. In 2012, the amount of direct cash aid that CFA provided to individuals was 

just 0.15% of donations to CFA and CSS. From 2008 through 2012, CFA provided 

$61,614 in direct cash aid to 113 individuals – 0.1% of the $75.8 million CFA and CSS 

received in donations. Under these circumstances, it was deceptive for CFA to claim to 

engage in a program that provided direct financial aid to cancer patients. 

82. Whether scripted or unscripted, telemarketers’ descriptions about the 

services CFA provided were intended to tug at donors’ heartstrings and open their 

wallets, with little regard for accuracy. One telemarketing script approved by CFA in 

2008 even directed telemarketers trying to convince reluctant donors to say: “I 

understand [your hesitation to give]; however we never want to have to tell a family that 

is stretching their finances to the breaking point that ‘We’re sorry but the CANCER 

FUND has fallen short of its fundraising goal, so we won’t be able to provide you with a 

wig for your child to cover the hair loss due to chemotherapy!’” In fact, at that time CFA 

did not maintain a program to provide wigs for children in chemotherapy. 

Misrepresentations by CSS 

83. CFA has made additional misrepresentations to donors through its so-called 

“supporting organization,” CSS. As discussed above, CFA controls the conduct of CSS 

and together the two corporations have operated as a common enterprise. The sole 

mission of CSS is to raise funds for CFA. Like other professional fundraisers, CSS has 

spent a significant amount of funds paying for telemarketers, technology, and overhead – 

at least 73% of every dollar donated. Unlike other charities, CSS itself has not engaged 

in the charitable programs it describes to donors. Instead, it has told donors about 

charitable programs supposedly engaged in by CFA. 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05/18/15 Page 46 of 148
FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. 

Complaint, Page 47 of 148 

1 

2 

3 

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 

84. In solicitation materials such as direct mail pieces and telemarketing 

scripts, on its website, and in other public statements, CSS has claimed that it directly 

provides aid to cancer patients, hospices, and nonprofit health care organizations. CSS 

does none of these things. In response to such claims, generous Americans gave $8.2 

million to CSS in 2012. Between 2008 and 2012, donors gave CSS over $41.15 million. 

85. CSS has made these misrepresentations in numerous instances, including, 

but not limited to, statements like: 

 “[W]e want to let you know that we are continuing our cancer aid program 

this year, we are the ones that provide the free supplies & dietary 

supplements directly to the families that are fighting cancer and also to over 

600 hospices and other health care providers. . .”; 

 “[W]e are NOT about research, we give direct aid to those that already have 

cancer and are in need”; 

 “Cancer Support Services is hard at work helping struggling cancer patients 

get their daily items”; 

 “Cancer Support Services is diligently working on helping cancer patients 

in need, we do this by providing cancer patients with the support they need, 

like dietary supplements, medical supplies, and other items”; 

 “Cancer Support Services differs greatly from other cancer groups in that 

its number one priority is funding patient aid rather than research”; 

 “We help cancer patients anywhere in the United States. Men, women, 

children, um, with over two hundred forty types of cancer”; 

 “[T]ens of thousands of cancer patients contact us for help”; 

86. In fact, CSS has never directly provided aid to cancer patients, hospices, or 

nonprofit health care organizations in the United States. Instead, it has provided cash 

grants to CFA. Claims that CSS engaged in any direct patient aid were false. 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05/18/15 Page 47 of 148
FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. 

Complaint, Page 48 of 148 

1 

2 

3 

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 

87. In numerous instances, CSS telemarketers have made additional 

misrepresentations about programs CSS supposedly conducted. These have included, but 

are not limited to, statements that CSS itself provides hospice care, as in the following: 

 “We also do the hospice care for the terminally ill and we supply over 600 

hospice offices with medical supplies all over the United States”; 

 “We just want you to know that your generous contribution went a long 

way to help cancer patients out directly with their hospice care and their 

medical supplies”; 

 “We also do the hospice care for the terminally ill ...”; 

 “We’re the hospice care. We provide those medical supplies and items for 

men, women, and children with, with a four-stage cancer”; 

 “So we’re just trying to keep the doors [open for] hospice care, you know 

that’s kind of touch and go you never know ...”; 

 “We’re the ones that do the hospice care for the cancer patients afflicted 

with cancer from infants to adults”; and 

 “One hundred percent of our proceeds go to hospice care.” 

88. In fact, CSS does not provide hospice care, does not fund hospices, and 

100% of donations do not go to hospice care. CFA also has not provided hospice care to 

cancer patients. Such representations were completely fabricated. Even assuming that 

CSS telemarketers were describing CFA’s programs, the number of hospices in the 

United States to which CFA has provided any assistance was grossly inflated. CFA has 

sent its care packages to some nonprofit health care organizations, including a handful of 

hospices, but it has not supplied 600 hospices, much less provided them with meaningful 

amounts of medical supplies. Donors who relied on these representations and contributed 

money to CSS were deceived, and legitimate hospice providers deprived of support that 

might otherwise have gone to them. 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05/18/15 Page 48 of 148
FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. 

Complaint, Page 49 of 148 

1 

2 

3 

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 

Misrepresentations by CFA and CSS about fundraising costs 

89. CSS also has used its nonprofit status to mislead donors about the cost of 

fundraising and to vastly overstate its efficiency in using their contributions. For 

example, in numerous instances, CSS has made statements in telemarketing calls 

including, but not limited to: 

 “I’m not a telemarketer so I work directly for the charity...”; 

 “[T]he great thing about it, us, is that we, I’m not a telemarketer. We, 

100% of the money that we raise goes directly to the charity. We do not 

have a professional fundraising company that we have to share your 

contribution with. We are the charity calling you directly”; 

 “One hundred percent of your contribution goes directly to the charity. I’m 

not doing a fundraiser and I’m not calling with um, with a telemarketing 

firm ... I’m calling you directly from the charity”; 

 “We’re a nationwide charity just like the Red Cross and the Salvation 

Army”; and 

 “One hundred percent of your contribution goes into the fund where we 

purchase medical supplies for these cancer patients.” 

90. In fact, although CSS is organized as a nonprofit, it operates solely as a 

telemarketer for CFA. Despite its (false) assertions, 100% of donors’ contributions did 

not go to support the charitable programs described to them. Instead, funds donated to 

CSS first were used to pay CSS’s significant fundraising costs and compensation – about 

73% of each donation. After this first cut, most of the remaining funds were sent to CFA. 

91. In its financial statements, CFA reported the revenue it received from CSS 

but no concomitant costs. This made it appear that CFA spent donors’ money more 

efficiently than it actually did. CSS gave CFA $7.96 million between 2008 and 2012, 

which CFA reported as contributed revenue. This additional amount caused CFA’s ratio 

of fundraising cost to donations to diminish from 82.9% to 67.4%, making CFA appear 

more efficient to donors. In fact, because CFA controlled CSS and CSS engaged in no 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05/18/15 Page 49 of 148
FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. 

Complaint, Page 50 of 148 

1 

2 

3 

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 

programming itself, an accurate representation of the administrative and overhead costs 

by CFA would have included both the revenue generated by CSS and its expenses. 

CFA’s practice of reporting only the revenue from CSS’s operations deceived donors. 

92. Donors have a right to know how their contributions are being spent – and 

by whom. Interposing additional entities between the contribution and the charitable 

program increases costs and dilutes the impact and efficiency of donors’ contributions. If 

donors had known the truth about CSS’s “programs,” and not been deceived, they likely 

would have chosen to avoid such costs and contributed directly to an entity that truly 

engaged in charitable programs. 

Misrepresentations by CCFOA

93. CCFOA, in numerous instances, has represented that it engages in a 

substantial charitable program dedicated to providing financial assistance to the families 

of children suffering from cancer. CCFOA has made these claims in solicitation 

materials, such as direct mail pieces and telemarketing scripts that CCFOA approved for 

use by its telemarketers, on its website, and in other public statements. 

94. In response to such claims, generous Americans contributed $6.36 million 

to CCFOA in 2012. Between 2008 and 2012, donors gave CCFOA $39.5 million. 

95. CCFOA’s misrepresentations about its programs have included, for 

example: 

 “Finding tangible help when a child is stricken with cancer is both 

frustrating and difficult to obtain. We alleviate much of that burden so the 

family can get on with the business of loving and caring”; 

 “The Children’s Cancer Fund of America is, with your help, assisting 

children and their parents cope with the daily struggles of cancer by 

providing direct financial aid to pay for expenses not covered by 

insurance”; 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05/18/15 Page 50 of 148
FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. 

Complaint, Page 51 of 148 

1 

2 

3 

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 

 “The Children’s Cancer Fund of America provides financial assistance to 

medically indigent families having a child with cancer. Monthly checks 

sent to family to help defray daily living cost”; 

 “The Children’s Cancer Fund of America, Inc., operates exclusively as a 

charitable organization dedicated to assistance and support of children 

suffering from cancer and their families through financial aid”; 

 Donations to CCFOA will go to “many families facing financial 

devastation in their children’s struggle with cancer. . .”; 

 “We have a combined work experience of nearly 50 years helping cancer 

patients of all ages, arming us with the knowledge of how to target the most 

pressing of financial needs, and then rallying to the cause with direct aid”; 

 “Children’s Cancer Fund of America is in the forefront of actually helping 

needy children with cancer by providing public education and financial 

assistance to help pay for expenses”; and 

 “CCFOA programs fight the ravages of childhood cancer in the following 

ways: Financial Assistance: Immediate assistance cuts through the red tape 

to help with immediate needs and expenses not covered by insurance.” 

96. Despite CCFOA’s representations about its claimed largesse, and the 

millions of dollars it collected, CCFOA has done almost nothing for children with cancer. 

For example, in 2012 CCFOA provided $45,026 in financial assistance to 723 recipients 

– 0.71% of donations. That same year CCFOA paid Perkins a salary of $231,672. 

97. To receive aid, a family needed to call CCFOA to request an application, 

and then complete and return the original application form with the signature of a medical 

professional confirming a child’s cancer diagnosis. CCFOA imposed no financial 

qualifications and families received the same monthly amount – between $25 and $100 – 

for up to 24 months. The amount of the checks sent depended on funds available to 

CCFOA after paying telemarketers, Perkins’s and other staff salaries, and other expenses. 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05/18/15 Page 51 of 148
FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. 

Complaint, Page 52 of 148 

1 

2 

3 

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 

For a time CCFOA issued such checks monthly, but by 2012 the program had been 

scaled back and checks were issued every other month to enrolled families. 

98. CCFOA started a “Patient Perk Pack” program in August 2012. On months 

when checks were not provided, it sent families pre-packaged boxes containing a random 

assortment of items including, for example, backpacks, school supplies, children’s 

hygiene products, children’s coats, religious-themed DVDs, and candy. Like CFA, 

CCFOA obtained these items from procurement agents that gather and make available to 

nonprofits overstocked, out of season, or discontinued merchandise in exchange for a 

handling fee that is a fraction of the retail value of the items. CCFOA reported that it 

provided goods valued at $139,373 to families of children with cancer in 2012, but paid 

only a fraction of that amount to obtain these goods. Donors were not told that their 

contributions would support this program. 

99. Including both its cash assistance and the reported value of the contributed 

goods given away in “Patient Perk Packs,” CCFOA provided aid to individuals in the 

United States valued at just $184,399 in 2012. This amounted to 2.9% of the $6.36 

million donors contributed, and just 1.2% of CCFOA’s reported total contributions 

(individual donors’ contributions plus GIK). Under these circumstances, CCFOA did not 

operate a substantial charitable program dedicated to providing financial support to the 

families of children with cancer, and donors’ money was not used for the purposes 

described to them. 

100. In addition to misrepresentations about its financial assistance program, in 

numerous instances, CCFOA, directly or through its fundraisers, has made 

misrepresentations about specific programs including, but not limited, to claims that 

CCFOA helps children with cancer with “hospice needs,” “medical supplies,” and “pain 

medication.” For example, one telemarketing script, authorized by Perkins and used by 

CCFOA’s largest commercial fundraiser, Associated Community Services, claimed that 

“We [CCFOA] are working to provide pain medication, medical supplies and hospice 

care when families cannot afford them to battle cancer with no financial worries.” These 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05/18/15 Page 52 of 148
FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. 

Complaint, Page 53 of 148 

1 

2 

3 

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 

claims evoked images of cancer-stricken children suffering untreated pain, waiting for 

medication that donations to CCFOA could help provide. While heart-wrenching, the 

claims were completely false. CCFOA has never provided pain medication, medical 

supplies, or hospice care to children with cancer. 

Misrepresentations by BCS 

101. BCS, in numerous instances, has made misrepresentations about the 

purpose, size, and scope of its programs. BCS made these claims in solicitation 

materials, such as direct mail pieces and telemarketing scripts approved by BCS for use 

by its telemarketers, on the BCS website, in statements to the Combined Federal 

Campaign, and in other public statements. In response to such claims, generous 

Americans contributed $15.1 million to BCS in 2012. From 2008 through 2012, donors 

contributed $71.7 million to BCS. 

102. Misrepresentations by BCS have included, in numerous instances, claims 

that providing breast cancer patients in the United States with direct financial assistance 

is the primary purpose of BCS, and that it has helped thousands of individuals in this 

way. Such representations have included, but were not limited to: 

 “The Breast Cancer Society is one of the few national breast cancer 

charities in the United States with a primary focus on providing direct help 

and assistance to those suffering from breast cancer”; 

 “The Breast Cancer Society is one of the few national breast cancer 

charities in the U.S. providing direct help and financial aid to those 

suffering from breast cancer today! TBCS is able to assist families in need 

of assistance with direct financial assistance”; 

 “Your support provides necessary aid and funding for medical expenses, 

nutritional, personal care, transportation, utilities, groceries, and much more 

to breast cancer patients undergoing desperate financial circumstances due 

to breast cancer”; 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05/18/15 Page 53 of 148
FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. 

Complaint, Page 54 of 148 

1 

2 

3 

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 

 “Your pledge to The Breast Cancer Society ensures that individuals will be 

helped and comforted through this challenging time of their lives; that those 

we aid will be provided critical assistance to help pay for the necessary 

supplies and personal care items insurance companies rarely pay for. The 

Breast Cancer Society is providing direct HELP to individuals and 

families”; 

 “It is the primary mission of TBCS to provide direct aid to those who are 

suffering from the effects of breast cancer. We have extensive programs in 

place that allow both financial and material items to be granted to those in 

need. Your generous support makes a difference in thousands of women’s 

lives who are facing breast cancer”; 

 “Your donation(s) are appreciated, but more importantly they are 

desperately needed. [BCS] provides direct support, services, [and] supplies 

to patients in need and to their care providers. We seek out countless breast 

cancer victims that could not otherwise afford proper care”; 

 “We’re back to work ... [providing] direct financial assistance to women in 

the U.S. battling breast cancer”; 

 “The Breast Cancer Society has been able to provide direct assistance to 

many thousands of breast cancer patients and their families through our 

partnership with Associated Community Services”; 

 “[T]hanks to you and so many other Partners of TBCS, thousands of 

patients are able to receive financial, medical, and emotional aid”; and 

 “A unique mission. Direct and immediate financial assistance to victims 

battling breast cancer so they may meet the challenges of the illness and 

become survivors.” 

103. Despite these claims, providing direct financial assistance to breast cancer 

patients has not been the primary focus or mission of BCS. Indeed, BCS has not operated 

a substantial bona fide program providing direct financial assistance to financially needy 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05/18/15 Page 54 of 148
FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. 

Complaint, Page 55 of 148 

1 

2 

3 

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 

individuals with breast cancer at all. BCS has provided individuals enrolled in its 

program with $100 each month, for up to six months. BCS has limited the number of 

patients to whom it would provide direct financial assistance to no more than 250 

individuals per month. It had no financial eligibility requirements for receiving aid, 

limiting the program only by requiring recipients to be in active treatment for breast 

cancer. 

104. In 2012, BCS provided 496 people with a total of $279,432 in cash 

assistance – 1.8% of individual donors’ contributions. In contrast, in 2012, BCS paid 

Reynolds, II a salary of $286,901. Between 2008 and 2012, the amount BCS gave in 

direct financial assistance to individuals with breast cancer was just 0.68% of its reported 

total contributions (individual donations plus GIK). 

105. Under these circumstances, BCS has not existed primarily to provide 

financial assistance directly to financially needy individuals with breast cancer, and it has 

not helped “thousands” of women annually. It has provided a relatively small number of 

individuals with some money. The level of “direct financial assistance” that BCS 

provided was so small that it was false and misleading to describe this as BCS’s 

“primary” mission or otherwise represent that BCS engaged in a substantial program 

financially aiding breast cancer patients. 

106. In numerous instances, BCS, has also made representations about the 

geographic availability, size, and scope of its Hope Supply Program, including, but not 

limited to, statements like: 

 “The Hope Supply Program is now serving the east and west coasts. This 

program offers contributed items that cancer patients can ‘shop’ for at no 

cost to them”; and 

 “Because of incredibly generous and committed friends like you we are: . . . 

providing thousands of people access to our local warehouses which are 

part of the Hope Supply Project.” 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05/18/15 Page 55 of 148
FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. 

