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 8:20-cv-01431-JLS-KES Document 73 Filed 05/19/21 Page 1 of 21 Page ID #:1118 

KATHERINE E. JOHNSON, admitted pro hac vice 

kjohnson3@ftc.gov 

KRISTY M. TILLMAN, admitted pro hac vice 

ktillman@ftc.gov 

Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, CC-9528 

Washington, DC 20580 

Tel: (202) 326-2185 (Johnson); (202) 326-3025 (Tillman) 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

Local Counsel 

DELILAH VINZON 

Cal. Bar No. 222681; dvinzon@ftc.gov 

Federal Trade Commission 

10990 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 400 

Los Angeles, CA 90024 

Tel: (310) 824-4300; Fax: (310) 824-4380 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, ) 

Plaintiff, 

) 

) Case No. 8:20-cv-01431-JLS-KES 

) 

v. 

QYK BRANDS LLC d/b/a Glowyy, 

DRJSNATURAL LLC, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 

FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION 

AND OTHER EQUITABLE 

RELIEF 

) 

EASII, INC., ) 

) 

THEO PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ) 

) 

RAKESH TAMMABATTULA, ) 

individually and as an officer of QYK ) 

BRANDS LLC, DRJSNATURAL LLC, ) 

EASII, INC, and THEO ) 

PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., and ) 

JACQUELINE THAO NGUYEN, 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 8:20-cv-01431-JLS-KES Document 73 Filed 05/19/21 Page 2 of 21 Page ID #:1119 

individually and as an officer of QYK 

BRANDS LLC , DRJSNATURAL LLC, 

and THEO PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., 

Defendants. 

Plaintiff, the Federal trade Commission (“FTC”) for its First Amended 

Complaint alleges: 

1. The FTC brings this action under Sections 13(b) and 19 of the Federal 

Trade Commission Act (“FTC Act”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 53(b) and 57b, and the FTC’s 

Trade Regulation Rule Concerning the Sale of Mail, Internet, or Telephone Order 

Merchandise (“MITOR” or the “Rule”), 16 C.F.R. Part 435, to obtain 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 for Defendants’ acts or practices in violation of Sections 5(a) and 

12 of the FTC act, 15 U.S.C. §45 (a) and 52, and in violation of MITOR, 16 C.F.R. 

Part 435. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

2. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§§ 1331, 1337(a) and 1345. 

3. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) (1-2), and 

15 U.S.C. § 53(b). 

PLAINTIFF 

4. The FTC is an independent agency of the United States Government 

created by statute. 15 U.S.C. §§ 41-58. The FTC enforces Section 5 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 MITOR, which requires mail, 

Internet, or telephone-based sellers to have a reasonable basis for advertised 

shipment times, and, when sellers cannot meet promised shipment times or ship 

-2-
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 8:20-cv-01431-JLS-KES Document 73 Filed 05/19/21 Page 3 of 21 Page ID #:1120 

within 30 days, to provide buyers with the option to consent to a delay in shipment 

or to cancel an order and receive a prompt refund, and to deem an order cancelled 

and make a prompt refund to buyers under certain circumstances. 

5. The FTC is authorized to initiate federal district court proceedings, by 

its own attorneys, to enjoin violations of the FTC Act and MITOR, and to secure 

such 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), 57b, and 16 C.F.R. Part 

435. 

DEFENDANTS 

6. Defendant QYK Brands LLC (“QYK” or “Glowyy”) is a California 

Limited Liability Company, with its principal place of business located at 

, Santa Ana, California. QYK does business as Glowyy 

through the website glowyy.com and owns the trademark for Dr. J’s Natural. QYK 

transacts or has transacted business in this District and throughout the United 

States. At all times material to this Complaint, acting alone or in concert with 

others, or as a part of the common enterprise described in Paragraph 13, QYK has 

advertised, marketed, or sold merchandise to consumers throughout the United 

States. 

7. DRJSNATURAL LLC (“Dr. J’s Natural”) is a California Limited 

Liability Company, with its principal place of business located at 10517 Garden 

Grove Boulevard, Anaheim, California. Dr. J’s Natural transacts or has transacted 

business in this District and throughout the United States. At all times material to 

this Complaint, acting alone, or in concert with others, or as part of the common 

enterprise described in Paragraph 13, Dr. J’s Natural has advertised, marketed, or 

sold merchandise to consumers throughout the United States. 

