Office of Commissioner

Rohit Chopra

1 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Federal Trade Commission

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20580

STATEMENT OF

COMMISSIONER ROHIT CHOPRA

In the Matter of Resident Home LLC

Commission File No. 2023179 

October 8, 2021 

Wow, that was fast. Soon after the Federal Trade Commission “punished” Nectar Sleep through 

a no-money, no-fault order, the company and its affiliates clearly realized the FTC wasn’t serious 

about Made in USA fraud, so here we are again. 

FTC orders are not suggestions, but many bad actors view them as such.1 And when companies 

do not adhere to agency orders, it is often a sign of more serious problems.2 Violations of FTC 

orders are punishable with civil penalties and a broad range of other relief. 

The Commission is proposing to settle the matter by ordering Resident Home, Nectar Sleep’s 

new parent company, to pay $753,300. The Commission’s complaint also charges Resident’s 

CEO, Ran Reske, with serious wrongdoing. Reske signed a report, under penalty of perjury, 

stating that Resident Home had removed all covered Made in USA claims from its subsidiaries’ 

websites and that Resident had never made Made in USA claims about its DreamCloud mattress. 

This was false.

The proposed settlement binds Nectar Sleep, as well as its new parent company, ensuring that 

any corporate musical chairs will not allow the company to dodge the FTC’s order. The proposed 

order also requires the companies to provide notice to consumers who purchased a mattress 

while the false claims appeared. 

1 This follows a slew of other repeat offenders when it comes to Made in USA requirements, a clear demonstration 

of the need for the policy shift the FTC is now making. See Rohit Chopra, Commissioner, Fed. Trade Comm'n., 

Statement of Commissioner Rohit Chopra Regarding the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Made in USA (June 22, 

2020), 

https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements/1577107/p074204musachoprastatementrev.pdf. 

See e.g., In the Matter of Williams-Sonoma, Inc., No. C-4724 (July 2020), 

https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/2023025c4724williamssonomaorder.pdf. The Commission 

opened an investigation but, after some behavior alterations by Williams-Sonoma, the 2018 investigation was 

closed, only to be renewed in 2020 when Williams-Sonoma was at it again. See also U.S. v. iSpring Water Systems, 

LLC, et al., No. 1:16-cv-1620-AT (N.D. Ga. 2019). After making false claims that its water filtration systems were 

made in the United States and entering into an administrative order with the FTC in 2017, iSpring went back to 

making false claims only a year later, triggering the violation of the 2017 order. 2 Rohit Chopra, Comm’r, Fed. Trade Comm’n. Repeat Offenders Memo (May 14, 2018), 

https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements/1378225/chopra_-_repeat_offenders_memo_5-14-

18.pdf.
2

Commissioner Slaughter has rightfully noted that the Commission must use all of its tools to 

protect the marketplace and make victims whole. This case is no exception. The settlement is 

reasonable and squarely within the Commission’s legal authority.

Disguised Opposition

My dissenting colleagues purport that this proposed action – which was agreed to by Resident 

Home and Reske – is not authorized by statute. Their arguments fail on policy and legal grounds.

Commissioners Phillips and Wilson have consistently supported no-money, no-fault settlements, 

even in cases of egregious Made in USA fraud.3 I understand that, as a matter of policy, they do 

not support serious consequences for Made in USA fraud and have expressed support for the 

longstanding permissive policy of the past.4 However, their dissenting statement disguises this 

policy opposition as an argument about the Commission’s legal authority. There are several 

pieces of evidence to suggest that Commissioners Phillips and Wilson’s resistance is based on 

policy grounds, not on legal grounds.

First, Commissioners Phillips and Wilson argue they must have express statutory authorization 

to accept monetary remedies in settlements. However, less than two months after the Supreme 

Court ruled that the FTC cannot obtain monetary relief in certain federal court actions, both 

Commissioners Phillips and Wilson voted for an $18 million order to settle a complaint brought 

under Section 13(b) of the FTC Act – the exact authority the Supreme Court explicitly ruled 

against the FTC on.

5 This not the only example where Commissioners Phillips and Wilson have 

agreed to settle complaints with remedies that are not specifically enumerated by statute.