Complaint, Page 56 of 148 

1 

2 

3 

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 

107. Through 2012, BCS’s Hope Supply Program consisted of two “stores,” one 

in Mesa, Arizona and another in Edgemont, Pennsylvania (near Philadelphia). BCS 

opened a third “store” in Bentonville, Arkansas in 2014. BCS has stocked these “stores” 

with random merchandise contributed by local retailers, including, e.g., Bed, Bath & 

Beyond, Babies“R”Us, and The Disney Store. Like CFA and CCFOA, it has also 

obtained goods from procurement agents that gather and make available to nonprofits 

overstocked, out of season, or discontinued merchandise. Items available at these 

locations in the past have included baby clothes, children’s toys, gift wrap, office 

supplies, housewares, bedding, women’s and children’s apparel, shampoo, lotion and 

other toiletries, over-the-counter medication, and vitamins. Also like CFA and CCFOA, 

BCS has spent just a fraction of the goods’ reported value to obtain them. From 2009, 

when the Mesa “store” opened, through 2012, BCS paid $182,499 for goods that it 

reported as having a value of $3.6 million. 

108. BCS has made the Hope Supply Program available to anyone who has had 

breast cancer, whether in active treatment, remission, or cancer free, and imposed no 

financial eligibility requirements. Program participants can visit the Hope Supply stores 

monthly. There has been no cap on the total number of visits or duration of eligibility. 

Participants “shopped” at the store for free, taking whatever they liked, without constraint 

on quantities or value. Available “shopping” appointments have been restricted – the 

“stores” typically have been open only for limited hours, each “shopping” visit lasts up to 

an hour, and no more than one or two individuals have been allowed to “shop” at any 

given time. In 2012, a total of 272 individuals “shopped” at the two BCS locations – 182 

in Mesa and 90 in Edgemont. From 2009 through 2012, fewer than 500 individuals 

“shopped” at these stores. 

109. Claims that the Hope Supply Program has served “the east and west coasts” 

were exaggerated. Practicality limits program participants to those within driving 

distance of the two stores who have transportation available. In addition, representations 

that the program has helped thousands of women were simply not true. 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05/18/15 Page 56 of 148
FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. 

Complaint, Page 57 of 148 

1 

2 

3 

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 

110. In numerous instances, BCS has also misrepresented that it directly 

provides breast cancer victims throughout the United States with specific assistance such 

as medical supplies, health supplies, and treatment including, but not limited to, in 

statements such as: 

 “Last thing we want to do is put you in a bind, but these breast cancer 

patients rely on us every month for their basic medications”; 

 “[T]he Breast Cancer Society of America wants to be there to help women 

in need with direct financial aid, health supplies and commodities, 

treatment counseling; and countless other levels of support to help them 

defeat this terrible disease. This special project of the Breast Cancer 

Society helps thousands of women in need”; 

 “We’re back to work ... [p]roviding emergency groceries and utilities for 

women suffering from breast cancer”; 

 “The organization’s services are available to those in your community. 

Help is available both nationally and internationally”; and 

 “We are working with the breast cancer aide program. We provide 

medical, nutritional, personal care supplies, as well as direct financial 

assistance to women who suffer from this horrible disease.” 

111. Additionally, in numerous instances, through its telemarketing agents, BCS 

has misrepresented that contributions will provide individual breast cancer patients with 

the following benefits: 

 “medical supplies”; 

 “insurance”;

 “help the ladies with pain meds”; 

 pay for “medical, nutritional, personal care supplies”; and 

 “pay for treatment when patients are short on funds; pre-diagnosis exams, 

and prescriptions....” 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05/18/15 Page 57 of 148
FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. 

Complaint, Page 58 of 148 

1 

2 

3 

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 

112. These claims were false. BCS has not engaged in a substantial program 

directly helping individuals with breast cancer throughout the United States to receive 

medical supplies, commodities, or health or personal care supplies. It does not have a 

national program that routinely provides breast cancer patients with emergency groceries 

or pays for utilities, treatment, or pre-diagnosis exams. Nor does it supply individuals 

with pain medication or pay for insurance. While some goods that might be described as 

medical supplies, health supplies, or personal care items have been available at the two 

Hope Supply locations, these goods were not available to breast cancer patients 

throughout the United States, and BCS has not maintained a substantial program making 

such goods widely available. 

Misrepresentations about Charitable Efficiency: 

Improperly Reported GIK Used to Disguise Low Charitable Program Expenditures and 

Minimize High Administrative and Fundraising Costs 

113. The actual amount spent by CFA, CCFOA, and BCS on the cash and goods 

provided to cancer patients has been so small because of their high fundraising costs and 

their use of donated funds for salaries, perks, and other benefits to the extended Reynolds 

clan. To mask these high administrative and fundraising costs, which the donating public 

views unfavorably, Corporate Defendants embarked on an extensive scheme involving 

shipping GIK goods internationally. The vast majority of the goods shipped were 

prescription pharmaceuticals that, in numerous instances, could not be distributed or sold 

in the United States. Corporate Defendants’ participation in this scheme was limited to 

paying shipping costs and broker’s fees to ship containers of goods to organizations in 

developing countries – but they reported the full value of the shipments as if the 

prescription medicine and other goods had been donated to, and distributed by, them. 

114. Corporate Defendants used this scheme to create the bookkeeping illusion 

that they received millions of dollars in contributed revenue and spent millions of dollars 

on charitable programs (“program spending”) with low administrative and fundraising 

costs. Through this scheme, between 2008 and 2012, Corporate Defendants collectively 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05/18/15 Page 58 of 148
FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. 

Complaint, Page 59 of 148 

1 

2 

3 

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 

increased their total reported contributed revenue by over $223 million. Simultaneously, 

in the same five-year period they also increased their reported program spending by over 

$223 million. This more than doubled their apparent efficiency (the ratio of money spent 

on program expenses as compared to money spent on total expenses) from 20.7% to 

61.5%. In fact, Corporate Defendants should have reported neither this contributed 

revenue nor the program expenses associated with these international GIK transactions. 

115. Reynolds, II introduced the international GIK shipping scheme to the CFA 

board in 2008, while he was still CFA’s vice-president. According to board meeting 

minutes, “by agreeing to accept goods and cover the shipping costs, CFA can credit these 

shipments toward patient services with a substantial offset to our fundraising costs.” A 

PowerPoint presentation to the CFA board by Effler confirmed that effect, observing, 

“our international shipping component has become very beneficial to boost CFA’s 

program service percentages.” CCFOA began its own shipments in 2009, after Reynolds, 

Sr. referred the broker CFA used, a company named Charity Services International 

(“CSI”), to Perkins. When BCS was formed by Reynolds, II in 2008, it immediately 

embraced an international GIK shipping scheme. CSS also reported a handful of 

shipments. 

116. Corporate Defendants each used CSI, a for-profit entity, to facilitate their 

GIK transactions. CSI advertised that participants in its GIK program could help 

“[r]educe fundraising percentages by booking large gift values.” To accomplish this, CSI 

provided Corporate Defendants with a turn-key operation that located donors (“upstream 

donors”) with GIK goods that those upstream donors wanted to give to downstream 

recipients in foreign countries. These upstream donors – the same two or three 

organizations were involved in almost all of the Corporate Defendants’ international GIK 

transactions – were nonprofits who had themselves received the goods from some other 

party, often yet another nonprofit. CSI itself did not possess or hold title to any of the 

goods reported as GIK revenue by the Corporate Defendants. 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05/18/15 Page 59 of 148
FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. 

Complaint, Page 60 of 148 

1 

2 

3 

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 

117. CSI provided Corporate Defendants with information about “available” 

shipments that upstream donors wanted to ship to pre-selected foreign recipients. The 

information CSI provided included shipping costs, the fees charged by CSI, the estimated 

value of the shipment, the goods in the shipment, and the destination and recipient of the 

shipment. If a Corporate Defendant agreed to accept the so-called “donation 

opportunity,” CSI would arrange to ship the goods and provide the Corporate Defendant 

with paperwork supposedly documenting Defendant’s receipt of the donated GIK goods 

from the upstream donor, the value of the donated goods, and Defendant’s distribution of 

the goods to the downstream foreign recipient. CSI created most of these documents, 

which in numerous instances were virtually identical form letters, and were often backdated. They included documents purporting to transfer title to the donated goods from 

the upstream donor to Corporate Defendants, documents purporting to provide values for 

the goods, documents purporting to verify receipt of the goods by downstream recipients, 

and documents discussing the downstream recipient’s purported further distribution of 

the goods. 

Defendants Improperly Reported Receipt and Distribution 

of GIK They Did Not Own

118. Under applicable accounting rules, in numerous instances Corporate 

Defendants did not have legal ownership of the GIK goods that they claimed to have 

received. As a result, they should not have reported the goods’ value as contributed 

revenue or program expense. Among other things, Corporate Defendants could not 

permissibly claim ownership of the donated GIK because, in numerous instances, they 

had neither physical nor constructive possession of the goods, and did not assume the 

risks and rewards of ownership. 

119. Other than paying CSI’s fee, Corporate Defendants, in numerous instances, 

did nothing to solicit, locate, or facilitate the contributions they supposedly received from 

upstream donors, which were themselves nonprofits that had received the goods from yet 

other upstream donors. Corporate Defendants did not know the identity of the 

pharmaceuticals’ manufacturers or the origin of the goods, and they had no direct contact 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05/18/15 Page 60 of 148
FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. 

Complaint, Page 61 of 148 

1 

2 

3 

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 

with the upstream donor. They did nothing to verify that the supposed donor actually 

possessed the right to transfer title of the goods, or to determine whether use of the goods 

had been restricted in any way. For example, in numerous instances, Corporate 

Defendants reported receiving donations from an upstream donor, World Help, when 

World Help did not have title to the goods it supposedly donated to Corporate 

Defendants. Corporate Defendants could not legitimately claim to own such goods. 

120. Corporate Defendants also could not permissibly claim ownership of the 

donated GIK because, in numerous instances, they had no discretion in choosing the 

beneficiary of the goods. Other than paying CSI’s fee, in numerous instances, Corporate 

Defendants did nothing to locate or research the foreign beneficiary or facilitate its 

receipt of the donated goods. CSI’s communications about “donation opportunities” 

routinely listed the planned destination and foreign recipient for available shipments. 

Corporate Defendants could accept or reject the opportunity to participate in any given 

transaction, but could not change the shipment’s destination or beneficiary. In numerous 

instances, prior to accepting CSI’s advertised shipment opportunity, Corporate 

Defendants had had no prior contact with the foreign recipients. Corporate Defendants 

did not typically communicate directly with the foreign recipients at all. Instead, in 

numerous instances, such communications were handled by the upstream donors or by 

CSI. Corporate Defendants did not verify the recipients’ needs for, or potential uses of, 

the goods, did not restrict such uses, and received little documentation regarding the end 

uses of the goods, which were often redistributed by the foreign recipients to other 

organizations. 

121. Corporate Defendants also, in numerous instances, lacked documents 

related to these GIK transactions that owners of GIK goods are expected to maintain. 

Without such documentation, Corporate Defendants could not claim the GIK as 

contributed revenue. What documentation that Corporate Defendants did have had come 

from CSI and did not adequately substantiate Corporate Defendants’ claimed receipt, 

possession, and subsequent distribution of the goods. Among other things, documents 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05/18/15 Page 61 of 148
FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. 

Complaint, Page 62 of 148 

1 

2 

3 

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 

from CSI included thank you letters and distribution reports supposedly sent by foreign 

recipients to Corporate Defendants but that were instead manufactured by CSI using form 

letters, letterhead, and digital signatures on file in CSI’s computers. In numerous 

instances, such documents were backdated. In other instances, documents described GIK 

transactions that were literally impossible. For example, in some instances, the upstream 

donors purported to transfer title of goods to Corporate Defendants after the shipment had 

been received by the foreign recipient. 

122. Under these circumstances, Corporate Defendants did not own the GIK 

goods; they were simply acting as “pass-through” agents between the upstream donors 

and end recipients. Such intermediaries may not report the value of goods passing 

through their hands as contributed revenue or as program service expense in their 

financial statements. 

Corporate Defendants Improperly Reported the Value of GIK 

123. Even assuming, arguendo, that in some instances Corporate Defendants 

could have properly claimed the GIK goods’ value as contributed revenue or reported it 

as program expense, in numerous instances, Corporate Defendants used improper 

valuation methods to inflate the reported values of donated goods. Corporate Defendants 

also failed to retain appropriate documentation of those valuations. 

124. Corporate Defendants relied almost exclusively on CSI for valuation 

information. In numerous instances, CSI valued pharmaceuticals using the average 

wholesale price in the United States as listed in the “Red Book: Pharmacy’s Fundamental 

Reference.” That valuation method failed to consider numerous factors including the 

relevant market for the goods (i.e., whether they could be sold in the United States), the 

goods’ physical condition (including the expiration dates of pharmaceuticals), current 

market conditions, and the legally permissible uses for the donated goods. CSI’s 

methods, in numerous instances, resulted in inflated and unsubstantiated claims of value. 

For example, in numerous instances, CSI valued particular drugs at U.S. wholesale prices 

even when there was no U.S. market for the drugs because an upstream donor had 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05/18/15 Page 62 of 148
FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. 

Complaint, Page 63 of 148 

1 

2 

3 

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 

restricted their use to a particular foreign country or because the drugs had expired. U.S. 

wholesale drug prices, in numerous instances, are much higher than prices in other 

markets, so assigning a value based on sale in a U.S. market results in a higher value 

than, for example, assigning a value based on a market in Africa or Central America. 

125. Corporate Defendants were ultimately responsible for the valuations they 

reported in financial documents. In numerous instances, however, they did nothing to 

oversee, monitor, audit, or otherwise check CSI’s processes and procedures for such 

valuations. They did not ascertain that the contents of the shipments were as described in 

the inventory lists they received from CSI. Nor did they make sure that donated 

pharmaceuticals were not expired or were in otherwise useable condition. In numerous 

instances, inventory lists provided by CSI to Corporate Defendants did not specify the 

drugs’ expiration dates. In other instances, when expiration dates were provided, some of 

the listed drugs had expired or were very close to expiring. (A drug’s expiration date 

affects its monetary value as well as its efficacy.) 

126. Corporate Defendants also failed to maintain records supporting the 

valuations provided by CSI, including, for example, documents related to CSI’s 

qualifications for conducting appraisals of value, documents detailing the specific 

valuation method(s) used by CSI, the assumptions made by CSI in determining appraised 

values, and records of CSI’s conclusions of fair value. 

Deceptive Impact of Reporting GIK Transactions 

127. The increased contributed revenue and program spending Corporate 

Defendants reported – collectively over $223 million – had the effect of diminishing the 

reported percentage of revenue they spent on fundraising and administrative costs and 

increasing the proportion of reported expenses they spent on program services, making 

Corporate Defendants appear more efficient to donors than they actually were. Thus, the 

reported international GIK revenue for the five years from 2008 through 2012 resulted in 

CFA’s reported fundraising expenses being 25.4% of total contributions. In reality, 

67.4% of consumers’ donations (including revenue from CSS), or 82.9% without 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05/18/15 Page 63 of 148
FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. 

Complaint, Page 64 of 148 

1 

2 

3 

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 

counting CSS’s “contributions” to CFA, were spent on fundraising. For the same period, 

CCFOA used its international GIK revenue to report fundraising expenses of 47% of total 

contributions. In reality, 81.5% of consumers’ donations were spent on fundraising. 

Similarly, BCS reported fundraising expenses of 29% of total contributions, while in 

reality 84.6% of consumers’ donations were spent on fundraising. Corporate Defendants 

also used the inflated contributed revenue amounts when choosing purported 

“comparable organizations” for setting their executives’ pay, thus improperly increasing 

the Individual Defendants’ salaries. 

128. Corporate Defendants obtained the paperwork they used to claim these 

figures for just the cost of the payment to CSI (which included both CSI’s fees and 

shipping costs). For example, in connection with a 2011 shipment to Guatemala, CFA 

reported contributed revenue and corresponding program expense of over $8 million, but 

only paid CSI a fee of $50,550. For one 2010 shipment to Ghana for which CCFOA 

reported contributed revenue and program expense of over $3.8 million, CCFOA paid 

CSI just $39,960. In addition, for a 2011 shipment to Honduras for which BCS reported 

contributed revenue and program expense of at least $3.8 million, BCS paid CSI just 

$28,120. Although Corporate Defendants used such transactions to add hundreds of 

millions of dollars in program expenses to their financial reports, these “programs” 

existed entirely on paper. Corporate Defendants did not possess the goods and played no 

role in their overseas distribution. They hired no additional staff to manage these 

multimillion-dollar international GIK programs and in most instances spent virtually no 

staff time on them. In addition, the very high dollar values associated with these 

transactions largely resulted from overvalued pharmaceuticals. 

129. Corporate Defendants claimed these illusory numbers in financial reporting 

documents like informational tax returns filed with the IRS, commonly known as Forms 

990, and in documents filed with numerous state regulators. In connection with such 

filings, Corporate Defendants certified that the information contained therein was “true, 

accurate, and complete,” sometimes under penalty of perjury. States often make such 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05/18/15 Page 64 of 148
FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. 

Complaint, Page 65 of 148 

1 

2 

3 

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 

documents publicly available so that prospective donors may research charities before 

making donation decisions. The public, together with state charities regulators, relied on 

this information in evaluating the performance and effectiveness of the Corporate 

Defendants. Charity watchdog groups that provide consumers with information about 

charities also considered Corporate Defendants’ reported contributed revenue, program 

spending, and fundraising and administrative costs when evaluating them. Such financial 

information was also reported to federal employee donors in Combined Federal 

Campaign materials. 