8. Theo Pharmaceuticals, Inc. d/b/a Theo Pharmacy (“Theo Pharmacy”) 

is a California Corporation. Its purported principal place of business is 13701 

-3-
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 8:20-cv-01431-JLS-KES Document 73 Filed 05/19/21 Page 4 of 21 Page ID #:1121 

Beach Boulevard, Suite A2, Westminster, California, but it has also identified 

10517 Garden Grove Boulevard, Anaheim, California as its location. Theo 

Pharmacy transacts or has transacted business in this District and throughout the 

United States. At all times material to this Complaint, acting alone or in concert 

with others, or as a part of the common enterprise described in Paragraph 13, Theo 

Pharmacy has advertised, marketed, or sold merchandise to consumers throughout 

the United States. 

9. EASII, Inc. (“EASII”) is a Delaware corporation, with its principal 

place of business at , Santa Ana, California. EASII 

transacts or has transacted business in this District and throughout the United 

States. At all times material to this Complaint, acting alone, or in concert with 

others, or as part of the common enterprise described in Paragraph 13, EASII has 

advertised, marketed, or sold merchandise to consumers throughout the United 

States. 

10. Defendant Rakesh Tammabattula (“Tammabattula”) is the Chief 

Executive Officer (“CEO”) of QYK, the CEO of EASII, and the owner and CEO 

of Theo Pharmacy. Tammabattula is a 50% controlling partner of Dr. J’s Natural. 

At all times material to this Complaint, acting alone or in concert with others, 

Tammabattula has formulated, directed, controlled, had the authority to control, or 

participated in the acts and practices of QYK, EASII, Theo Pharmacy, and Dr. J’s 

Natural, including the acts and practices set forth in this Complaint. Defendant 

Tammabattula resides in this District and, in connection with the matters alleged 

herein, transacts or has transacted business in this District and throughout the 

United States. 

11. Defendant Jacqueline Thao Nguyen, who works under the moniker 

“Dr. J,” is married to Rakesh Tammabattula, and is the Chief Operating Officer 

(“COO”) of QYK, the founder and CEO of Dr. J’s Natural, and the incorporator of 

Theo Pharmacy. At all times material to this Complaint, acting alone or in concert 

-4-
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 8:20-cv-01431-JLS-KES Document 73 Filed 05/19/21 Page 5 of 21 Page ID #:1122 

with others, Dr. J has formulated, directed, controlled, had the authority to control, 

or participated in the acts and practices of QYK, Dr. J’s Natural, and Theo 

Pharmacy, including the acts and practices set forth in this Complaint. Defendant 

Dr. J resides in this District and, in connection with the matters alleged herein, 

transacts or has transacted business in this District and throughout the United 

States. 

COMMERCE 

12. 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. 

COMMON ENTERPRISE 

13. Defendants QYK, EASII, Dr. J’s Natural, and Theo Pharmacy (the 

“Corporate Defendants”) have operated as a common enterprise while engaging in 

the deceptive and unlawful acts and practices alleged below. The Corporate 

Defendants have conducted the business practices described below through 

interrelated companies that share common ownership, officers, employees, and 

office locations, and that routinely commingle funds. 

14. The Corporate Defendants operate under common control and 

share officers. The Corporate Defendants are all owned and operated by 

Tammabattula, Dr. J, or both. Tammabattula formed QYK and is the CEO; Dr. J is 

the COO of QYK. EASII as a subsidiary of QYK. Until March 2020, when Dr. J 

formally organized Dr. J’s Natural as a California LLC, Dr. J’s Natural operated as 

a “dba” of QYK. Currently, Tammabattula and Dr. J are each 50% controlling 

officers of Dr. J’s Natural. Tammabattula has signatory authority for the EASII, 

QYK, and Theo Pharmacy corporate bank accounts. Dr. J originally incorporated 

Theo Pharmacy, but corporate filings now list Tammabattula as the owner and 

controlling officer. 