To further disguise the nature of their opposition, Commissioners Phillips and Wilson assert that 

the Commission is accepting monetary remedies in an administrative settlement not permitted by 

Section 19 of the Federal Trade Commission Act. In reality, Section 19 of the FTC Act expressly 

authorizes the payment of redress and damages. Consequential damages in Made in USA fraud 

can be considerable, particularly when it comes to harms to law-abiding businesses whose sales 

were siphoned. In settlements, parties can save time and resources by making the best estimates 

– adjusted for risk – on the right resolution. It would have been costly to specifically identify 

each harmed consumer and business, but it is clear the proposed monetary relief is reasonable, 

given our legal authority.

 3 See Press Release, Fed Trade Comm’n, FTC Approves Final Consents Settling

Charges that Hockey Puck Seller, Companies Selling Recreational and Outdoor Equipment Made False ‘Made in

USA’ Claims (Apr. 17, 2019), https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2019/04/ftc-approves-final-consentssettling-charges-hockey-puck-seller; In the Matter of Sandpiper Gear of California, Inc. et al., No. 182-3095, 

https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/182-3095/sandpiper-california-inc-et-al-matter; In the Matter of

Underground Sports d/b/a Patriot Puck, et al., No. 182-3113 (Apr. 2019), https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/casesproceedings/182-3113/underground-sports-inc-doing-business-patriot-puck-et-al. 4 Id.

5 See Press Release, Fed Trade Comm’n, LendingClub Agrees to Pay $18 Million to Settle FTC Charges (July 14, 

2021), https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2021/07/lendingclub-agrees-pay-18-million-settle-ftccharges. Given the alternative paths the Commission could have pursued to address the conduct at hand, I believe 

the settlement was appropriate even in spite of the Supreme Court’s ruling. Indeed, the Commission’s proposed 

stipulated judgment was entered by the court.
3

In addition, Commissioners Phillips and Wilson imply that to obtain the proposed remedies, the 

Commission must file multiple complaints in our administrative tribunal and in federal court. 

However, Commissioner Phillips and Wilson know that the Commission does not regularly 

prosecute the same conduct in multiple fora. Commissioners need not concurrently charge an 

entity for the same consumer protection violation of law in its administrative tribunal and in 

federal court, even when it may be authorized, like in civil penalty actions under Section 5(l).

The facts and evidence clearly show that DreamCloud violated an administrative order, 

triggering penalties and a broad range of relief under Section 5(l) of the FTC Act. Even if 

Section 19 of the FTC Act did not authorize damages, it is perfectly appropriate for the 

Commission to settle all of these claims at once, rather than pursue an additional action for civil 

penalties.

It is obvious that today’s proposed action is legally sound. If Commissioners Phillips and Wilson 

are voting against the proposed settlement because of their preference for no-consequences 

settlements in Made in USA fraud matters, then they should be upfront with the public and state 

so plainly.

Conclusion

The FTC has a troubling history of strong-arming small and independent business owners –

including church organists6 and skating teachers7 – into settlements, while allowing those who 

repeatedly break the law to escape unscathed,

8 often with the help of high-priced FTC alumni.

In this matter, the Commission is proposing a settlement to hold accountable a repeat offender 

represented by a sophisticated law firm. I am pleased that the agency’s abusive and inappropriate

double standard is starting to fade away. 

Finally, for decades, there was a bipartisan consensus among FTC Commissioners that Made in 

USA fraud should not be penalized. In 1994, Congress granted the FTC strong tools to combat 

Made in USA fraud, but Commissioners essentially ignored them. Fortunately, that era is also 

over.

Effective August 13, 2021, individuals and companies engaging in Made in USA fraud, 

including first-time offenders, will be subject to stricter sanctions under the FTC’s Made in USA 

Labeling Rule. I hope my colleagues will fully support enforcement actions to hold bad actors 

accountable under this rule. The families and honest businesses – long ignored by past 

Commissioners – are counting on us to live up to the law.

 6 In the Matter of American Guild of Organists, Fed. Trade Comm’n, https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/casesproceedings/151-0159/american-guild-organists. 7 In the Matter of Professional Skaters Association, Inc., Fed. Trade Comm’n, 

https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/131-0168/professional-skaters-association-inc-matter. 8 See e.g. Devin Coldewey, 9 reasons the Facebook FTC settlement is a joke, TECHCRUNCH (July 24, 2019), 

https://techcrunch.com/2019/07/24/9-reasons-the-facebook-ftc-settlement-is-a-joke/.