130. By reporting these GIK transactions as contributed revenue and program 

expenses, at inflated values, Corporate Defendants represented themselves to be both 

larger and more efficient than they actually were. They obscured the high percentage of 

donated funds spent on, among other things, for-profit fundraisers, executive salaries, and 

employee perks, and concealed the very small amounts spent on the charitable purposes 

described to donors. As a result, the Forms 990 and other documents filed by Corporate 

Defendants with the IRS and state regulators, and made publicly available to consumers, 

were false and misleading. 

Misrepresentations Related to CFA’s Inflated GIK Reporting

131. From 2008 through 2012, CFA improperly reported over $58.5 million in 

international GIK contributed revenue and commensurate program expenditures 

associated with its international GIK transactions. CFA used these numbers when 

publicly touting its size and efficiency, including in newsletters and representations on 

the Internet. In numerous instances, state regulators relied on CFA’s reported numbers to 

inform their citizens about CFA’s efficiency with donor dollars. These numbers were 

also used by the Combined Federal Campaign to report CFA’s alleged fundraising 

expenses relative to total contributions to prospective donors. 

132. As a result of its reporting of these international GIK transactions, CFA 

deceived donors about its overall size, the resources it devoted to its programs, and how 

efficiently it used donors’ contributions. For example, it increased its apparent efficiency 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05/18/15 Page 65 of 148
FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. 

Complaint, Page 66 of 148 

1 

2 

3 

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 

(the ratio of program expenses to total expenses) by almost 30 percentage points. CFA 

also disguised the high percentage of donated funds it spent on, among other things, forprofit fundraisers, executive salaries, and employee perks instead of the charitable 

purposes described to donors. For example, in 2012, CFA reported fundraising costs 

relative to total contributions (including international GIK income) as 19%. In contrast, 

70% of donors’ contributions were spent on fundraising. 

133. In addition, with these reported international GIK transactions, CFA 

deceived donors about its primary charitable activities and the focus of its programs. As 

described above, CFA has represented to donors that its mission is “direct patient aid” for 

Americans with cancer. CFA has emphasized this purported mission in solicitation 

materials with claims that it is a “national” health agency, that “CFA is making a 

difference in the lives of tens of thousands of Americans,” that CFA is helping people on 

a “national basis,” and by the very nature of its name, Cancer Fund of America. 

134. In fact, using CFA’s valuations, in 2012 the international GIK accounted 

for 87.8% of the value of all aid CFA claimed to provide (international and domestic). 

The international GIK did not assist people with cancer or health-related nonprofits in the 

United States, and it did not provide direct aid to cancer patients anywhere. Moreover, in 

numerous instances, the pharmaceuticals involved in these shipments had little to do with 

treating cancer. For example, the prescription medication lamotrigine, which constituted 

a significant percentage of the value of shipments claimed by CFA in 2010, 2011, and 

2012, is commonly used to treat epilepsy and bipolar disorder, and not to treat cancer. 

Other medications and medical supplies, like antibiotics and syringes, might have been 

used in connection with treating cancer patients, but were just as likely to have been used 

by hospitals and medical clinics to treat other medical conditions. 

135. In numerous instances, CFA’s claimed shipments went to foreign recipients 

who then re-distributed the goods to other organizations. CFA had no way of verifying 

how those organizations used the goods. Moreover, in numerous instances, distribution 

reports received by CFA explicitly documented that many contributed goods were widely 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05/18/15 Page 66 of 148
FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. 

Complaint, Page 67 of 148 

1 

2 

3 

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 

distributed to the general populace and were not used specifically to assist cancer 

patients. For example, one 2011 shipment to Liberia included medicine and medical 

supplies contributed to clinics and hospitals for general use, as well as products that 

“helped the Liberian people such as orphans, mothers, children and young adults.” While 

these were worthy causes, they were not causes that donors were told their contributions 

would support.

136. Under these circumstances, CFA’s representations to donors about the 

focus of its programs were deceptive – most of the aid CFA claimed to provide had 

nothing to do with directly helping cancer patients in the United States and often had 

nothing at all to do with helping people suffering from cancer. 

Misrepresentations Related to CCFOA’s Inflated GIK Reporting 

137. From 2008 through 2012, CCFOA improperly reported over $29 million in 

GIK revenue and commensurate program expenditures associated with its international 

GIK transactions. CCFOA used these numbers when publicly touting its size and 

efficiency. For example, the Combined Federal Campaign used these numbers to inform 

prospective donors about CCFOA’s alleged fundraising expenses relative to total 

contributions. Before CCFOA started its international GIK shipping program, the 2009 

Combined Federal Campaign reported CCFOA’s fundraising expenses relative to total 

contributions as 84.8% (based on 2008 numbers). In the 2013 campaign, the Combined 

Federal Campaign reported CCFOA’s fundraising costs relative to total contributions as 

38% (based on 2012 numbers). In reality, in 2012, CCFOA spent 85% of consumers’ 

donations on fundraising expenses. In numerous instances, state regulators relied on 

CCFOA’s claimed revenue and program expenses to inform their citizens about 

CCFOA’s efficiency. 

138. As a result of its reporting of the international GIK transactions, CCFOA 

deceived donors about both its overall size and how efficiently it used their contributions. 

For example, in 2012, its reported efficiency (the ratio of program expenses to total 

expenses) more than quadrupled, increasing from 13% to 63%. CCFOA also obscured 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05/18/15 Page 67 of 148
FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. 

Complaint, Page 68 of 148 

1 

2 

3 

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 

the high percentage of donated funds it spent on, among other things, for-profit 

fundraisers, executive salaries, and employee perks instead of on the charitable purposes 

it described to donors. 

139. Through these reported international GIK transactions, CCFOA also 

deceived donors about its primary charitable activities and the focus of its programs. In 

solicitation materials and elsewhere, CCFOA has represented to donors that its mission is 

to provide financial help to the families of American children with cancer. This has 

included solicitation materials that focus on claims that CCFOA provides direct financial 

assistance to pediatric cancer patients and even by the very nature of its name, Children’s 

Cancer Fund of America.

140. Using CCFOA’s valuations, in 2012, the international GIK it reported 

accounted for 98% of the value of all aid CCFOA claimed to provide (international and 

domestic). The international GIK shipments, however, had nothing to do with providing 

financial aid to families of children with cancer in the United States, and often had little 

to do with cancer – or children – at all. For example, some shipments contained goods 

such as deep fat fryers, bread machines, electronic equipment, and adult men’s 

undershirts. In many instances, the pharmaceuticals involved – which comprised the bulk 

of the value of the shipments – were not related to treating cancer, much less pediatric 

cancer. For example, some medications such as the antibiotic ciprofloxacin, which 

constituted a large percentage of the value of a 2010 shipment to Guatemala, are 

expressly contraindicated for use in treatment of children. In another shipment, the three 

medications with the highest claimed value were Mirapex, Terbinafine HCL, and 

Atrovent, which are used to treat Parkinson’s disease, skin fungus (jock itch), and mild 

cold symptoms, respectively. In numerous instances other medications, medical supplies, 

and goods that were shipped might have been provided to children with cancer but were 

just as likely to have been used to treat adults and other medical conditions. 

141. In numerous instances, CCFOA’s claimed shipments went to foreign 

recipients who then re-distributed the goods and pharmaceuticals to other organizations. 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05/18/15 Page 68 of 148
FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. 

Complaint, Page 69 of 148 

1 

2 

3 

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 

CCFOA failed to verify how, or even if, those organizations used the goods. In some 

instances, distribution reports received by CCFOA explicitly documented that many 

contributed goods were widely distributed and their use unrestricted to pediatric cancer 

patients. For example, the majority of one 2011 shipment to Guatemala consisted of 

medicine and medical supplies that were distributed to rural clinics and hospitals 

throughout the country for general use. While assisting health care providers in 

Guatemala was a worthy cause, it was not the cause that donors were told their 

contributions would support. 

142. Under these circumstances, CCFOA’s representations to donors about the 

focus of its programs were deceptive – most of the aid CCFOA claimed to provide was 

not financial assistance to families of children with cancer in the United States, and often 

had nothing at all to do with children or cancer.

Misrepresentations Related to BCS’s Inflated GIK Reporting

143. From 2008 through 2012, BCS improperly reported over $131.9 million in 

GIK contributed revenue and commensurate program expenditures associated with 

international GIK transactions. BCS used these international GIK numbers when 

publicly touting its efficiency, including in statements to reporters and on its website. For 

example, BCS made statements such as: “We are working hard to reduce our fundraising 

costs and any additional overhead expenses to maximize what we can do with each and 

every dollar entrusted to us. For example, we spend only 2% of our revenue on 

administrative costs, an important step that few national charities with our reach can 

boast of.” BCS’s inflated numbers were also used by the Combined Federal Campaign to 

inform prospective donors about BCS’s alleged fundraising expenses relative to total 

revenue. In addition, in numerous instances, state regulators relied on inflated numbers 

to inform their citizens about BCS’s efficiency. 

144. As a result of its reporting of the international GIK transactions, BCS 

deceived donors about its overall size and how efficiently it used their contributions. For 

example, in 2012, its reported international GIK program expenses caused its apparent 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05/18/15 Page 69 of 148
FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. 

Complaint, Page 70 of 148 

1 

2 

3 

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 

efficiency (the ratio of program expense to total expenses) to more than triple, increasing 

from 22% without the reported GIK expenses, to 75% with them. Also obscured was the 

high percentage of donated funds relative to total contributions that BCS spent on, among 

other things, for-profit fundraisers, executive salaries, and employee perks instead of the 

charitable purposes it described to donors. For example, in 2012, BCS reported 

fundraising costs relative to total contributions (including international GIK income) as 

24%. In contrast, 83% of donors’ contributions were spent on fundraising. 

145. Using these reported international GIK transactions, BCS also deceived 

donors about its primary charitable activities and the focus of its programs. BCS has 

represented to donors that its mission is to directly help Americans with breast cancer. 

Not only did it assume the d/b/a “The Breast Cancer Society of America” for use in some 

telemarketing solicitations, its solicitation materials focus on claims about BCS’s 

program of “direct” aid to U.S. breast cancer patients, including specific descriptions of 

financial assistance to women in the United States, and references to the U.S.-based Hope 

Supply Program.

146. In fact, using BCS’s valuations, between 2008 and 2012 the GIK BCS 

claimed to ship internationally accounted for 96.2% of the value of all aid reported by 

BCS (international and domestic). The international GIK had nothing to do with 

providing direct assistance to individuals with breast cancer in the United States. In 

numerous instances, the pharmaceuticals, medical supplies, and other goods included in 

BCS’s claimed GIK shipments had little, if anything, to do with treating breast cancer. 

For example, a 2012 shipment to the Dominican Republic included lamotrigine (used to 

treat epilepsy and bipolar disorder), ropinirole hydrochloride (used to treat Parkinson’s 

disease and restless leg syndrome), alendronate sodium (used to treat osteoporosis), 

levocetirizine (an antihistamine), quinine sulfate (an antimalarial drug), and PSE Brom 

DM (cold medicine). These drugs are not typically used for the treatment of breast 

cancer and, in some instances, are not recommended for use by persons who have had 

cancer. Some have even been associated with an increased risk of cancer. In another 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05/18/15 Page 70 of 148
FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. 

Complaint, Page 71 of 148 

1 

2 

3 

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 

example, in 2010, BCS reported shipping over $6 million worth of mebendazole 

(deworming pills) to Africa and Central America – again, not cancer-related.

147. In numerous instances, BCS’s claimed shipments went to foreign recipients 

who then re-distributed the goods and pharmaceuticals to other organizations. BCS 

failed to verify how, or even if, those organizations used the goods. Moreover, in 

numerous instances, distribution reports received by BCS explicitly documented that 

contributed goods were widely distributed and their use was not restricted to assisting 

breast cancer patients. For example, a distribution report for a 2009 shipment to 

Guatemala made no mention of assisting breast cancer patients. Similarly, a distribution 

report for a 2009 shipment to the Philippines that BCS valued at $8.84 million made no 

mention of assisting breast cancer patients, the cause that donors were told their 

contributions would support. 

148. Under these circumstances, BCS’s representations to donors about the 

focus of its programs were deceptive – most of the aid BCS claimed to provide was not in 

the form of financial assistance to individuals with breast cancer in the United States, and 

often it had nothing at all to do with cancer. 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05/18/15 Page 71 of 148
FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. 

Complaint, Page 72 of 148 

1 

2 

3 

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 

Defendants Ignored IRS Rules: 

 “Direct Aid” Distributions Fail to Meet Charitable Program Standards

149. Defendants’ administration of the scant charitable programs they did 

provide failed to meet the IRS’s bare minimum definition of program services. Most of 

those purported charitable programs have involved aid to individuals with cancer. For 

example, CCFOA has sent funds to some parents with children diagnosed with cancer, 

CFA has sent some packages of goods to people diagnosed with cancer, and BCS has 

provided some individuals in active treatment for breast cancer with cash assistance. To 

receive such benefits – when new patient applications were being accepted – CFA, 

CCFOA, and BCS have required only the submission of a completed application with the 

signature of any medical professional attesting to a cancer diagnosis. They did not 

restrict eligibility to those in financial need. Further, they did not verify the accuracy of 

information reported on the applications. Each recipient was given roughly the same aid, 

without regard to financial need, type of diagnosis, or other material criteria. 

150. Under these circumstances, the distributions to individuals by CFA, 

CCFOA, and BCS do not meet the definition of charitable contributions set forth in 26 

U.S.C. § 170 and in IRS regulations. Charities operating programs that provide funds 

and goods directly to individuals must satisfy four criteria to report that expenses 

associated with such programs are charitable. First, the charity’s program must serve a 

general charitable class of individuals. This can include those suffering financial 

hardship from an unexpected event, such as terrorism or a cancer diagnosis. Second, the 

charity must establish criteria for determining which members of the charitable class will 

receive aid. Third, the charity must have a standing committee to review applications, 

apply the criteria, and decide who will receive funds or goods. Fourth, and most 

importantly, the charity must verify financial need for the program. Membership in a 

charitable class is not sufficient to establish the requisite financial need; there must be 

documentation of an immediate and significant interruption to a person’s finances. 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05/18/15 Page 72 of 148
FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. 

Complaint, Page 73 of 148 

1 

2 

3 

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 

Showing additional expenses or a change in lifestyle are insufficient bases to meet this 

standard. 

151. CFA, CCFOA, and BCS did not follow these rules. While they purported 

to serve persons with cancer, and required completion of basic applications to receive aid, 

they had neither standing committees to review applications nor verification processes to 

check applicants’ financial need. BCS did not even require applicants to have an active 

diagnosis of breast cancer to participate in its Hope Supply program. As a result, these 

programs have provided an excessive amount of private benefit that outweighed their 

public benefit. Thus, none of these distributions to individuals met IRS requirements, 

and related expenses should not have been reported as charitable program expenses. This 

failure to follow IRS standards for program distributions, like so many other actions, 

demonstrates that the Corporate Defendants did not operate as bona fide charities.

Knowing and Willful Misrepresentations 

152. Defendants knowingly and willfully misrepresented to donors that CFA, 

CSS, CCFOA, and BCS were legitimate charities and that donations to their 

organizations would benefit cancer victims. In reality, and as Defendants knew, most of 

the cash collected on behalf of the Corporate Defendants was used to benefit private 

interests; the so-called “charitable” programs provided little or no assistance to people 

with cancer. 

153. Defendants also knowingly and willfully made specific false claims to 

donors. The Individual Defendants authorized telemarketing scripts and solicitation 

materials that contained false claims, and tolerated unscripted misrepresentations by 

telemarketers that they learned about from consumer complaints and law enforcement 

actions. In connection with international GIK transactions, Corporate Defendants also 

knowingly and willfully falsely reported contributed revenue, expenses, and values of 

GIK goods knowing that such reporting misrepresented the size and the efficiency of 

their charitable programs and the costs to operate them. The Individual Defendants knew 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05/18/15 Page 73 of 148
FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. 

Complaint, Page 74 of 148 

1 

2 

3 

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 

that the GIK program expenses associated with these international transactions did not 

represent actual charitable programs engaged in by the Corporate Defendants. In 

addition, the Individual Defendants knew that the validity of reporting GIK transactions 

as they were doing had been increasingly questioned by the media, the public, regulators, 

and accounting experts.

154. Such misrepresentations have persisted throughout CFA’s existence. In the 

past, it has settled state lawsuits alleging, among other things, that CFA had improperly 

valued gifts-in-kind and made misrepresentations about its charitable programs – and 

promised not to repeat such conduct. Both Reynolds, II and Perkins worked at CFA 

when such lawsuits were filed, and thus were on notice of the allegations. Despite these 

state actions, the deceptive practices have continued – often without modification. For 

example, Vermont’s 1998 action alleged that CFA misrepresented that donations would 

be used to provide pain medication to cancer-stricken individuals. CFA telemarketers 

have continued to make that claim, as have telemarketers for CCFOA and BCS, even 

though none of the Corporate Defendants has engaged in any such program. Similarly, 

CSS has continued to make the same misrepresentations to donors that triggered a 2008 

action by Oregon. 