-5-
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 8:20-cv-01431-JLS-KES Document 73 Filed 05/19/21 Page 6 of 21 Page ID #:1123 

15. The Corporate Defendants share employees. QYK’s employees 

are also paid employees of EASII and Theo Pharmacy. Dr. J and Tammabattula 

both receive payments to their personal accounts from all three corporate bank 

accounts. 

16. The Corporate Defendants operate out of the same physical 

location and share mailing addresses. All of the Corporate Defendants have 

used the same two addresses: 

a. 10517 Garden Grove Boulevard, Anaheim, California. Dr. J’s 

Natural listed this address on its corporate formation documents 

filed in March 2020. QYK stored and shipped hand sanitizer from 

this address to consumers during the relevant time period. 

Additionally, EASII listed this as its mailing address on a 

December 1, 2020 trademark application. Checks issued by Theo 

it is the address listed on Tammabattula and Dr. J’s joint bank 

account statements. QYK provided this address on its 2019 tax 

return and its corporate formation documents; it also is the address 

listed on QYK’s, EASII’s, and Theo Pharmacy’s bank account 

statements. 

Tammabattula and Dr. J resided at this address until July 2020, and 

Pharmacy have the Garden Grove address printed on them. 

b. , Santa Ana, California. 

17. The Corporate Defendants conduct business through interrelated 

companies. In January 2020, EASII purchased the domain name for glowyy.com. 

It paid for the Google advertising campaign that disseminated deceptive ads to 

consumers, as described below in Paragraphs 24-27. Throughout November and 

December 2020, EASII received shipments of various personal protective 

equipment (“PPE”) on behalf of QYK. Theo Pharmacy pays the rent for the 

-6-
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 8:20-cv-01431-JLS-KES Document 73 Filed 05/19/21 Page 7 of 21 Page ID #:1124 

physical address of QYK and Dr. J’s Natural, and paid substantial amounts in 

support of QYK’s hand sanitizer production in April 2020. 

18. The Corporate Defendants commingle funds. The Corporate 

Defendants receive revenues in the EASII, Theo Pharmacy, and QYK bank 

accounts. Corporate Defendants then transfer funds among these three corporate 

accounts or to other accounts. Throughout the relevant period, Corporate 

Defendants have moved hundreds of thousands of dollars among their corporate 

accounts and distributed significant amounts to Tammabattula and Dr. J’s personal 

joint account and Tammabattula’s credit card. 

19. Because the Corporate Defendants have operated as a common 

enterprise, each is liable for the acts and practices alleged below. 

DEFENDANTS’ BUSINESS ACTIVITIES 

20. Tammabattula and Dr. J, through the Corporate Defendants 

(collectively, “Defendants”), own multiple brands and companies that sell skin 

care, health, beauty, personal care, and wellness products. The Defendants 

promote and sell products on qyk.us, qyksonic.com, glowyy.com, and 

drjsnatural.com. 

21. Beginning on or around March 3, 2020, the Defendants offered Dr. J’s 

Natural (and other branded) hand sanitizer through the website glowyy.com. The 

Defendants market four sizes of Dr. J’s Natural hand sanitizer: a 3.3 oz bottle for 

$5.99; a 4.0 oz bottle for $5.99; a 10 oz bottle for $9.99; and a 16 oz bottle for 

$12.99. The Defendants also offer PPE (such as face masks and shields), surface 

wipes, and disinfectants. 

The Defendants’ Shipment Claims 

22. During the early weeks of the pandemic quarantine in the United 

States, obtaining hand sanitizer as quickly as possible was paramount for many 

consumers; this high demand made products difficult to find. 

-7-
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 8:20-cv-01431-JLS-KES Document 73 Filed 05/19/21 Page 8 of 21 Page ID #:1125 

23. In order to capitalize on this demand, beginning in early March 2020, 

the Defendants started advertising they had hand sanitizer “In Stock” and “Ships 

Today.” 

24. The Defendants disseminated these advertisements on Instagram and 

through a Google ad words campaign, which provided ads in response to key word 

web searches for “human coronavirus,” “buy hand sanitizer” and “hand sanitizer in 

stock.” 

25. For example, the following appeared in response to a Google search 

on or about March 12, 2020: 

26. The Defendants’ promises that hand sanitizer “Ships Today” were 

false. 