155. Under these circumstances, Defendants knowingly and willfully engaged in 

deceptive solicitation and reporting practices and used charitable contributions contrary 

to the intent of donors.

Harm to Donors 

156. Generous donors contributed more than $187 million to Defendants from 

2008 through 2012, believing that their money was going to support legitimate charitable 

organizations that provided direct aid to cancer patients in the United States. In fact, the 

vast majority of contributed funds supported the private interests of for-profit 

telemarketers or inured to the personal benefit of the Individual Defendants and their 

family and friends. Only an insignificant amount of money was actually spent on aid 

provided to U.S. cancer patients. Under these circumstances, individual donors were 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05/18/15 Page 74 of 148
FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. 

Complaint, Page 75 of 148 

1 

2 

3 

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 

deceived, and their charitable contributions largely wasted. In addition, donors had less 

money available to support the many legitimate charitable organizations operating real 

programs that help individuals with cancer. 

DEFENDANTS’ LAW VIOLATIONS 

Count I 

Misrepresentations that Contributions Were for Charitable Purposes 

(By the FTC and the Plaintiff States) 

157. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all the foregoing paragraphs. 

158. In numerous instances, in connection with soliciting charitable 

contributions from donors, Defendants, directly or indirectly, expressly or by implication, 

have represented that donors’ contributions would go to legitimate charitable 

organizations and be used primarily for charitable programs. 

159. In truth and in fact, donors’ contributions have not gone to legitimate 

charitable organizations and were not used primarily for charitable purposes. Instead, the 

contributions have gone to corporate entities controlled by private persons for their 

individual pecuniary gain and to the for-profit telemarketers they hired, and contributions 

were not used primarily for charitable programs. 

160. Therefore, the representations described in Paragraph 158 were false and 

misleading and constituted deceptive practices in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act, 

15 U.S.C. § 45(a). 

161. The foregoing practices also violate the laws of each Plaintiff State as 

follows: 

Alabama: ALA. CODE §§ 13A-9-76(a)(1), (3) and 8-19-5(27). 

Alaska: ALASKA STAT. §§ 45.68.050(1) and 45.50.471. 

Arizona: ARIZ. REV. STAT. ANN. §§ 44-1522(A) and 44-6561(A)(3). 

Arkansas: ARK. CODE ANN. §§ 4-28-412(1) and 4-88-107(a)(7). 

California: CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE §§ 17200 through 17206; § 17510.2; § 

17510.8; CAL. GOV. CODE §§ 12581 through 12582.1; and § 12599.6. 

Colorado: COLO. REV. STAT. § 6-1-105(1)(hh); and §§ 6-16-111(1)(g) and (i).

Connecticut: CONN. GEN. STAT. §§ 21a-190h and 42-110b(a). 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05/18/15 Page 75 of 148
FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. 

Complaint, Page 76 of 148 

1 

2 

3 

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 

Delaware: DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 6, §§ 2513(a), 2532(a)(12), and 2595(a), (b)(4) 

and (6). 

Florida: FLA. STAT. §§ 496.415(7), 496.415(16), 496.416, and 501.204(1)

(2013). 

Georgia: GA. CODE ANN. § 43-17-12(d) (2011). 

Hawaii: HAW. REV. STAT. §§ 467B-2.1, 467B-9, and 467B-10.5. 

Idaho: IDAHO CODE ANN. § 48-1203(1). 

Illinois: 225 ILL. COMP. STAT. §§ 460/15(a); 460/15(b)(6); 460/18(b); and 

460/9(c). 

Indiana: IND. CODE §§ 23-7-8-7(a)(4); and §§ 24-5-0.5-3(b)(1) and (7). 

Iowa: IOWA CODE § 714.16. 

Kansas: KAN. STAT. ANN. §§ 17-1769(b), (h), and (i). 

Kentucky: KY. REV. STAT. ANN. § 367.170(1). 

Louisiana: LA. REV. STAT. ANN. §§ 51:1405 and 51:1905. 

Maine: ME. REV. STAT. ANN. tit. 5 § 207. 

Maryland: MD. CODE ANN., BUS. REG. §§ 6-608, 6-610 (2010 Repl. Vol.) (2014 

Suppl.). 

Massachusetts: MASS. GEN. LAWS. ch. 68 § 32 and ch. 93A § 2. 

Michigan: MICH. COMP. LAWS § 400.288(f). 

Minnesota: MINN. STAT. § 309.55, subd. 5. 

Mississippi: MISS. CODE ANN. § 79-11-519(3)(a) and (h). 

Missouri: MO. REV. STAT. § 407.020. 

Montana: MONT. CODE ANN. § 30-14-103. 

Nebraska: NEB. REV. STAT. §§ 59-1602, 87-302(15), and 87-303.01. 

Nevada: NEV. REV. STAT. §§ 598.1305 and 598.0915(15). 

New 

Hampshire: 

N.H. REV. STAT. ANN. §§ 7:28-f, I(a), (b), (e). 

New Jersey: N.J. STAT. ANN. §§ 45:17A-32(a) and (c); § 56:8-2.7; and N.J.

ADMIN. CODE § 13:48-13.2(a). 

New Mexico: N.M. STAT. §§ 57-22-6.3(A)(1), (3) and 57-12-3 (1978). 

New York: N.Y. EXEC. LAW §§ 63(12) and 172-d.2-4; N.Y. GEN. BUS. LAW

§ 349; and N.Y. NOT-FOR-PROFIT CORP. LAW § 719. 

North 

Carolina: 

N.C. GEN. STAT. § 75-1.1; §§ 131F-20(9), (15), and (18); and § 131F21. 

North Dakota: N.D. CENT. CODE §§ 50-22-04.3 and 51-15-02. 

Ohio: OHIO REV. CODE ANN. § 1716.14(A). 

Oklahoma: OKLA. STAT. ANN. tit. 18 § 552.14a(A)(5). 

Oregon: OR. REV. STAT. §§ 128.886 and 646.608(1)(dd). 

Pennsylvania: 10 PA. CONS. STAT. § 162.15(a)(2). 

Rhode Island: R.I. GEN. LAWS § 5-53.1-7(2). 

South 

Carolina: 

S.C. CODE ANN. §§ 33-56-120(A) and 33-56-140(C). 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05/18/15 Page 76 of 148
FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. 

Complaint, Page 77 of 148 

1 

2 

3 

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 

South Dakota: S.D. CODIFIED LAWS §§ 37-30-17 through 37-30-21. 

Tennessee: TENN. CODE ANN. §§ 48-101-513(a), (b), and (d). 

Texas: TEX. BUS. & COM. CODE ANN. §§ 17.46(a), (b)(5), and (b)(24) (West 

2014). 

Utah: UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 13-11-1 through 13-11-23; §§ 13-22-1 through 

13-22-23; and §§ 13-26-1 through 13-26-11. 

Vermont: VT. STAT. ANN. tit. 9 §§ 2453 and 2475. 

Virginia: VA. CODE ANN. §§ 57-48 and 57-57(L). 

Washington: WASH. REV. CODE §§ 19.86.020, 19.09.100(15), and 19.09.340. 

West Virginia: W.VA. CODE § 46A-6-101 et seq.; W.VA. CODE §§ 29-19-8, -13. 

Wisconsin: WIS. STAT. § 202.16(1)(a), formerly § 440.46(1)(a). 

Wyoming: WYO. STAT. ANN. §§ 40-12-105(a)(i), (ii), (iii), and (xv). 

Count II 

Misrepresentations about Program Benefits 

(By the FTC and the Plaintiff States) 

162. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all the foregoing paragraphs. 

163. In connection with soliciting charitable contributions from donors, directly 

or indirectly, expressly or by implication, Defendants have represented that donors’ 

contributions would be used to fund particular charitable programs. Such representations 

have included, but are not limited to, claims that contributed funds would be used to: 

a. Help CFA operate a specific substantial charitable program run by a 

“national health agency,” “on the forefront of the fight against cancer,” whose 

resources are devoted “primarily to direct patient aid” that (1) provides direct 

assistance to individuals with cancer in the United States and through which it has 

helped tens of thousands of individuals; and (2) routinely provides pain 

medications, medical support and services, medical supplies, financial assistance, 

life-saving items, oxygen, transportation to chemotherapy treatments, medications, 

and loaned equipment to individuals suffering from cancer and to hospices and 

other health care nonprofit organizations serving cancer patients; 

b. Help CSS operate a specific substantial charitable program in the 

United States through which it directly provides aid to cancer patients, hospices, 

and nonprofit health care organizations, provides hospice care for cancer patients, 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05/18/15 Page 77 of 148
FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. 

Complaint, Page 78 of 148 

1 

2 

3 

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 

and that donations to CSS will be used more efficiently because CSS is a charity 

and does not use for-profit fundraisers; 

c. Help CCFOA operate a specific substantial charitable program in the 

United States through which it provides financial assistance to the families of 

children with cancer, helps children suffering from cancer with hospice needs, and 

provides them with medical supplies and pain medication; and 

d. Help BCS operate specific substantial charitable programs in the 

United States that (1) provide financial assistance and other direct aid to thousands 

of individuals suffering from breast cancer; (2) provide individuals suffering from 

breast cancer with medical supplies, insurance, pain medication, and pay for other 

specific items; and (3) provide individuals suffering from breast cancer with 

widely available access to “shopping” experiences through which they can obtain 

free goods. 

164. In truth and in fact, little or none of the donors’ contributions have funded 

the particular charitable aid described to them, and in numerous instances the donors’ 

contributions were not meaningfully used to: 

a. Help CFA operate specific substantial charitable programs run by a 

“national health agency,” “on the forefront of the fight against cancer,” whose 

resources were devoted “primarily to direct patient aid” that (1) provided direct 

assistance to individuals suffering from cancer in the United States and through 

which it has directly assisted tens of thousands of individuals; and (2) routinely 

provide pain medications, medical support and services, medical supplies, 

financial assistance, life-saving items, oxygen, transportation to chemotherapy 

treatments, medications, and loaned equipment to individuals suffering from 

cancer and to hospices and other health care nonprofit organizations serving 

cancer patients; 

b. Help CSS operate a specific substantial charitable program in the 

United States through which it has directly provided aid to cancer patients, 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05/18/15 Page 78 of 148
FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. 

Complaint, Page 79 of 148 

1 

2 

3 

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 

hospices, and nonprofit health care organizations, provided hospice care for cancer 

patients, or used donors’ contributions more efficiently because it is a charity; 

c. Help CCFOA operate a specific substantial charitable program in the 

United States through which it has provided financial assistance to the families of 

children suffering from cancer, helped children suffering from cancer with hospice 

needs, and provided them with medical supplies and pain medication; 

d. Help BCS operate specific substantial charitable programs in the 

United States that (1) provided financial assistance and other direct aid to 

thousands of individuals suffering from breast cancer; (2) provided individuals 

suffering from breast cancer with medical supplies, insurance, pain medication, 

and paid for other specific items; and (3) provided individuals suffering from 

breast cancer with widely available access to “shopping” experiences through 

which they obtained free goods. 

165. Therefore, the representations described in Paragraph 163 are false and 

misleading and constitute deceptive practices in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act, 15 

U.S.C. § 45(a). 

166. The foregoing practices also violate the laws of each Plaintiff State as 

follows: 

Alabama: ALA. CODE §§ 13A-9-76(a)(1), (3) and 8-19-5(27). 

Alaska: ALASKA STAT. §§ 45.68.050(1) and 45.50.471. 

Arizona: ARIZ. REV. STAT. ANN. § 44-1522(A) and 44-6561(A)(3). 

Arkansas: ARK. CODE ANN. §§ 4-28-412(1) and 4-88-107(a)(7). 

California: CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE §§ 17200 through 17206; §§ 17510.2 and 

17510.8; CAL. GOV. CODE §§ 12581 through 12582.1; § 12599.6. 

Colorado: COLO. REV. STAT. § 6-1-105(1)(hh); and §§ 6-16-111(1)(g) and (i). 

Connecticut: CONN. GEN. STAT. §§ 21a-190h and 42-110b(a). 

Delaware: DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 6, §§ 2513(a), 2532(a)(12), and 2595(a), (b)(4) 

and (6). 

Florida: FLA. STAT. §§ 496.415(7), 496.415(16), 496.416, and 501.204(1) 

(2013). 

Georgia: GA. CODE ANN. § 43-17-12(d) (2011). 

Hawaii: HAW. REV. STAT. §§ 467B-2.1, 467B-6.5, 467B-9, and 467B-10.5. 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05/18/15 Page 79 of 148
FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. 

Complaint, Page 80 of 148 

1 

2 

3 

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 

Idaho: IDAHO CODE ANN. § 48-1203(1). 

Illinois: 225 ILL. COMP. STAT. §§ 460/15(a); 460/15(b)(6); 460/18(b); and 

460/9(c). 

Indiana: IND. CODE §§ 23-7-8-7(a)(4); and §§ 24-5-0.5-3(b)(1) and (7). 

Iowa: IOWA CODE § 714.16. 

Kansas: KAN. STAT. ANN. §§ 17-1769(b), (h), and (i). 

Kentucky: KY. REV. STAT. ANN. § 367.170(1). 

Louisiana: LA. REV. STAT. ANN. §§ 51:1405 and 51:1905. 

Maine: ME. REV. STAT. ANN. tit. 5 § 207. 

Maryland: MD. CODE ANN., BUS. REG. §§ 6-608, 6-610 (2010 Repl. Vol.) (2014 

Suppl.). 

Massachusetts: MASS. GEN. LAWS ch. 68 § 32 and ch. 93A § 2. 

Michigan: MICH. COMP. LAWS §§ 400.288(j) and (o). 

Minnesota: MINN. STAT. § 309.55, subd. 5. 

Mississippi: MISS. CODE ANN. §§ 79-11-519(3)(a) and (h). 

Missouri: MO. REV. STAT. § 407.020. 

Montana: MONT. CODE ANN. § 30-14-103. 

Nebraska: NEB. REV. STAT. §§ 59-1602, 87-302(15), and 87-303.01. 

Nevada: NEV. REV. STAT. §§ 598.1305 and 598.0915(15). 

New 

Hampshire: 

N.H. REV. STAT. ANN. §§ 7:28-f, I(a), (b), (e). 

New Jersey: N.J. STAT. ANN. §§ 45:17A-32(a), 45:17A-32 (c), 56:8-2.7; and N.J.

ADMIN. CODE § 13:48-13.2(a). 

New Mexico: N.M. STAT. §§ 57-22-6.3(A)(1), (3) and 57-12-3 (1978). 

New York: N.Y. EXEC. L. § 63(12); § 172-d.2-4; and N.Y. GEN. BUS. L. § 349. 

North Carolina: N.C. GEN. STAT. §§ 75-1.1; 131F-20(9), (15), and (18); and § 131F21. 

North Dakota: N.D. CENT. CODE §§ 50-22-04.3 and 51-15-02. 

Ohio: OHIO REV. CODE ANN. § 1716.14(A). 

Oklahoma: OKLA. STAT. ANN. tit. 18 § 552.14a(A)(5). 

Oregon: OR. REV. STAT. §§128.886 and 646.608(1)(dd). 

Pennsylvania: 10 PA. CONS. STAT. § 162.15(a)(2). 

Rhode Island: R.I. GEN. LAWS § 5-53.1-7(2). 

South Carolina: S.C. CODE ANN. §§ 33-56-120(A) and 33-56-140(C). 

South Dakota: S.D. CODIFIED LAWS §§ 37-30-17 through 37-30-21. 

Tennessee: TENN. CODE ANN. §§ 48-101-513(a), (b) and (d). 

Texas: TEX. BUS. & COM. CODE ANN. §§ 17.46(a), (b)(5), and (b)(24) (West 

2014). 

Utah: UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 13-22-1 through 13-22-23; 13-26-1 through 13-

26-11; and 13-11-1 through 13-11-23. 

Vermont: VT. STAT. ANN. tit. 9 §§ 2453 and 2475. 

Virginia: VA. CODE ANN. §§ 57-48 and 57-57(L). 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05/18/15 Page 80 of 148
FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. 

Complaint, Page 81 of 148 

1 

2 

3 

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 

Washington: WASH. REV. CODE §§ 19.86.020, 19.09.100(15), and 19.09.340. 

West Virginia: W.VA. CODE § 46A-6-101 et seq.; W.VA. CODE §§ 29-19-8, -13. 

Wisconsin: WIS. STAT. § 202.16(1)(a), formerly § 440.46(1)(a). 

Wyoming: WYO. STAT. ANN. § 40-12-105(a)(xv). 

Count III 

Misrepresentations about Revenue and Program Expenses 

Related to International GIK Shipments 

(By the FTC and the Plaintiff States) 

167. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all the foregoing paragraphs. 

168. In public statements, documents submitted to the Combined Federal 

Campaign, and financial documents and Forms 990 filed with state regulators and the 

IRS, Defendants have made representations regarding their total revenues and program 

expenses, including revenues and program expenses associated with shipments of GIK 

goods to developing countries. In connection with such international GIK transactions, in 

numerous instances, Defendants have represented that: 

a. their reported contributed revenues included the value of GIK goods 

that Defendants received as donations and subsequently owned; 

b. their reported program expenses included the value of GIK goods 

that Defendants distributed to organizations in developing countries; and 

c. the values of the GIK goods reported as contributed revenue and 

program expenses accurately reflected the fair value of the GIK goods measured 

under appropriate applicable accounting standards. 