27. For example, one consumer ordered from glowyy.com on March 12, 

2020 following a Google search for hand sanitizer, which led to an advertisement 

from the Defendants representing that glowyy.com had “Hand Sanitizers in Stock” 

and that the order would ship the same day it was purchased. 

28. Despite this promise, the consumer’s order did not ship until April 12, 

2020. Moreover, when the consumer finally received her order on April 16, 2020, 

the sanitizer she received was a different brand and smaller size than she had 

ordered. 

29. Beginning in April through May 2020, the Defendants’ website stated 

that shipment of hand sanitizer orders would be within seven (7) days. For 

-8-
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 8:20-cv-01431-JLS-KES Document 73 Filed 05/19/21 Page 9 of 21 Page ID #:1126 

example, on April 13, 2020, glowyy.com stated that customers should expect 

processing times of five to seven (5 to 7) days but indicated that orders would ship 

as soon as they were processed. Similarly, on April 19, 2020, glowyy.com stated 

that orders of hand sanitizer placed that day would ship by April 22, i.e. within 

three (3) days. And on May 15, glowyy.com stated that the processing time for 

hand sanitizer was three to seven (3 to 7) days. The following screenshots are 

from April 13, 19, and May 15, 2020, respectively: 

a. Glowyy Outbreak Essentials webpage dated April 13, 2020: 

b. Glowyy 10 oz Hand Sanitizer Gel webpage dated April 19, 2020: 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 8:20-cv-01431-JLS-KES Document 73 Filed 05/19/21 Page 10 of 21 Page ID #:1127 

c. Glowyy Advanced Formula Hand Sanitizer webpage dated May 15, 2020: 

30. However, while the above advertisements were available, consumers 

still reported receiving online ads stating that orders would be shipped in less time. 

For example, one consumer reports receiving an online advertisement promising a 

one to two (1 to 2) day shipment time on April 19, 2020. 

31. The Defendants’ promises of shipment times of seven days or less 

were false. In numerous instances, the Defendants generated a United States 

Postal Services (“USPS”) shipping label and tracking number within one day, but 

waited weeks or months to deliver the ordered products to the post office for 

shipping. 

32. For example, a consumer placed an order for eight (8) bottles of hand 

sanitizer on April 5, 2020. She received an email confirmation from Glowyy that 

same day which included a tracking number, and stated, “Your order is on the 

way.” 

-10-
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 8:20-cv-01431-JLS-KES Document 73 Filed 05/19/21 Page 11 of 21 Page ID #:1128 

33. Despite ongoing inquiries and communications from the consumer, 

the Defendants had not shipped the order by May 5, 2020, when she asked Glowyy 

to cancel the order and issue a refund. Glowyy failed to provide a refund. 

34. For hand sanitizer purchased between approximately mid-March and 

the end of April, numerous consumers reported their orders did not arrive at the 

mail carrier’s facility and ultimately were not shipped until weeks or months after 

their purchase. 

35. In numerous instances, the Defendants did not ship one or more pieces 

of ordered merchandise, including hand sanitizer, within the timeframes 

represented in their advertisements and on their websites. 

36. In numerous instances, when the Defendants failed to ship one or 

more pieces of ordered merchandise, including hand sanitizer, within stated time 

frames, the Defendants did not offer consumers the opportunity to consent to a 

delay in shipping or to cancel their orders and receive refunds. 

The Defendants’ Refusal to Issue Prompt Refunds and Cancel Orders 

37. Numerous consumers complained to QYK about shipping delays via 

emails to the company and on its social media web pages. 

38. In numerous instances, representatives from QYK told consumers 

ordered merchandise would ship soon, but did not offer the consumer the option of 

canceling and receiving a refund or of consenting to an indefinite delay, or any 

delay. 

39. After not receiving their merchandise, or after complaining and being 

informed of the delay, many consumers attempted to cancel their orders and 

requested refunds. 

40. In most instances, QYK refused, if it responded at all. Instead, the 

Defendants informed consumers they could not issue a refund once the shipping 

label had been created. 

-11-
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 8:20-cv-01431-JLS-KES Document 73 Filed 05/19/21 Page 12 of 21 Page ID #:1129 

41. In some instances, the Defendants informed consumers the only way 

to get a refund was to refuse delivery of the shipment, which would require the 

consumers to personally intercept the mail carrier at the time of delivery. 

42. The Defendants shipped merchandise to consumers even after the 

consumers had cancelled the order and demanded a refund. 

43. In numerous instances, when the Defendants failed to ship one or 

more pieces of ordered merchandise, including hand sanitizer, within stated time 

frames, and also failed to offer consumers the required opportunity to either 

consent to a delay in shipping or to cancel their orders and receive refunds, the 

Defendants did not deem the orders cancelled and issue refunds. 

44. Dozens of consumers complained about these practices to QYK, 

Defendant Dr. J, online sites like Trustpilot.com, and the FTC, particularly during 

the initial months of the COVID-19 pandemic. 

The Individuals’ Knowledge 

45. In an April 2, 2020 YouTube video titled “Your Order Updates for Dr. 

J’s Natural Hand Sanitizer/Is Glowyy Legit?” Dr. J publicly addressed the 

complaints and concerns about the delays in shipping. 

46. She admitted some consumers had been waiting more than seven days 

due to “uncertainty on manufacturing side,” [sic] and that it had been “difficult to 

source the bottle or the pump.” 

47. On April 3, 2020, Tammabattula stated that QYK “saw the surge in 

searches for hand sanitizer [in early March]. That’s when we started ramping up 

our production.” 

48. A few days later Tammabattula publicly stated that the company only 

had enough raw ingredients for about two weeks’ worth of hand sanitizer, and 

“timelines for production have been extended six to eight weeks” compared to the 

typical two or three weeks. 

-12-
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 8:20-cv-01431-JLS-KES Document 73 Filed 05/19/21 Page 13 of 21 Page ID #:1130 

49. On April 9, 2020, Tammabattula reiterated there were not enough raw 

ingredients for hand sanitizer: “From the alcohol to the polymers that we use to 

gel the product to the plastic bottles that we use to package the product.” 

50. Despite these public acknowledgments, the Defendants continued to 

make the same shipment timing claims on the glowyy.com website, specifically the 

Defendants continued to advertise that the products were in stock and would ship 

within one to two (1 to 2) days, or three to seven (3 to 7) days, and continued to 

take orders with these shipment time claims throughout April, May, and June 2020. 

Defendants’ Deceptive COVID-19 Prevention Claims 

51. Defendants, primarily through Dr. J’s Natural and Dr. J, offer a 

product called “Basic Immune IGG” through their website, drjsnatural.com. The 

product is part of their “COVID Essentials” line. Defendants sell Basic Immune 

IGG for $89. 

52. Basic Immune IGG is the brand name used by the Defendants for a 

product developed by Entera Health, Inc. under the registered trademark 

Immunolin. 

53. Basic Immune IGG/Immunolin is a serum-derived bovine 

immunoglobulin concentrate. 

54. In English, on its website, drjsnatural.com, Defendants market Basic 

Immune IGG as a “protein powder” that can maintain “healthy immune function” 

and a “healthy immune system.” 

55. Similar claims also appear on Dr. J’s Natural Instagram page. For 

example, on June 1, 2020, Dr. J’s Natural posted a “COVID-19 Special Offer,” 

which offered a discount for Dr. J’s Basic Immune IGG, and promised that the 

product would “boost up your immune system.” 

56. In videos, however, the Defendants make very different 

representations. Specifically, they claim ingesting Basic Immune IGG can prevent 

transmission of COVID-19; that Basic Immune IGG is FDA approved for that 

-13-
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 8:20-cv-01431-JLS-KES Document 73 Filed 05/19/21 Page 14 of 21 Page ID #:1131 

purpose; and that Basic Immune IGG has been clinically tested and approved for 

prevention of COVID-19 transmission. 

57. The strongest claims appear in Vietnamese language videos. For 

example, on or about April 2, 2020, Dr. J appeared on a newscast on Saigon 

Entertainment Television (SET), a California-based station broadcasting to 

Vietnamese speakers in the United States. In that appearance she told consumers 

that Basic Immune IGG could “prevent” COVID-19 by boosting the immune 

system, explaining: 

Dr. J: let’s say if I sit next to Mr. Do Dung or someone else or happen 

to touch something and get infected with COVID-19, at least I have 

already had more antibodies that can detect the invasion and cling to 

and attack the coronavirus. It’s like, the antibodies will say, “hey, 

bacteria are penetrating the body, let’s come and fight it off.” 