169. In truth and in fact, in numerous instances in connection with such 

international GIK transactions: 

a. Defendants neither received nor took ownership of the GIK goods 

and therefore should not have reported their value as contributed revenue; 

b. because Defendants did not own the GIK goods they claimed to 

distribute to organizations in developing countries, they should not have reported 

the value of such GIK goods as program expenses; and 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05/18/15 Page 81 of 148
FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. 

Complaint, Page 82 of 148 

1 

2 

3 

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 

c. the reported values of the GIK goods did not accurately reflect the 

fair value of the goods measured under appropriate applicable accounting 

standards. 

Defendants used these misrepresentations to appear larger, more charitable, and more 

efficient with donors’ contributions than the Defendants actually were, misleading 

donors, regulators, and others. 

170. Therefore, the acts and practices described in Paragraph 168 constitute 

deceptive practices in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a). 

171. The foregoing practices also violate the laws of each Plaintiff State as 

follows: 

Alabama: ALA. CODE §§ 13A-9-76(a)(3-4). 

Alaska: ALASKA STAT. § 45.68.010(g). 

Arizona: ARIZ. REV. STAT. ANN. § 44-1522(A). 

Arkansas: ARK. CODE ANN. §§ 4-28-412(1), 4-28-412(2), 4-28-412(8), and 4-

88-107(a)(7). 

California: CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE §§ 17200 through 17206; CAL. GOV.

CODE §§ 12581 through 12582.1; § 12599.6. 

Colorado: COLO. REV. STAT. § 6-1-105(1)(hh); §§ 6-16-111(1)(f) and(g). 

Connecticut: CONN. GEN. STAT. §§ 21a-190h and 42-110b(a). 

Delaware: DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 6, §§ 2513(a) and 2532(a)(12). 

Florida: FLA. STAT. §§ 496.415(2), 496.416, and 501.204(1) (2013). 

Georgia: GA. CODE ANN. § 43-17-12(b) (2011). 

Hawaii: HAW. REV. STAT. §§ 467B-2.1, 467B-6.5, 467B-9, and 467B-10.5. 

Idaho: IDAHO CODE ANN. § 48-1203(1). 

Illinois: 225 ILL. COMP. STAT. §§ 460/15(a); 460/15(b)(6); 460/18(b); and 

460/9(c). 

Indiana: IND. CODE § 24-5-0.5-3(b)(1). 

Iowa: IOWA CODE § 714.16. 

Kansas: KAN. STAT. ANN. §§ 17-1769(b) and (h). 

Kentucky: KY. REV. STAT. ANN. § 367.170(1). 

Louisiana: LA. REV. STAT. ANN. §§ 51:1405 and 51:1905. 

Maine: ME. REV. STAT. ANN. tit. 5 § 207. 

Maryland: MD. CODE ANN., BUS. REG. §§ 6-608, 6-613 (2010 Repl. Vol.) 

(2014 Suppl.). 

Massachusetts: MASS. GEN. LAWS ch. 12 § 8F; ch. 68 §§ 19, 32; and ch. 93A § 2. 

Michigan: MICH. COMP. LAWS § 400.288(u)(ii). 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05/18/15 Page 82 of 148
FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. 

Complaint, Page 83 of 148 

1 

2 

3 

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 

Minnesota: MINN. STAT. § 309.53, subd. 3 and § 309.55, subd. 5. 

Mississippi MISS. CODE ANN. § 79-11-519(3)(d). 

Missouri: MO. REV. STAT. § 407.020. 

Montana: MONT. CODE ANN. § 30-14-103. 

Nebraska: NEB. REV. STAT. §§ 59-1602, 87-302(15), and 87-303.01. 

Nevada: NEV. REV. STAT. §§ 598.1305 and 598.0915(15) . 

New 

Hampshire: 

N.H. REV. STAT. ANN. §§ 7:28-f, I (a), (b), (e). 

New Jersey: N.J. STAT. ANN. § 45:17A-33(b)(1); § 56:8-2.7; and N.J. ADMIN 

CODE §§ 13:48-13.3(a)(1). 

New Mexico: N.M. STAT. §§ 57-22-6.3(A)(1) and (3); and § 57-12-3 (1978). 

New York: N.Y. EXEC. L. §§ 63(12) and 172-d.1-4; and N.Y. GEN. BUS. L.

§ 349.

North Carolina: N.C. GEN. STAT. § 75-1.1; §§ 131F-20 (9), (15), and (18); and 

§ 131F-21. 

North Dakota: N.D. CENT. CODE §§ 51-15-02 and 50-22-04.3. 

Ohio: OHIO REV. CODE ANN. § 1716.14(A). 

Oklahoma: OKLA. STAT. ANN. tit. 18 § 552.14a(A)(1) and (5). 

Oregon: OR. REV. STAT. §§ 128.886 and 646.608(1)(dd). 

Pennsylvania: 10 PA. CONS. STAT. § 162.15(a)(2). 

Rhode Island: R.I. GEN. LAWS § 5-53.1-7(2). 

South Carolina: S.C. CODE ANN. §§ 33-56-120(A) and 33-56-140(C). 

South Dakota: S.D. CODIFIED LAWS §§ 37-30-17 through 37-30-21. 

Tennessee: TENN. CODE ANN. §§ 48-101-504(a), 48-101-509(a)(1), and 

48-101-513(b). 

Texas: TEX. BUS. & COM. CODE ANN. §§ 17.46(a), (b)(1), (b)(5), and 

(b)(24) (West 2014). 

Utah: UTAH CODE ANN. § 13-22-15; see also UTAH ADMIN. CODE R152-22-

4; accord UTAH CODE ANN. § 13-22-1(b)(ix).

Vermont: VT. STAT. ANN. tit. 9 § 2453 and 2475. 

Virginia: VA. CODE ANN. §§ 57-48 and 57-57(L). 

Washington: WASH. REV. CODE §§ 19.86.020, 19.09.100(15), and 19.09.340. 

West Virginia: W.VA. CODE § 46A-6-101 et seq.; W.VA. CODE §§ 29-19-8, -13. 

Wisconsin: WIS. STAT. § 202.16(1)(a), formerly § 440.46(1)(a). 

Wyoming: WYO. STAT. ANN. §§ 40-12-105(a)(iii) and (xv). 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05/18/15 Page 83 of 148
FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. 

Complaint, Page 84 of 148 

1 

2 

3 

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 

Count IV 

Misrepresentations about Programs Related to International GIK 

(By the FTC and the Plaintiff States)

172. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all the foregoing paragraphs. 

173. In numerous instances, in connection with soliciting charitable 

contributions from donors, Defendants have represented, directly or through 

telemarketers, expressly or by implication, that the primary focus of their charitable 

programs was to provide direct assistance within the United States to individuals with 

cancer, children with cancer, or individuals with breast cancer. 

174. In truth and in fact, using Corporate Defendants’ reported valuations, the 

vast majority of the aid that Corporate Defendants claimed to provide was related to the 

shipment of GIK goods to organizations in developing countries whose use of the goods 

was not restricted to assisting individuals with cancer and who did not in fact use the 

goods primarily to assist individuals with cancer. 

175. Therefore, the acts and practices described in Paragraph 173 constitute 

deceptive practices in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a). 

176. The foregoing practices also violate the laws of the Plaintiff States as 

follows: 

Alabama: ALA. CODE §§13A-9-76(a)(3-4). 

Alaska: ALASKA STAT. §§ 45.68.050(1) and 45.50.471. 

Arizona: ARIZ. REV. STAT. ANN. § 44-1522(A). 

Arkansas: ARK. CODE ANN. §§ 4-28-412(1) and 4-88-107(a)(7). 

California: CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE §§ 17200 through 17206; CAL. GOV.

CODE §§ 12581 through 12582.1; § 12599.6. 

Colorado: COLO. REV. STAT. § 6-1-105(1)(hh); and §§ 6-16-111(1)(g) and (i). 

Connecticut: CONN. GEN. STAT. §§ 21a-190h and 42-110b(a). 

Delaware: DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 6, §§ 2513(a), 2532(a)(12), and 2595(a), (b)(4) 

and (6). 

Florida: FLA. STAT. §§ 496.415(7), 496.416, and 501.204(1) (2013). 

Georgia: GA. CODE ANN. § 43-17-12(d) (2011). 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05/18/15 Page 84 of 148
FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. 

Complaint, Page 85 of 148 

1 

2 

3 

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 

Hawaii: HAW. REV. STAT. §§ 467B-2.1, 467B-6.5, 467B-9, and 467B-10.5. 

Idaho: IDAHO CODE ANN. § 48-1203(1). 

Illinois: 225 ILL. COMP. STAT. §§ 460/15(a); 460/15(b)(6); 460/18(b); and 

460/9(c). 

Indiana: IND. CODE §§ 23-7-8-7(a)(4); and §§ 24-5-0.5-3(b)(1) and (7). 

Iowa: IOWA CODE § 714.16. 

Kansas: KAN. STAT. ANN. §§ 17-1769(b) and (h). 

Kentucky: KY. REV. STAT. ANN. § 367.170(1). 

Louisiana: LA. REV. STAT. ANN. §§ 51:1405 and 51:1905. 

Maine: ME. REV. STAT. ANN. tit. 5 § 207. 

Maryland: MD. CODE ANN., BUS. REG. §§ 6-608, 6-610 (2010 Repl. Vol.) (2014 

Suppl.). 

Massachusetts: MASS. GEN. LAWS ch. 68 § 32 and ch. 93A § 2. 

Michigan: MICH. COMP. LAWS § 400.288(n). 

Minnesota: MINN. STAT. § 309.55, subd. 5. 

Mississippi: MISS. CODE ANN. §§79-11-519(3)(a) and (h). 

Missouri: MO. REV. STAT. § 407.020. 

Montana: MONT. CODE ANN. § 30-14-103. 

Nebraska: NEB. REV. STAT. §§ 59-1602, 87-302(15), and 87-303.01. 

Nevada: NEV. REV. STAT. §§ 598.1305; and 598.0915(15). 

New 

Hampshire: 

N.H. REV. STAT. ANN. §§ 7:28-f, I(a), (b), (e). 

New Jersey: N.J. STAT. ANN. §§ 45:17A-32(a), 45:17A-32(c), 56:8-2.7; and N.J.

ADMIN. CODE § 13:48-13.2(a). 

New Mexico: N.M. Stat. §§ 57-22-6.3(A)(1) and (3); and § 57-12-3 (1978). 

New York: N.Y. EXEC. L. §§ 63(12) and 172-d.2-4; N.Y. GEN. BUS. L. § 349. 

North Carolina: N.C. GEN. STAT. § 75-1.1; §§ 131F-20(9), (15), and (18); and 

§ 131F-21. 

North Dakota: N.D. CENT. CODE §§ 51-15-02 and 50-22-04.3. 

Ohio: OHIO REV. CODE ANN. § 1716.14(A). 

Oklahoma: OKLA. STAT. ANN. tit. 18 § 552.14a(A)(5). 

Oregon: OR. REV. STAT. §§ 128.886 and 646.608(1)(dd). 

Pennsylvania: 10 PA. CONS. STAT. § 162.15(a)(2). 

Rhode Island: R.I. GEN. LAWS § 5-53.1-7(2). 

South Carolina: S.C. CODE ANN. §§ 33-56-120(A) and 33-56-140(C). 

South Dakota: S.D. CODIFIED LAWS §§ 37-30-17 through 37-30-21. 

Tennessee: TENN. CODE ANN. § 48-101-513(b). 

Texas: TEX. BUS. & COM. CODE ANN. §§ 17.46(a), (b)(4), (b)(5), (b)(7), 

and (b)(24) (West 2014). 

Utah: UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 13-22-12(1)(b)(v), -13(3); 13-26-11(1)(c); 13-

11-4(2)(a), (i), (o). 

Vermont: VT. STAT. ANN. tit. 9 § 2453 and 2475. 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05/18/15 Page 85 of 148
FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. 

Complaint, Page 86 of 148 

1 

2 

3 

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 

Virginia: VA. CODE ANN. §§ 57-48 and 57-57(L). 

Washington: WASH. REV. CODE §§ 19.86.020, 19.09.100(15), and 19.09.340. 

West Virginia: W.VA. CODE § 46A-6-101 et seq.; and §§ 29-19-8, -13. 

Wisconsin: WIS. STAT. § 202.16(1)(a), formerly § 440.46(1)(a). 

Wyoming: WYO. STAT. ANN. §§ 40-12-105(a)(i), (ii), (iii), and (xv). 

Count V 

False and Misleading Filings with State Charities Regulators 

(By the Plaintiff States Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, 

Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, 

Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New 

Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, 

Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, Washington, 

and West Virginia) (collectively, the “charging Plaintiff States”)

177. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all the foregoing paragraphs. 

178. As required by law, each of the Corporate Defendants filed financial 

statements, often certified under penalty of perjury, with the charging Plaintiff States. In 

some instances, to satisfy state law requirements, Defendants filed their Forms 990 

together with certain transmittal information; in others, Defendants filed reports crossreferencing to or summarizing the information on their Forms 990; and in other instances, 

with certain states, Defendants filed full audited financial statements. The charging 

Plaintiff States disseminated or otherwise made available the financial information 

contained in those filings to the public. Together with the public, state charities 

regulators relied on the financial information submitted in evaluating the performance 

and effectiveness of the Corporate Defendants. 

179. For each of the years 2008 through 2012, the financial information filed by 

each of the Corporate Defendants with the charging Plaintiff States included materially 

false and misleading information about certain international GIK transactions, including, 

in numerous instances: 

a. the Corporate Defendants’ annual revenues included the value of 

certain GIK goods that they had received as donations and owned; and 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05/18/15 Page 86 of 148
FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. 

Complaint, Page 87 of 148 

1 

2 

3 

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 

b. the Corporate Defendants’ annual program expenses included the 

value of certain GIK goods that the Corporate Defendants distributed to recipients 

in developing countries. 

180. In truth and in fact, in numerous instances in connection with certain 

international GIK transactions: 

a. the Corporate Defendants did not own the GIK goods they reported 

receiving as donations and their reported annual revenues should not have 

included the value of those GIK goods; and 

b. the Corporate Defendants did not own the GIK goods that they 

claimed to have distributed to recipients in developing countries and their reported 

annual program expenses should not have included the value of such GIK goods. 

Through these false statements, the Corporate Defendants disseminated to the public false 

and misleading depictions of their operations and their effectiveness. 

181. The Corporate Defendants certified, in many instances under penalty of 

perjury, that the financial information they filed was true and accurate. The Individual 

Defendants, including those who signed certifications attesting to the truth and accuracy 

of the Corporate Defendants’ filings, knew that these filings were false and misleading. 

182. In filing and causing to be filed false and misleading financial statements, 

Defendants have violated the laws of the charging Plaintiff States as follows: 

Alabama: ALA. CODE § 13A-9-76(a)(4). 

Alaska: ALASKA STAT. §§ 45.68.010(g), 45.68.050(1), and 45.50.471. 

Arkansas: ARK. CODE ANN. § 4-28-412(8). 

California: CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE §§ 17200 through 17206; CAL. GOV.

CODE §§ 12581 through 12582.1; and § 12599.6. 

Colorado: COLO. REV. STAT. § 6-1-105(1)(hh); and §§ 6-16-111(1)(f) and 

(g). 

Connecticut: CONN. GEN. STAT. § 21a-190h. 

Florida: FLA. STAT. §§ 496.415(2), 496.416 and 501.204(1) (2013). 

Georgia: GA. CODE ANN. § 43-17-12(b) (2011). 

Hawaii: Haw. Rev. Stat. §§ 467B-2.1, 467B-6.5, 467B-9, and 467B-10.5. 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05/18/15 Page 87 of 148
FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. 

Complaint, Page 88 of 148 

1 

2 

3 

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 

Illinois: 225 ILL. COMP. STAT. §§ 460/15(a); 460/15(b)(6); and 460/9(c). 

Kansas: KAN. STAT. ANN. §§ 17-1769(a), (b), (c). 

Kentucky: KY. REV. STAT. ANN. § 367.170(1). 

Louisiana: LA. REV. STAT. ANN. §§ 51:1405 and 51:1905. 

Maryland: MD. CODE ANN., BUS. REG. §§ 6-608, 6-613 (2010 Repl. Vol.) 

(2014 Suppl.). 

Massachusetts: MASS. GEN. LAWS ch. 12 § 8F and ch. 68 §§ 19, 32. 

Michigan: MICH. COMP. LAWS § 400.288(y). 

Minnesota: MINN. STAT. §§ 309.53, subd. 3 and 309.55, subd. 5. 

Mississippi: MISS. CODE ANN. § 79-11-519(3)(d). 

New Hampshire: N.H. REV. STAT. ANN. §§ 7:28-f, I(a), (b), and (e); 7:28-f, II(a), 

(c), (d) and (e); and 641:8. 

New Jersey: N.J. STAT. ANN. §§ 45:17A-33(b)(1) and 56:8-2.7; and N.J.

ADMIN. CODE § 13:48-13.3(a)(1). 

New Mexico: N.M. STAT. ANN. §§ 57-22-6.3(A)(1), (3); and § 57-12-3 (1978). 

New York: N.Y. EXEC. L. §§ 63(12), 172-b.2, and 172-d.1-2; N.Y. GEN. BUS.

L. § 349.

North Carolina: N.C. GEN. STAT. § 75-1.1; §§ 131F-20 (9), (15), and (18); and 

§ 131F-21. 