58. Dr. J further claimed that mixing Basic Immune IGG with drinking 

water could ward off COVID-19. For instance, during the same newscast she 

explained: 

Dr. J: . . . the immunoglobulin antibody therapy that I take with this 

powder, like how I drank and showed you earlier, is to increase my 

existing antibodies and make them stronger. The product helps 

strengthen the army of soldiers already present in my body. Then, let's 

say if one coronavirus happens to infiltrate my body, I already have 

about five hundred thousand antibodies, thanks to this powder. They 

would cling to and bite that coronavirus, push it out and kill it. . . . 

And now if Mr. Do Dung or our dearest audience haven’t taken this 

antibody powder yet, it means that if the coronavirus enters your 

body, Mr. Do Dung and you only have 5,000 antibodies while I have 

500,000 of them, because I have been taking this antibody powder. 

-14-
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 8:20-cv-01431-JLS-KES Document 73 Filed 05/19/21 Page 15 of 21 Page ID #:1132 

59. She also represented, in close proximity to these claims during the 

same newscast, that Basic Immune IGG has been FDA approved and undergone 

clinical trials. For example, in response to the question “Is it guaranteed that we 

will stay safe?” Dr. J responds, “It’s guaranteed, because there is FDA’s 

verification and approval.” She also states: “Our parent company is the only 

company obtaining the registered trademark for this antibody product from the 

FDA []. We have conducted clinical studies, involving the extraction and 

cultivation of antibodies taken from cow blood, which is then made into this 

antibody powder.” 

60. Dr. J makes similar claims in Vietnamese on SET during her regularly 

broadcast show, the Dr. J’s Natural Show. 

61. Dr. J also made similar claims in English-language videos appearing 

on YouTube. For example, in a June 8, 2020 video in which Dr. J responds to 

questions regarding COVID-19 from consumers, she addresses the question “What 

is the best preventative measure to take now?” Her response—use Dr. J’s hand 

sanitizer and take Basic Immune IGG. Basic Immune IGG will boost the immune 

system, “so just in case you get infected with the virus, then your body will be able 

to fight back and destroy all the Coronavirus that is entering your body.” 

62. Similarly, in a June 11, 2020 English-language YouTube video titled, 

“How Does Immune IGG Work,” Dr. J claimed that Basic Immune IGG had been 

clinically tested, was a “prevention” for COVID-19, and had a “patent” from the 

FDA. 

63. In the June 11 video, Dr. J claimed Basic Immune IGG helps the body 

recognize viruses, “especially Coronavirus” and the product has “tons of clinical 

data.” 

64. In fact, Basic Immune IGG/Immunolin is not an FDA-approved 

treatment or preventative for COVID-19. 

-15-
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 8:20-cv-01431-JLS-KES Document 73 Filed 05/19/21 Page 16 of 21 Page ID #:1133 

65. Moreover, there are no published adequate and well controlled clinical 

studies of Basic Immune IGG, Immunolin, or a serum-derived bovine 

immunoglobulin for use to effectively treat, prevent, or reduce the risk of 

contracting COVID-19. In fact, there are no published studies of any kind for 

Basic Immune IGG or Immunolin. 

VIOLATIONS OF THE MAIL, INTERNET, OR TELEPHONE ORDER 

MERCHANDISE RULE 

66. MITOR, 16 C.F.R. Part 435, prohibits sellers from soliciting any 

order for the sale of merchandise ordered through the mail, via the Internet or by 

telephone “unless, at the time of the solicitation, the seller has a reasonable basis to 

expect that it will be able to ship any ordered merchandise to the buyer” either 

“[w]ithin that time clearly and conspicuously stated in any such solicitation; or [i]f 

no time is clearly and conspicuously stated, within thirty (30) days after receipt of 

a properly completed order from the buyer.” 16 C.F.R. § 435.2(a)(1). 