North Dakota: N.D. CENT. CODE §§ 50-22-01 through 50-22-07. 

Ohio: OHIO REV. CODE ANN. § 1716.14(A). 

Oklahoma: OKLA. STAT. ANN. tit. 18 § 552.14a(A)(1). 

Oregon: OR. REV. STAT. § 128.886 and OR. REV. STAT. § 646.608(1)(dd). 

Pennsylvania: 10 PA. CONS. STAT. § 162.15(a)(2). 

Rhode Island: R.I. GEN. LAWS § 5-53.1-7(1). 

South Carolina: S.C. CODE ANN. §§ 33-56-120(A) and 33-56-140(C). 

Tennessee: TENN. CODE ANN. § 48-101-504(a). 

Utah: UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 13-22-12(1)(a), -15. 

Virginia: VA. CODE ANN. § 57-57(O). 

Washington: WASH. REV. CODE §§ 19.86.020, 19.09.071, 19.09.075(h), and 

19.09.340 

West Virginia: W.VA. CODE § 29-19-1 et seq. 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05/18/15 Page 88 of 148
FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. 

Complaint, Page 89 of 148 

1 

2 

3 

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 

Count VI 

Means and Instrumentalities of Deception by CFA, CCFOA, & BCS 

(By the Federal Trade Commission and Plaintiff States Alabama, Alaska, California, 

Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, 

Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, 

Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North 

Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, 

Utah, Virginia, Washington, and West Virginia) (collectively, the “charging Plaintiff 

States”)

183. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all the foregoing paragraphs. 

184. In numerous instances, in connection with soliciting charitable 

contributions from donors, CFA, CCFOA, and BCS, individually or in concert with 

others, have provided telemarketers with the means and instrumentalities to deceive 

donors. The means and instrumentalities that CFA, CCFOA, and BCS have provided 

include, but are not limited to, affiliation with a purported charitable organization in 

whose name solicitations can be made and telemarketing scripts and other solicitation 

materials, such as brochures, donor invoices, and thank you letters that make 

misrepresentations about the purported programs of CFA, CCFOA, and BCS. 

185. By providing the means and instrumentalities to others for the commission 

of deceptive acts and practices as described in Paragraph 184, Defendants have violated 

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

186. The foregoing practices also violate the laws of the charging Plaintiff States 

as follows: 

Alabama: ALA. CODE § 8-19-5(27) and § 13A-9-76(a)(3). 

Alaska: ALASKA STAT. §§ 45.68.050(1) and 45.50.471. 

California: CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE §§ 17200 through 17206; CAL. GOV.

CODE §§ 12581 through 12582.1, 12599.6. 

Connecticut: CONN. GEN. STAT. §§ 21a-190h and 42-110b(a). 

Delaware: DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 6, §§ 2513(a), 2532(a)(12), and 2595(a), 

(b)(4) and (6). 

Florida: FLA. STAT. § 501.204(1) (2013). 

Georgia: GA. CODE ANN. § 10-1-393 (2012). 

Idaho: IDAHO CODE § 48-1203(1). 

Illinois: 225 ILL. COMP. STAT. § 460/9(c). 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05/18/15 Page 89 of 148
FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. 

Complaint, Page 90 of 148 

1 

2 

3 

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 

Indiana: IND. CODE §§ 23-7-8-7(a)(4); and §§ 24-5-0.5-3(b)(1) and (7). 

Iowa: IOWA CODE § 714.16. 

Kansas: KAN. STAT. ANN. §§ 17-1764, 17-1765, 17-1766, and 17-

1769(b),(c), and (e). 

Kentucky: KY. REV. STAT. ANN. § 367.170(1). 

Louisiana: LA. REV. STAT. ANN. §§ 51:1405 and 51:1905. 

Maryland: MD. CODE ANN., BUS. REG. §§ 6-607, 6-608 (2010 Repl. Vol.) 

(2014 Suppl.). 

Massachusetts: MASS. GEN. LAWS. ch. 68 § 32 and ch. 93A § 2. 

Michigan: MICH. COMP. LAWS § 400.288(q). 

Minnesota: MINN. STAT. § 309.55, subd. 5. 

Montana: MONT. CODE ANN. § 30-14-103. 

Nebraska: NEB. REV. STAT. §§ 59-1602, 87-302(15), and 87-303.01. 

Nevada: NEV. REV. STAT. §§ 598.1305 and 598.0915(15). 

New Hampshire: N.H. REV. STAT. ANN. §§ 7:28-f, I(a), (b), (c), and (e). 

New Jersey: N.J. STAT. ANN. §§ 56:8-2.7, 45:17A-32(a), 45:17A-32 (c); and 

N.J. ADMIN. CODE § 13:48-13.2(a). 

New Mexico: N.M. STAT. §§ 57-22-6.3(A)(1), (3); §§ 57-22-8(A), (B); and § 57-

12-3 (1978). 

New York: NY EXEC. L. §§ 63(12) and 172-d.1-3; N.Y. GEN’L BUS. L. § 349. 

North Carolina: N.C. GEN. STAT. § 75-1.1. 

North Dakota: N.D. CENT. CODE §§ 50-22-01 through 50-22-07; and §§ 51-15-01

through 51-15-11. 

Ohio: OHIO REV. CODE ANN. § 1716.14(A). 

Pennsylvania: 10 P.S. § 162.15(a)(2). 

South Carolina: S.C. CODE ANN. §§ 33-56-120(A) and 33-56-140(C). 

South Dakota: S.D. CODIFIED LAWS §§ 37-30-17 through 37-30-21. 

Texas: TEX. BUS. & COM. CODE ANN. § 17.46(a) (WEST 2014). 

Utah: UTAH CODE ANN. § 13-26-3(5): see also UTAH ADMIN. CODE R152-

26-5(3)(a).

Virginia: VA. CODE ANN. §§ 57-48 and 57-57(L). 

Washington: WASH. REV. CODE §§ 19.86.020, 19.09.100(15), and 19.09.340. 

West Virginia: W.VA. CODE § 29-19-13 and § 46A-6-101 et seq.

VIOLATIONS OF THE TELEMARKETING SALES RULE 

187. Congress directed the FTC to prescribe rules prohibiting abusive and 

deceptive telemarketing acts or practices pursuant to the Telemarketing Act, 15 U.S.C. 

§§ 6101 - 6108, in 1994. On August 16, 1995, the FTC adopted the Telemarketing Sales 

Rule (the “Original TSR”), 16 C.F.R. Part 310, which became effective on December 31, 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05/18/15 Page 90 of 148
FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. 

Complaint, Page 91 of 148 

1 

2 

3 

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 

1995. On January 29, 2003, the FTC amended the Original TSR by issuing a Statement 

of Basis and Purpose and the final amended Telemarketing Sales Rule (the “TSR”). 68 

Fed. Reg. 4580, 4669. 

188. The Telemarketing Act also authorizes attorneys general to initiate federal 

district court proceedings to enjoin telemarketing activities that violate the TSR, and in 

each such case, to obtain damages, restitution and other compensation on behalf of their 

residents. 15 U.S.C. § 6103(a). 

189. The TSR defines “charitable contribution” to mean “any contribution or gift 

of money or any other thing of value.” 16 C.F.R. § 310.2(f). 

190. The TSR defines “donor” to mean “any person solicited to make a 

charitable contribution.” 16 C.F.R. § 310.2(m). 

191. The TSR defines “telemarketer” to mean “any person who, in connection 

with telemarketing, initiates or receives telephone calls from a customer or donor.” 

16 C.F.R. § 310.2(bb). 

192. The TSR defines “telemarketing” to mean “a plan, program, or campaign 

which is conducted to induce the purchase of goods or services or a charitable 

contribution, by use of one or more telephones and which involves one or more interstate 

telephone call.” 16 C.F.R. § 310.2(cc). 

193. The TSR prohibits any person from providing substantial assistance or 

support to any seller or telemarketer when that person knows or consciously avoids 

knowing that the seller or telemarketer is engaged in any practice that violates Sections 

310.3(a), (c), or (d) or 310.4 of the Rule. 16 C.F.R. § 310.3(b). 

194. The TSR prohibits telemarketers from making a false or misleading 

statement to induce a charitable contribution. 16 C.F.R. Part 310.3(a)(4). 

195. The TSR prohibits, inter alia, telemarketers from misrepresenting, directly 

or by implication, the nature, purpose, or mission of an entity on behalf of which a 

charitable contribution is being requested; the purpose for which any charitable 

contribution will be used; the percentage or amount of any charitable contribution that 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05/18/15 Page 91 of 148
FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. 

Complaint, Page 92 of 148 

1 

2 

3 

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 

will go to a charitable organization or any particular charitable program; and a charitable 

organization’s or telemarketer’s affiliation with, or endorsement or sponsorship by, any 

person or government entity. 16 C.F.R. § 310.3(d)(1), (3), (4), and (6). 

Count VII 

Assisting & Facilitating Telemarketing Violations by CFA, CCFOA, & BCS 

(By Plaintiffs Federal Trade Commission and the Attorneys General of the Plaintiff 

States and the District of Columbia)

196. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all the foregoing paragraphs. 

197. In numerous instances, in connection with soliciting charitable 

contributions by telephone, CFA, CCFOA, and BCS have provided substantial assistance 

or support to telemarketers while knowing or consciously avoiding knowing that the 

telemarketers were engaged in acts or practices that violate Sections 310.3(a) (4) and 

310.3(d)(1), (3), (4), and (6) of the TSR, thereby violating Section 310.3(b) of the TSR. 

16 C.F.R. § 310.3(b). 

Count VIII 

Telemarketing Misrepresentations by Defendant CSS 

(By Plaintiffs Federal Trade Commission and the Attorneys General of the Plaintiff 

States and the District of Columbia) 

198. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all the foregoing paragraphs. 

199. In numerous instances, in connection with soliciting charitable 

contributions by telephone, CSS has made false or misleading statements to induce a 

charitable contribution, including: 

a. misrepresenting, directly or by implication, the nature, purpose, or 

mission of an entity on behalf of which a charitable contribution is being 

requested; 

b. the purpose for which any charitable contribution will be used; and 

c. the percentage or amount of any charitable contribution that will go 

to a charitable organization or any particular charitable program. 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05/18/15 Page 92 of 148
FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. 

Complaint, Page 93 of 148 

1 

2 

3 

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 

 CSS has thereby violated Sections 310.3(a)(4) and 310.3(d)(1), (3), and (4) of the TSR. 

16 C.F.R. § 310.3(a) (4) and 310.3(d) (1), (3), and (4). 

INJURY 

200. Donors have suffered and will continue to suffer substantial injury as a 

result of Defendants’ violations of the FTC Act, the TSR, and state law. In addition, 

Defendants have been unjustly enriched as a result of their unlawful acts or practices. 

Absent injunctive relief by this Court, Defendants are likely to continue to injure donors, 

reap unjust enrichment, and harm the public interest. 

THIS COURT’S POWER TO GRANT RELIEF 

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

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

redress violations of any provision of law enforced by the FTC. The Court, in the 

exercise of its equitable jurisdiction, may award ancillary relief, including rescission or 

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

ill-gotten monies, to prevent and remedy any violation of any provision of law enforced 

by the FTC. 

202. Section 19 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 57b, and Sections 4(a) and 6(b) of 

the Telemarketing Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 6103(a) and 6105(b), authorize this Court to grant 

such relief as the Court finds necessary to redress injury to consumers resulting from 

Defendants’ violations of the TSR, including the rescission and reformation of contracts, 

and the refund of money. 

203. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, this Court has supplemental jurisdiction to 

allow the Plaintiff States to enforce their state laws against Defendants in this Court and 

to grant such relief as provided under the following state laws including injunctive relief, 

rescission or reformation of contracts, restitution, the refund of monies paid, the 

disgorgement of ill-gotten monies, removal of officers and directors, civil penalties, 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05/18/15 Page 93 of 148
FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. 

Complaint, Page 94 of 148 

1 

2 

3 

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 

attorneys’ fees, expenses, costs, and such other relief to which the Plaintiff States may be 

entitled: 

Alabama: ALA. CODE §§ 8-19-8 and 13A-9-76(a-b). 

Alaska: ALASKA STAT. §§ 45.50.501, 45.50.537, and 45.50.551. 

Arizona: ARIZ. REV. STAT. ANN. §§ 44-1528, 44-1531, and 44-1534. 

Arkansas: ARK. CODE ANN. §§ 4-28-416 and 4-88-113. 

California: CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE §§ 17200 through 17206; CAL. GOV.

CODE §§ 12586.2, 12591, 12591.1, 12597, and 12598. 

Colorado: COLO. REV. STAT. §§ 6-1-110, 112 and 113(4); §§ 6-16-111(5) and 

6-16-111(6)(c). 

Connecticut: CONN. GEN. STAT. §§ 21a-190l and 42-110m(a). 

Delaware: DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 6, §§ 2522 through 2526, 2533, and 2597; and 

tit. 29, §§ 2520 and 2522. 

Florida: FLA. STAT. §§ 496.416, 501.207, and 501.2075 (2013). 

Georgia: GA. CODE ANN. §§ 43-17-13 through 43-17-14 (2011). 

Hawaii: HAW. REV. STAT. § 28-5.2; §§ 467B-9.6, 467B-9.7(d), and 467B10.5; and § 480-15.

Idaho: IDAHO CODE ANN. §§ 48-606(1), 48-607, and 48-1204. 

Illinois: 225 ILL. COMP. STAT. §§ 460/9(f), 9(g), 9(h), and 9(j); 460/15(b)(6) 

and 15(c); 460/16(a) and 16(b); 460/18(g); and 460/9(c). 

Indiana: IND. CODE §§ 23-7-8-8; and 24-5-0.5-4 and -8. 

Iowa: IOWA CODE § 714.16. 

Kansas: KAN. STAT. ANN. §§ 17-1768, 17-1773(a), and 17-1776. 

Kentucky: KY. REV. STAT. ANN. §§ 367.190(1), 367.190(3), 367.200, 367.210, 

367.990(2), and 367.665. 

Louisiana: LA. REV. STAT. ANN. §§ 51:1403, 51:1407, 51:1408, and 51:1416. 

Maine: ME. REV. STAT. ANN. tit. 5 § 209 and tit. 14 § 1522(1)(A); and M.R. 

Civ. P. 65. 

Maryland: MD. CODE ANN., BUS. REG. § 6-205 (2010 Repl. Vol.) (2014 

Suppl.). 

Massachusetts: MASS. GEN. LAWS ch. 12 § 8F; ch. 68 § 32; and ch. 93A § 4. 

Michigan: MICH. COMP. LAWS § 400.290. 

Minnesota: MINN. STAT. § 8.31, subds. 1 and 309.57. 

Mississippi: MISS. CODE ANN. §§ 79-11-509(4) and (6). 

Missouri: MO. REV. STAT. § 407.020. 

Montana: MONT. CODE ANN. §§ 30-14-131, 30-14-142, and 30-14-144. 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05/18/15 Page 94 of 148
FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. 

Complaint, Page 95 of 148 

1 

2 

3 

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 

Nebraska: NEB. REV. STAT. §§ 21-1977, 21-19,142(c), 21-19,143, 59-1608, 59-

1609, 59-1614, 87-303, 87-303.05, 87-303.07, and 87-303.11. 

Nevada: NEV. REV. STAT. §§ 598.0999(1) through (4), and (6). 

New 

Hampshire: 

N.H. REV. STAT. ANN. §§ 7:28, II(c) through 7:28, II(g). 

New Jersey: N.J. STAT. ANN. §§ 45:17A-33(d-e), 56:8-8, 56:8-9, 56:8-11, 56:8-

13, and 56:8-19; and N.J. ADMIN. CODE § 13:48-14.1. 

New Mexico: N.M. STAT. §§ 57-22-9(A), (B); 57-22-9.1(J); 57-12-8; and 57-12-

11 (1978). 

New York: N.Y. EXEC. LAW §§ 63(12), 175; and N.Y. NOT-FOR-PROFIT CORP.

LAW § 112. 

North Carolina: N.C. GEN. STAT. §§ 75-14 through 75-15.2; §§ 75-16.1; and § 131F24(a). 

North Dakota: N.D. CENT. CODE §§ 51-15-07, 51-15-08, 51-15-10, 51-15-11, 50-

22-05, and 50-22-06. 

Ohio: OHIO REV. CODE ANN. § 1716.16. 

Oklahoma: OKLA. STAT. ANN. tit. 18 § 552.14a(D)(1)-(6), (H), (I). 

Oregon: OR. REV. STAT. §§ 646.632 and 646.636. 

Pennsylvania: 10 PA. CONS. STAT. § 162.19. 

Rhode Island: R.I. GEN. LAWS §§ 5-53.1 through 5-53.1-18. 

South Carolina: S.C. CODE ANN. § 33-56-140(C). 

South Dakota: S.D. CODIFIED LAWS §§ 37-30-17 through 37-30-21; and §§ 21-34-

1 through 21-34-14. 

Tennessee: TENN. CODE ANN. §§ 48-101-514(a)(1) and 48-101-514(c). 

Texas: TEX. BUS. & COM. CODE ANN. §§ 17.47(a), (c), and (d) (West 

2014); and TEX. GOV’T CODE § 402.006(c) (West 2014). 

Utah: UTAH CODE ANN. § 13-2-5(3); §§ 13-22-3(4)(a), (c) through (g); 

and §§ 13-11-17, 13-11-17.5, 13-26-8(2), and 13-26-10. 

Vermont: VT. STAT. ANN. tit. 9 §§ 2458, 2459, 2460, 2461, and 2475. 

Virginia: VA. CODE ANN. §§ 57-59(D) and (E). 

Washington: WASH. REV. CODE §§ 19.86.020, 19.86.080, 19.86.140, and 

19.09.340. 

West Virginia: W.VA. CODE § 46A-7-101 et seq.; W.VA. CODE §§ 29-19-15, -15a, 

and -15b. 

Wisconsin: WIS. STAT. § 202.18(1)(b). 

Wyoming: WYO. STAT. ANN. §§ 40-12-106, 111, and 113. 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05/18/15 Page 95 of 148
FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. 

Complaint, Page 96 of 148 

1 

2 

3 

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 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

WHEREFORE, the FTC, the Plaintiff States, and the District of Columbia 

respectfully request that the Court: 

A. Award Plaintiffs such preliminary injunctive and ancillary relief as may be 

necessary to avert the likelihood of donor injury during the pendency of this action and to 

preserve the possibility of effective final relief, including, but not limited to, a 

preliminary injunction, removal of the corporate officers and directors of each Corporate 

Defendant, an accounting of assets, and appointment of a receiver; 

B. Enter a permanent injunction to prevent Defendants from future violations 

of the FTC Act, state law, and the TSR; 

C. Award such relief as the Court finds necessary to redress injury to donors 

resulting from Defendants’ violations of the FTC Act, state laws, and the TSR, including, 

but not limited to, removal of the corporate officers and directors, rescission or 

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

ill-gotten monies; 

D. Award Plaintiffs the costs of bringing this action, attorneys’ fees, and such 

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

E. Award Plaintiff States civil penalties for each violation of their respective 

state laws, attorneys’ fees, and expenses as provided under state law. 

/ 

/ 

/ 

/ 

/ 

/ 

/ 

/ 

/ 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05/18/15 Page 96 of 148
1 

2 

3 

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 

ase 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05/18/15 Page 97 of 148 

Respectfully Submitted, 

FOR THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION: 

Jonathan E. Nuechterlein 

General Counsel 

CHARLES A HARWOOD 

Regional Director 

Tracy S. Thorleifson 

Sophie H. Calderon, 

Krista K. Bush, and 

Connor Shively 

Attorneys 

Federal Trade Commission 

915 2nd Ave., Suite 2896 

Seattle, WA 98174 

Email: tthorleifson@ftc.gov 

scalderon@ftc.gov 

kbush@ftc.gov 

cshively@ftc.gov 

Telephone: (206) 220-6350 

Attorneys for Plaintiff Federal Trade Commission 

Signed MC\1 \S , 2015 

FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. 

Complaint, Page 97 of 148 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

2 4 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05/18/15 Page 98 of 148 

FORTHESTATEOF AMA 

By: 

Kyle Beckman Bar #ASB-6046-E63B)* 

Assistant Attorney General 

Office of Attorney General Luther Strange 

501 Washington Avenue 

Montgomery, AL 36104-0152 

kbeckman@ago.state.al.us 

Telephone: (334) 353-2619 

• Application for pro hac vice pending 

Attorney for Plaf· tiff State of Alabama 

Signed 0~01 , 2015 

-

FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. \ 

Complaint, Page 98 of 148 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05118115 Page 99 of 148 

FORTHESTA 

By: ~~~'..dd~tlL~::::::-­

Cynthi ' Drinkwater, Alaska Bar No. 8808159* 

Assistant Attorney General 

Office of Attorney General Craig W. Richards 

1031 W. 4th Ave, Suite 200 

Anchorage, AK 99501 

cynthia.drinkwater@alaska.gov 

Telephone: (907) 269-5200 

*Application for pro hac vice pending 

Attorney for Plaintiff State of Alaska 

Signed May // , 2015 

FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. \ 

Complaint, Page 99 of 148 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

1 5 

1 6 

17 

1 8 

19 

2 0 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05/18/15 Page 100 of 148 

FO~ THE STATj OF ARIZONA 

By: ~~~~t Au Nan y Vnge AZBar#''6810) 

Assistant Attorney General 

----------------

Office of Attorney General Mark Brnovich 

1275 West Washington 

Phoenix, Arizona 85007-2997 

nancy .anger@azag.gov 

Telephone: (602) 542-4686 

Attorn~ Plaintiff State of Arizona 

Signed ll.u 5 , 20 1 S 

6 

FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. \ 

Complmnt, Page 1 00 of 148 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

a 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05118/15 Page 101 of 148 

By: 

Kevin Bar # 2007213) 

omey General 

Office of Attorney General Leslie Rutledge 

323 Center Street, Suite 500 

Little Rock, Arkansas 7220 l 

kevin.wells@arkansasag.gov 

Telephone: (501) 682-8063 

*Application for pro hac vice pending 

Attorney for Plaintiff State of Arkansas 

Signed May 8, 2015 

FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. \ 

Complaint, Page l 0 l of 148 
Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05/18/15 Page 102 of 148 r- -- ·--·~-· ·--· -· . 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

1 7 

1 8 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

FOR 

By: 

CALIFORNIA 

r 

SonjaK. Be 

Deputy Atto ey Gen 

. Office of Attorney General Kamala Harris 

300 S. Spring St. 

Suite #1702 

Los Angeles, California 90013 

Sonja.bemdt@doj .ca.gov 

Telephone: (213) 897-2179 

• Application for pro hac vice pending 

Attorney or Plaintiff tate of California 

Signed 2015 

FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. \ 

Complaint, Page 102 of 148 
1 

2 

3 

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 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05118/15 Page 103 of 148 

FOR THE C~ECRE~ARY OF STATE 

By: j./ LEANN MORRILL (C03f#38742) 

First Assistant Attorney General 

Office of Attorney General Cynthia H. Coffman 

Public Officials Unit 

1300 Broadway, 6th Floor 

Denver, Colorado 80203 

Email: leann.morrill@state.co.us 

Telephone: (720) 508-6159 

Attorney for Plaintiff Colorado Secretary of State 

Signed M..7 <g , 2015 

FOR THE STATE OF COLORADO 

ALISSA 

By ~-- GARDENSWARTZ (CO Bar# 36126) 

First Assistant Attorney General 

Office of Attorney General Cynthia H. Coffman 

Consumer Protection Section 

1300 Broadway, 71}, Floor 

Denver, Colorado 80203 

Email: alissa.gardenswartz@state.co. us 

Telephone: (720) 508-6204 

*Application for pro hac vice pending 

.ttorney General 

FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. \ 

Complaint, Page 1 03 of 148 
1 

2 

3 

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 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05/18/15 Page 104 of 148 

FORT CUT 

By: 

Gary W. Ha es ( 

Assistant Attome General 

Office of Attorney General George Jepsen 

55 Elm Street 

P.O. Box 120 

Hartford, Connecticut 06141-0120 

Gary.Hawes@ct.gov 

Telephone: (860) 808-5020 

• Application for pro hac vice pending 

Attorney for Plaintiff State ofConnecticut 

Signed rb , 2015 

I 

FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. \ 

Complaint, Page 104 of 148 
1 

2 

3 

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 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05/18/15 Page 105 of 148 

FOR THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

By:~~ Gregory C: ~g (DE Bar# 4664)* 

Gillian L. Andrews (DE Bar # 5719) 

Deputy Attorneys General 

Delaware Department of Justice 

820 N. French Street, Sth Floor 

Wilmington, Delaware 1980 1 

gregory .strong@state.de.us 

Telephone: (302) 577-8504 

• Application for pro hac vice pending 

Attorneys for Plaintiff Stale of Delaware 

Signed --=s~/....:...I'I.L--__ ,, 201 s 

FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, lnc., et al. 

Complaint, Page 105 of 148 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

1 6 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05/18/15 Page 106 of 148 

FORT~~~ 

By: 

Rebecca Bar# 42312)* 

Assistant Attorney General 

Office of Attorney General Pam Bondi 

135 West Central Blvd., Suite 670 

Orlando, Florida 32801 

Rebecca.Sirkle@myfloridalegal.com 

Telephone: ( 407) 316-4840 

• Application for pro hac vice pending 

Attorney for Plaintiff State of Florida 

Signed j'lhfft.. , 2015 

FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. \ 

Complaint, Page 106 of 148 
1 

2 

3 

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 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05118/15 Page 107 of 148 

FORTH 

By: 

Daniel . Walsh Georgia Bar# 735040* 

Senior Assistant Attorney General 

Office of Attorney General Sam Olens 

Department of Law 

State of Georgia 

Atlanta, Georgia 30306 

dwalsh@law.ga.gov 

Telephone: (404) 657-2204 

*Application for pro hac vice pending 

Attorney for Plaintiff State of Georgia and Plaintiff 

Secretary of State for the State of Georgia 

Signed May 8, 20 15 

FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. \ 

Complaint, Page 1 07 of 148 
1 

2 

3 

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 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05/18/15 Page 108 of 148 

FORTHESTATEOFHAWAll 

By: ~ X.1(.tit' 

Jod' . K. Yi HI B .#6625* 

Deputy Attorney General 

Attorney General Douglas S. Chin 

Department of the Attorney General 

425 Queen Street 

Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 

Jodi.K.Yi@Hawaii.gov 

Telephone: (808) 586-1470 

• Application for pro hac vice pending 

Attorney for PlaintiffS/ate of Hawaii 

Signed April28, 2015 

FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. \ 

Complaint, Page 108 of 148 
1 

2 

3 

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 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05/18/15 Page 109 of 148 

FOR T~TE OF IDAHO 

By: 

JANE OC 

Deputy ey General 

Office of Attorney General Lawrence G.Wasden 

Consumer Protection Division 

954 W. Jefferson Street, 2nd Floor 

PO Box 83720 

Boise, Idaho 83 720-0010 

j ane.hochberg@ag.idaho.gov 

Telephone: (208) 334-3553 

*Application for pro hac vice pending 

Attorney for Plaintiff State of Idaho 

Signed ~ 3c , 2015 

FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. \ 

Complaint, Page 109 of 148 
1 

2 

3 

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 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05118115 Page 110 of 148 

FOR THE PEOPLE 0 T~E STATE OF ILLINOIS 

:r'. By: 

Barry SfGoldbefg 

Assistant Attorney Gene~l (IL Bar# 6269821 )* 

Assistant Bureau Chief 

Charitable Trust Bureau 

Office of Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan 

100 West Randolph Street. 111h Floor 

Chicago, Illinois 60601 

bgoldberg ci atg. tate.il s 

Telephone Charitable Trust Bureau: (312) 814-2595 

Therese Harris, Bureau Chief 

Charitable Trust Bureau 

Office of Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madjgan 

100 West Randolph Street, 111h Floor 

Chicago, Illinois 6060 I 

tharrisrwatg.state.il.us 

Telephone Charitable Trust Bureau: (312) 814-2595 

• Application for pro hac vice pending 

Allorney for Plaint(fJState qf'JIIinois 

Signed April.30. 2015 

FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. \ 

Complaint! Page 11 0 of 148 
1 

2 

3 

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 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05/18/15 Page 111 of 148 

FOR THE STATE OF INDIANA 

ramer (IN Bar# 15989-77)* 

Director, Consumer Protection Division 

Office of Attorney General Gregory F. Zoeller 

302 West Washington Street 

IGCS Fifth Floor 

Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 

richard.bramer@atg.in.gov 

Telephone: (317) 232-1008 

*Application for pro hac vice pending 

Attorney for Plaintif[State of Indiana 

signed Na ~ ,2o1s 

FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. \ 

Complaint, Page 111 of 148 
1 

2 

3 

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 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05118/15 Page 112 of 148 

FOR Tm:¥.J:!-WA By: . ~ 

Steve St. Clair (IA ar #AT0007441 )• 

Assistant Attorney General 

Office of Attorney General Tom Miller 

Hoover Building, 2nd Floor 

1305 East Walnut 

Des Moines, Iowa 503 19 

steve.stclair@iowa.gov 

Telephone: (515) 281-5926 

*Application for pro hac vice pending 

Attorney for Plaintiff State of Iowa 

Signed April 22, 2015 

FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. \ 

Complaint, Page 112 of 148 
1 

2 

3 

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 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05118/15 Page 113 of 148 

FOR 

By: 

Lynette . akker (KS ar # 22104)* 

Assistant Attorney General 

Office of Attorney General Derek Sclunidt 

120 S.W. lOth Avenue, 2nd Floor 

Topeka, Kansas 66612-1597 

lynette.bakker@ag.ks.gov 

Telephone: (785) 296-3751 

• Application for pro hac vice pending 

Attorney for P /aintiff State of Kansas 

Signed fn~ 5 , 2015 

FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. \ 

Complaint, Page 113 of 148 
1 

2 

3 

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 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05/18/15 Page 114 of 148 

FOR THE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY 

By: ~ Leah ooper Boggs (KY 

Assistant Attorney General 

Office of Attorney General Jack Conway 

1024 Capital Center Drive 

Suite 200 

Frankfort, Kentucky 4060 1 

Leah.boggs@ky .gov 

Telephone: (502) 696-5389 

*Application for pro hac vice pending 

Attorney for Plaintiff State of Kentucky 

Signed ~'j '201 5 

FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. \ 

Complaint, Page 114 of 148 
l 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

1 

8 

9 

10 

ll 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

1 8 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05118/15 Page 115 of 148 

Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70802 

gitsc@ag.state.la.us 

Telephone: (225) 326-6400 

*Application for pro hac vice pending 

Attorney for Plaintiff State of Louisiana 

Signed )'-\_"":) :=t , 201S 

FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. \ 

Complaint, Page 115 of 148 
1 

2 

3 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

ll 

12 

13 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05/18/15 Page 116 of 148 

FOR THE STATE OF MAINE 

Janet T. Mills 

Maine Attorney General 

By: 

Carolyn A. Silsby ~ Bar# 3030)* 

Assistant Attorney General 

Office of the Maine Attorney General 

Burton Cross State Office Building 

111 Sewall Street, 6th Floor 

Augusta, Maine 04330 

Carolyn.silsby@maine. gov 

Telephone: (207) 626-8829 

• Application for pro hac vice pending 

Attorney for Plaintiff State of Maine 

Signed QFz.z_ ,2015 

FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. \ 

Complaint, Page 116 of 148 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

1 3 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05118/15 Page 117 of 148 

By: 

C. Bea c Nunez-Bellamy* 

Assistant Attorney General 

Office of Attorney General Brian E. Frosh 

200 St.. Paul Place 

Baltimore, MD 21202 

bnunezbellamy@oag.state.md.us 

Telephone: (410) 576-6300 

• Application for pro hac vice pending 

Attorney for Plaintiff State of Maryland and 

Secretary of State John Wobensmith 

Signed May 14,2015 

FTC, SO States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. \ 

Complaint, Page 117 of 148 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

?.8 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05118/15 Page 118 of 148 

FOR THE COMMONWEALTH OF 

MASSACHUSETTS 

MAURA HEALEY, ATTORNEY GENERAL 

Bar# 686635)* 

Assistant Attorney General 

Office of Attorney General Maura Healey 

One Ash burton Place 

Boston, Massachusetts 02108 

brett.blank@state.ma. us 

Telephone: (617) 727-2200 

*Application for pro hac vice pending 

Attorney for Plaintiff Commonwealth of Massachusetts 

Signed May 8, 201 5 

FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. \ 

Complaint, Page 118 of 148 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

1 2 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05118/15 Page 119 of 148 

Assistant Attorney General 

Office of Attorney General Bill Schuette 

Corporate Oversight Division 

P.O. Box 30755 

Lansing, MI 48909 

bloomfieldw@michigan.gov 

Telephone: (517) 373-1160 

*Application for pro hac vice pending 

Attorney for Plftiff State of Michigan 

Signed IYfti..y , 2015 

FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. \ 

Complaint, Page 119 of 148 
1 

2 

3 

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 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05/18/15 Page 120 of 148 

By. Fo~~d&l r .. ELITI<REMEJ\iAK(MN Bar# 0390461)* 

Assistant Attorney General 

Office of Attorney General Lori Swanson 

445 Minnesota Street, Suite 1200 

St. Paul, MN 55101-2130 

elizabeth.kremenak@ag.state.mn.us 

Telephone: (651) 757-1423 

*Application for pro hac vice pending 

Attorney ntiff State of Minnesota 

Signed 'T , 2015 

FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. \ 

Complaint, Page 120 of 148 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

B 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05/18/15 Page 121 of 148 

FOR 

By: -

Tanya her (MS Bar #99405)* 

Assistant Secretary of State/Charities Division 

Office of Secretary of State Delbert Hosemann 

Post Office Box 136 

Jackso~ Mississippi 39205-0136 

Tanya.webber@sos.ms.gov 

Telephone: (601) 359-6742 

*Application for pro hac vice pending 

Attorney for Plaintiff State of Mississippi 

Signed ·Ari\ 2~ • 2015 

FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. \ 

Complaint, Page 121 of 148 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05118/15 Page 122 of 148 