67. “Receipt of a properly completed order” means “where the buyer 

tenders full or partial payment . . . the time at which a seller receives both said 

payment and an order from the buyer containing all of the information needed by 

the seller to process and ship the order.” 16 C.F.R. § 435.1(c). 

68. “Shipment” means the act of physically placing the merchandise in 

the possession of a carrier. 16 C.F.R. § 435.1(e). 

69. Where a seller is unable to ship merchandise within the time stated in 

the solicitation or within 30 days, if no time is given, the seller must offer to the 

buyer “clearly and conspicuously and without prior demand, an option either to 

consent to a delay in shipping or to cancel the buyer’s order and receive a prompt 

refund.” 16 C.F.R. § 435.2(b)(1). 

a. Any such offer “shall be made within a reasonable time after the 

seller first becomes aware of its inability to ship,” but in no event 

-16-
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 8:20-cv-01431-JLS-KES Document 73 Filed 05/19/21 Page 17 of 21 Page ID #:1134 

later than the time stated or within 30 days if no time is stated. 16 

C.F.R. § 4352(b)(1). 

b. The offer must fully inform the buyer of the buyer’s right to cancel 

and provide a definite revised shipping date or inform the buyer 

that the seller cannot make any representation regarding the length 

of the delay. 16 C.F.R. § 435.2(b)(1)(i). 

70. A seller must “deem an order cancelled and . . . make a prompt refund 

to the buyer whenever the seller receives, prior to the time of shipment, notification 

from the buyer cancelling the order pursuant to any option [under MITOR] . . . [or] 

[t]he seller fails to offer the option [to consent to a delay or cancel required by 

§ 435.2(b)(1)] and has not shipped the merchandise” within the time required by 

MITOR. 16 C.F.R. § (c)(4), (5). 

71. Pursuant to Section 18(d)(3) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 57a(d)(3), 

and 16 C.F.R. Part 435.2 a violation of the Rule constitutes an unfair or deceptive 

act or practice in violation of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a). 

Count I- MITOR Violations 

72. In numerous instances, when the Defendants: 

a. represent they will ship purchased goods within the one to two (1 

to 2) days, three to five days (3 to 5), or three to seven (3 to 7) 

days, they do not have a reasonable basis to expect to ship the 

goods within the timeframes they promise; 

b. fail to ship orders within the timeframe required by MITOR, they 

also fail to offer customers the opportunity to consent to a delay in 

shipping or to cancel their order and receive a prompt refund; 

c. fail to ship orders within the timeframe required by MITOR and 

fail to offer consumers the opportunity to consent to a delay in 

shipping or to cancel their order, they do not cancel those orders or 

provide consumers a prompt refund; 

-17-
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 8:20-cv-01431-JLS-KES Document 73 Filed 05/19/21 Page 18 of 21 Page ID #:1135 

d. receive cancellation and refund requests from consumers pursuant 

to any option under MITOR, they do not deem those orders 

cancelled or provide a prompt refund. 

73. Defendants’ practices as alleged in Paragraph 72 violate MITOR, 16 

C.F.R. § 435.2(a), (b), and (c), and therefore are unfair or deceptive acts or 

practices in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a). 

VIOLATIONS OF THE FTC ACT 

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

deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce.” 

75. Misrepresentations or deceptive omissions of material fact constitute 

deceptive acts or practices prohibited by Section 5(a) of the FTC Act. 

76. Section 12 of the FTC Action, 15. U.S.C. § 52, prohibits the 

dissemination of any false advertisement in or affecting commerce for the purpose 

of inducing, or which is likely to induce, the purchase of food, drugs, devices, 

services, or cosmetics. For purposes of Section 12 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 52, 

Basic Immune IGG is a “food” or “drug” as “food” and “drug” are defined in 

Section 15(b) and (c) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C.§ 55(b) and (c). 

Count II- Deceptive Shipping Claims 

77. In numerous instances in connection with the advertising, marketing, 

promotion, offering for sale, or sale of goods, specifically hand sanitizer and 

related products, the Defendants have represented, directly or indirectly, expressly 

or by implication, that they: 

a. will ship goods the same day they are purchased, or will ship 

goods within seven (7) days; 

b. have goods in stock and ready to ship; and 

c. will deliver the goods consumers order. 