FOR THE STATE OF MISSOURI 

CHRIS KOSTER Amk 

ROBERT E. CARLSON, # 54602 

Assistant Attorney General 

P.O. Box 861 

St. Louis, MO 63188 

(314) 340-6816 

Fax: (314) 340-7957 

bob.carlson@ago.mo.gov 

• Application for pro hac vice pending 

Attorney for Plaintiff State of Missouri 

Signed ~ I ( ,201l 

FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. \ 

Complaint, Page 122 of 148 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

1 3 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

2 5 

26 

27 

28 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05118/15 Page 123 of 148 

FOR THE STATE OF MONTANA 

By: Kd1!;} ilk~ Q 

TIMOTHY C. FOX 

Montana Attorney General 

E. EDWIN ECK. MTBarNo. 414* 

Deputy Attorney General 

KELLEY L. HUBBARD, MT Bar No. 9604* 

Assistant Attorney General 

Montana Attorney General's Office 

P. 0 . Box 200151 

Helena, MT 59620-0151 

EdEck@mt.gov 

KHubbard@mt.gov 

Telephone: (406) 444-2026 

• Application for pro hac vice pending 

Allorneys for Plaintiff State of Montana 

Signed May 5, 2015 

FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. \ 

Complaint, Page 123 of 148 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

1 0 

11 

12 

13 

1 4 

1 5 

16 

17 

18 

1 9 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

2 6 

27 

28 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05/18/15 Page 124 of 148 

FOR THE STATE OF NEBRASKA 

Daniel 

By: 

Russell 

A.dc22

(NE Bar 

~ 

# 25302)* 

Assistant Attorney General 

Office of Attorney General Douglas I . Peterson 

2115 State Capitol 

PO Box 98920 

Lincoln, Nebraska 68509 

daniel.russell@nebraska.gov 

Telephone: (402) 471-1279 

"'Application for pro hac vice pending 

Attorney for Plaintiff State of Nebraska 

Signed 11 .. 1 c, • 2015 

FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. \ 

Complaint, Page 124 of 148 
1 

2 

3 

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 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05118/15 Page 125 of 148 

FORTHESTATE OFNEVADA 

By:~~~ OANNGffiBS 

NV Bar # 005324 

ChiefMultistate Counsel 

Office of Attorney General Adam Paul Laxalt 

10791 W. Twain Avenue, Suite 100 

Las Vegas, Nevada 89135 

jgibbs@ag.nv.gov 

Telephone: (702) 486-3789 

*Application for pro hac vice pending 

Attorney for Plaintiff State of Nevada 

Signed ~ ,3() '2015 

FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. \ 

Complaint, Page 125 of 148 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

ll 

12 

1 3 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

2 3 

2 4 

2 5 

2 6 

2 7 

2 8 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05/18/15 Page 126 of 148 

HAMPSIDRE 

By: 

Tho l Donovan (NH Bar #664)* 

Directo of Charitable Trusts 

Joseph A. Foster, Attorney General 

33 Capitol Street 

Concord, NH 03301 

· tom.donovan@doj.nh.gov 

Telephone: (603) 271-1288 

• Application for pro hac vice pending 

Attorney for Plaintiff State of New Hampshire 

Signed May g , 2015 

FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. \ 

Complaint, ~ 126 of 148 
1 

2 

3 

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 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05/18/15 Page 127 of 148 

FOR THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY 

JOHN J. HOFFMAN 

ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW JERSEY 

By: _..~-"-k~· ---~:.___ ' .:::::;_;:;_ _ __ _ Erin M. Greene (NJ Bar #0 1451201 0) * 

Deputy Attorney General 

State of New Jersey 

Office of Attorney General 

Department of Law and Public Safety 

Division of Law 

124 Halsey Street - 5th Floor 

P.O. Box 45029 

Newark, New Jersey 07101 

erin.greene@dol.lps.state.nj. us 

Telephone: (973) 648-4846 

*Application for pro hac vice pending 

Attorney for Plaintiff State of New Jersey 

Signed \ C\j \ '2015 

FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. \ 

Complaint, Page 127 of 148 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

1 9 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05/18115 Page 128 of 148 

FOR TH ......., J- I """"' '"'"""" 

By: 

Elizabeth Korsmo (NM Bar # 8989)* 

Assistant Attorney General 

Office of Attorney General Hector Balderas 

408 Galisteo St. 

Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501 

ekorsmo@nmag.gov 

Telephone: (505) 827-6000 

*Application for pro hac vice pending 

Attorney for P)ai?!iJf State of New Mexico 

Signed ~ S , 2015 

FfC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. \ 

Complaint, Page 128 of 148 
1 

2 

3 

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 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05118/15 Page 129 of 148 

FOR THESTATEOFNEWYORK 

ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN 

Attorney General of the State of New York 

Yael 

By:\~ FuchS Baf#4S42684)* 

Assistant Attorney General 

Charities Bureau 

120 Broadway, 3nt Floor 

New York, New York 10271 

Telephone: (212) 416-8401 

yael.fuchs@ag.ny.gov 

*Application for pro hac vice pending 

Attorney for Plaintiff State of New York 

Signed Ha..... 6 . 201s 

( 

FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. \ 

Complaint, Page 129 of 148 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

1 2 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

1 8 

19 

20 

21 

22 

2 3 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05118/15 Page 130 of 148 

FOR TIIESTA 

By: 

Creecy Johnson ar #32619Y1

' 

Special Deputy .A:ttomey General 

Office of Attorney General Roy Cooper 

9001 Mail Service Center 

Raleigh, NC 27699 

ccjohnson@ncdoj .gov 

Telephone: (919) 716-6000 

*Application for pro hac vice pending 

Attorney for P aintiff State of North Carolina 

Signed 7 2015 

By: 

Lareena . hillips (N ar #3685 * 

Assistant Attorney General 

Counsel for North Carolina Secretary of State 

Elaine F. Marshall 

9001 Mail Service Center 

Raleigh, NC 27699 

lphillips@ncdoj. gov 

Telephone: (919) 716-6610 

• Application for pro hac vice pending 

Attorney for Plaintiff State ofNorth Carolina 

Signed ~ 7 , 2015 

FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. \ 

Complaint, Page 130 of 148 

I 

I 

l 

l 
1 

2 

3 

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 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05118/15 Page 131 of 148 

Office of Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem 

Consumer Protection Division 

Gateway Professional Center 

1050 E. Interstate Ave Ste 200 

Bismarck, ND 58503-5574 

mcthompson@nd.gov 

Telephone: (701) 328-5570 

*Application for pro hac vice pending 

Attorney for Plaintiff State o[North Dakota 

Signed April 23, 2015 

FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. \ 

Complaint, Page 131 of 148 
1 

2 

3 

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 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05118/15 Page 132 of 148 

FOR 

By: 

Yvonne 

Principal ssistant Attorney General 

Office of Attorney General Mike De Wine 

Charitable Law Section 

150 E. Gay St., 23~ floor 

Columbus, Ohio 43215 

yvonne.tertel@ohioattomeygeneral.gov 

Telephone: (614) 466-3181 

"'Application for pro hac vice pending 

Attorney for Plaintiff State of Ohio 

Signed ~ k ,2015 

FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. \ 

Complaint, Page 132 of 148 
1 

2 

3 

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 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05118/15 Page 133 of 148 

FORTHESTATEOFOKLAHOMA 

E. SCOTT PRUITT 

OKLAHOMA ATTORNEY GENERAL 

Malisa McPherson (OK Bar #32070)• 

Assistant Attorney General 

313 N.E. 21st Street 

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105 

Telephone: ( 405) 521-6926 

Facsimile: (405) 522-0085 

Malisa.McPherson@oag.ok.gov 

• Application for pro hac vice pending 

Attorney for Plaintiff State of Oklahoma 

Signed May 12,2015 

FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. \ 

Complaint, Page 133 of 148 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

1 7 

1 8 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

2 7. 

28 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05/18/15 Page 134 of 148 • • •• I • • • .. • 

FORT 

Office of Attorney General Ellen F. Rosenblwn 

Oregon De~artment of Justice 

1515 SW 5 Ave., #410 

Portland, Oregon 97201 

Heather.l.weigler@state.or.us 

Telephone: (971) 673-1910 

• Application for pro hac vice pending 

Attorney for Plaintiff State of Oregon 

Signed M ~ ') . 2015 

FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. \ 

Complaint, Page 134 of 148 
Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05/18/15 Page 135 of 148 

1 FOR TIIE COMMONWEALTH OF 

PE s~. " I .. ..L. ~ By: ~~~/ 

Michaei:Foerster (PAB~# 

2 

3 

~--------_, -------------------- ~·~~u~~~n~ 4 Office of Attorney General Kathleen Kane 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

14th Floor 

Strawberry Square 

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 

m.foerster@attomeygeneral.gov 

Telephone: (717) 783-6084 

• Application for pro hac vice pending 

Attome~ ~~r ~aintiffState of Pennsylvania 

Signed VU{~ I . 3' , 2015 

FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. \ 

Complaint, Page 135 of 148 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

a 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05118/15 Page 136 of 148 

FOR 

By: 

G evieve M. Martin (Rl B 

ssistant Attorney General 

Office of Attorney General Peter Kilmartin 

150 South Main Street 

Providence, Rhode Island 02903 

gmartin@riag.ri.gov 

Telephone: (401) 274-4400 x2300 

• Application for pro hac vice pending 

Attorney for P~l)intiff State of Rhode Island 

Signed !""!1 2015 

FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. \ 

Complaint, Page 136 of 148 
_ _ _ ___ __!: Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05/18115 Page 137 of 148 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

2 6 

27 

28 

~~RT~STATE~F SOUT~CAROLINA 

Shannon . Wiley (SC Bar # 69806)* 

Deputy General Counsel 

Office of Secretary of State Mark Hammond 

1205 Pendleton St., Suite 525 

Columbia, South Carolina 29201 

swiley@sos.sc.gov 

Telephone: (803) 734-0246 

*Application for pro hac vice pending 

Attorney for Plaintiff State of South Carolina 

Signed {\A. ~l 1 , 2015 

FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. \ 

Complaint, Page 137 of 148 
1 

2 

3 

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 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05/18/15 Page 138 of 148 

Phil. Carlson@state.sd. us 

Telephone: (605) 773-3215 

• Application for pro hac vice pending 

Attorney tbr Plaintiff State of South Dakota 

Signed 1!/,z!'f/ 2-f __ , 201 5 

FTC. 50 States. and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. \ 

Complaint. Page 138 of 148 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

1 1 

1 2 

1 3 

14 

1 5 

1 6 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

2 2 

23 

24 

25 

2 6 

2 7 

2 8 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05/18/15 Page 139 of 148 

FOR STATE OF TENNESSEE 

By: /.A.. . [Janet . Kleinfelter] (TN Bar # 13889)• 

Deputy Attorney General 

Office of Attorney General Herbert H. Slatery Ill 

P.O. Box 20207 

Nashville, Tennessee 3 7202 

Janet.kleinfelter@ag.tn.gov 

Telephone: (615) 741-7403 

• Application for pro hac vice pending 

Attorney for Plaintiff State of Tennessee 

Signed /U""(' 5 , 2015 

FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. \ 

Complaint, Page 139 of 148 
1 

2 

3 

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 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05/18/15 Page 140 of 148 

FOR THE STATE OF TEXAS 

KEN PAXTON 

Attorney General of Texas 

CHARLES E. ROY 

First Assistant Attorney General of Texas 

JAMES E. DAVIS 

Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Civil 

Litigation 

TOMMY PRUD'HOMME 

:::•f. ~u:M;~ JE~rNo 24066685)* Assistant Attorney General 

COREY D. KINTZER (TX Bar No. 24046219) 

Assistant Attorney General 

Office of Attorney General Ken Paxton 

300 West 15th Street 

Austin, Texas 78701 

Jennifer .Roscetti@texasattorneygeneral.gov 

Telephone: 512-475-4673 

• Application for pro hac vice pending 

Attorney for Plaintiff State of Texas 

Signed rYlWj ~ , 20 15 

FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. \ 

Complaint, Page 140 of 148 
Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05118/15 Page 141 of 148 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

1 0 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

19 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

29 

FOR THE STA'f~eJF "YJ 

By: <--...-~ Jeffrey Buckner (UT B 4546)* 

Assistant Attorney General 

Office of Attorney General Sean Reyes 

Commercial Enforcement Division 

160 E. 300 South, Fifth Floor 

P. 0 . Box 140872 

Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-0872 

Jbuckner@utah.gov 

Telephone: (801) 366-0105 

• Application for pro hac vice pending 

Attorney for Plaintiff State of Utah 

. 1 

Stgned ~ !,? '2015 

FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. \ 

Complaint, Page 141 of 148 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

2 7 

28 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05/18/15 Page 142 of 148 

FOR THE STATE OF VERMONT 

WILLIAM H. SORRELL 

ATTORNEY~ 

By· c<J ToddW.Dal~ Assistant Attorney General 

Office of Attorney General 

109 State St. 

Montpelier, Vermont 05609 

Todd.Daloz@state. vt. us 

Telephone: (802) 828-4605 

*Application for pro hac vice pending 

Attorney for PlaintiffState of Vermont 

Signed ~ 7~2015 

FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. \ 

Complaint, Page 142 of 148 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

ll 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05/18/15 Page 143 of 148 

FOR THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 

By: ;&/ d__,dk.~ · Richard S. Schweiker, Jr. (VA Ba~ iA18)* 

Senior Assistant Attorney General 

Office of Attorney General Mark R. Herring 

Consumer Protection Section 

900 East Main Street 

Richmond, Virginia 23219 

rschweiker@oag.state. va.us 

Telephone: (804) 786-5643 

*Application for pro hac vice pending 

Attorney for Plaintiff State of Virginia 

Signed Ar.-: I 1.,7 , 2015 

FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. \ 

Complaint, Page 143 of 148 
1 

2 

3 

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 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05/18/15 Page 144 of 148 

FOR TilE STATE 0 WASHINGTON 

By: 

Sarah Shifley (W A Bar # 3 3 

Assistant Attorney General 

Office of Attorney General Bob 

800 Fifth Ave, Ste. 2000 

Seattle, W A 98104 

sarah.shifley@atg.wagov 

Telephone: (206) 389-3974 

*Application for pro hac vice pending 

Attorney for Plaintiff State of Washington 

Signed <"1~ 1 21 , 2015 

FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. 

Complaint, Page 144 of 148 
1 

2 

3 

4 

s 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05/18115 Page 145 of 148 

FOR THE/»'9'~9}~! VIRGINIA 

ByMichae :~ ~t""N1""."""M..,.o ~.~so~~(~~-Sii9:::---8-2-2)*

Assistant Attorney General 

Office of Attorney General Patrick Morrisey 

812 Quarrier Street, 1 st Floor 

Charleston, West Virginia 25301 

P.O. Box 1789 

Charleston, West Virginia 25326 

Matt.MMorrison@wvago.gov 

Telephone: (304) 558-8986 

*Application for pro hac vice pending 

Attorney fo aintiff State of West Virginia 

Signed , 2015 

Lacke Bar # 1 0267)* 

t Attorney General 

Couns for Secretary of State Natalie E. Tennant 

Office of Attorney General Patrick Morrisey 

269 Aikens Center 

Martinsburg, West Virginia 25404 

Laurel.K.Lackey@wvago.gov 

Telephone: (304) 267-0239 

*Application for pro hac vice pending 

Attorney for Plaintiff State of West Virginia 

Signed 1/pri I , W , 2015 

FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. \ 

Complaint, Page 145 of 148 
1 

2 

3 

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 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05/18/15 Page 146 of 148 

FOR THE STATE OF WISCONSIN 

Assistant Attorney General 

Wisconsin State Bar no. 1030932* 

Wisconsin Department of Justice 

Post Office Box 7857 

Madison, Wisconsin 53707~ 7857 

(608) 267-2222 

(608) 267-8906 (Fax) 

sullivanfx@doj .state. wi. us 

• Application for pro hac vice pending 

FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. \ 

Complaint, Page 146 of 148 
1 

2 

3 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

2 4 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05/18/15 Page 147 of 148 

FOR THE STATE OF WYOMING 

By: 

Clyde W. c ins Bar# 6-3549)* 

Senior Ass1stant Attorney General 

Office of Attorney General Peter K. Michael 

123 State Capitol 

Cheyenne, WY 82002 

clyde.hutchins@wyo.gov 

Telephone: (307) 777-7847 

*Application for pro hac vice pending 

Attorney for Plaintiff State of Wyoming 

Signed May .i_, 2015 

FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer Fund of America, Inc., et al. \ 

Complaint, Page 147 of 148 
1 

2 

3 

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 

Case 2:15-cv-00884-NVW Document 7 Filed 05118/15 Page 148 of 148 

FOR THE DISTRICI' OF COLUMBIA 

KARLA. RACINE 

Attorney General for the District of Columbia 

ELIZABETH SARAH GERE 

Acting Deputy Attorney General 

Public Interest Division 

BENNETI RUSHKOFF 

Chief, Public Advocacy Section 

ALDWELL (DC Bar# 979680)• 

Assis Attorney General 

Office of Attorney General Karl A. Racine 

441 Fourth Street, N.W., Suite# 650-S 

Washingto~ D.C. 20001 

brian.caldwell@dc.&ov 

Telephone: (202) 727-6211 

• Application for pro hac vice pending 

Attorney for Plaintiff District of Columbia 

Signed: May 7, 2015 

FTC, 50 States, and D.C. v. Cancer FWld of America, Inc., et al. \ 

Complaint, Page 148 of 148