78. In truth and in fact, in numerous instances in which the Defendants 

have made the representations set forth in Paragraph 77, the Defendants: 

-18-
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 8:20-cv-01431-JLS-KES Document 73 Filed 05/19/21 Page 19 of 21 Page ID #:1136 

a. failed to ship goods the same day they were purchased, or failed to 

ship goods within seven (7) days; 

b. did not have sufficient goods in stock to make shipments as 

advertised; or 

c. delivered materially different goods. 

79. Therefore, Defendants’ representations set forth in Paragraph 77 are 

false, misleading, or unsubstantiated, and constitute deceptive acts or practices in 

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

Count III- Deceptive COVID-19 Prevention Claims 

80. Through the means described in Paragraphs 51-65, the Defendants 

have represented, directly or indirectly, expressly or by implication that Basic 

Immune IGG can effectively treat, prevent transmission of, or reduce the risk of 

contracting COVID-19. 

81. The representations set forth in Paragraph 80 are false, misleading or 

were not substantiated at the time the representations were made. 

82. Therefore, the making of the representations as set forth in Paragraph 

80 of this Complaint constitutes a deceptive act or practice and the making of false 

advertisements, in or affective commerce, in violation of Section 5(a) and 12 of the 

FTC Act, 15. U.S.C. §§ 45(a) and 52. 

Count IV-False Establishment Claims 

83. Through the means described in Paragraphs 51-65, the Defendants 

have represented, directly or indirectly, expressly or by implication that Basic 

Immune IGG has been clinically proven and FDA-approved to treat, prevent 

transmission of, or reduce the risk of contracting COVID-19. 

84. The representations set forth in Paragraph 83 are false. 

85. Therefore, the making of the representations as set forth in Paragraph 

83 of this Complaint constitutes a deceptive act or practice and the making of false 

-19-
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 8:20-cv-01431-JLS-KES Document 73 Filed 05/19/21 Page 20 of 21 Page ID #:1137 

advertisements, in or affecting commerce, in violation of Sections 5(a) and 12 of 

the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 45(a) and 52. 

CONSUMER INJURY 

86. Consumers are suffering, have suffered, and will continue to suffer 

substantial injury as a result of Defendants’ violations of the FTC Act and MITOR. 

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 customers, reap unjust enrichment, and harm the public interest. 

THIS COURT’S POWER TO GRANT RELIEF 

87. Section 19 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 57b, and MITOR authorize 

this Court to grant such relief as the Court finds necessary to redress injury to 

consumers resulting from Defendants’ violations of MITOR, including the 

rescission or reformation of contracts and the refund of money. 

88. 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. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

Wherefore, Plaintiff FTC, pursuant to Sections 13(b) and 19 of the FTC Act, 

15 U.S.C. §§ 53(b), 57b, MITOR, and the Court’s own equitable powers, requests 

that the Court: 

A. Award Plaintiff such preliminary injunctive and ancillary relief as 

may be necessary to avert the likelihood of consumer injury during the pendency 

of this action and to preserve the possibility of effective final relief, including but 

not limited to, temporary and preliminary injunctions; 

-20-
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 8:20-cv-01431-JLS-KES Document 73 Filed 05/19/21 Page 21 of 21 Page ID #:1138 

B. Enter a permanent injunction to prevent future violations of the FTC 

Act by Defendants; 

C. Award such relief as the Court finds necessary to redress injury to 

consumers resulting from Defendants’ violations of the FTC Act and MITOR, 

including restitution, rescission or reformation of contracts, the refund of money or 

return of property, the payment of damages, and public notification respecting the 

rule violation or the unfair or deceptive act or practice; and 

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

and additional relief as the Court may determine to be just and proper. 

Respectfully submitted, 

ALDEN F. ABBOTT 

General Counsel 

Dated: May 19, 2021 /s/ Kristy M. Tillman 

KATHERINEJOHNSON, admittedpro hac vice 

KRISTY M. TILLMAN, admitted pro hac vice 

Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, CC-9528 

Washington, DC 20580 

(202) 326-2185; (Johnson) 

kjohnson3@ftc.gov 

(202) 326-3025; (Tillman) 

ktillman@ftc.gov 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

-21-