IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE

_______________________________________

)

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION and )

STATE OF MAINE, )

) Case No. 

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. ) COMPLAINT FOR PERMANENT

) INJUNCTION AND OTHER

) EQUITABLE RELIEF

XXL IMPRESSIONS LLC, a limited liability )

company, also d/b/a BETTER HEALTH )

NUTRITIONALS, )

)

JEFFREY R. POWLOWSKY, individually )

and as an owner and officer of XXL )

IMPRESSIONS LLC, )

)

J2 RESPONSE L.L.P., a limited liability )

partnership, also d/b/a J2 RESPONSE, )

)

JUSTIN BUMANN, individually )

and as a partner of J2 RESPONSE L.L.P., )

)

JUSTIN STEINLE, individually and as a )

partner of J2 RESPONSE L.L.P., )

)

SYNERGIXX, LLC, a limited liability )

company, also d/b/a CTF MEDIA, )

)

CHARLIE R. FUSCO, individually )

and as an owner and officer of SYNERGIXX, )

LLC, )

)

RONALD JAHNER, and )

)

BRAZOS MINSHEW a/k/a SAMUEL BRANT, )

)

Defendants. )

_______________________________________ )

Case 1:17-cv-00067-NT Document 1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 1 of 46 PageID #: 1
2

Plaintiffs, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) and the State of Maine, for their 

Complaint allege:

1. The FTC brings this action under Section 13(b) of the Federal Trade Commission 

Act (“FTC Act”), 15 U.S.C. § 53(b), and the Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse 

Prevention Act (“Telemarketing Act”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 6101-6108, and the Electronic Fund 

Transfer Act (“EFTA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1693-1693r, to obtain permanent injunctive relief, 

rescission or reformation of contracts, restitution, the refund of monies paid, disgorgement of illgotten 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, the FTC’s Trade Regulation Rule 

entitled “Telemarketing Sales Rule” (“TSR”), 16 C.F.R. Part 310, and the EFTA and its 

implementing Regulation E, 12 C.F.R. § 1005.10 (“Reg. E”), in connection with the labeling, 

advertising, marketing, distribution, and sale of products purported to provide joint pain relief 

and to prevent or mitigate cognitive decline.

2. The State of Maine brings this action pursuant to the Telemarketing Act, 15 

U.S.C. §§ 6101-6108, and the Maine Unfair Trade Practices Act, ME. REV. STAT. tit. 5, §§ 205-A 

through 214 (“Maine UTPA”), to permanently enjoin and restrain Defendants from engaging in 

certain unlawful unfair and deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of trade or commerce, and

to obtain relief for Defendants’ acts or practices in violation of the TSR and the Maine UTPA in 

connection with the labeling, advertising, marketing, distribution, and sale of products purported 

to provide joint pain relief and to prevent or mitigate cognitive decline, such relief to include 

rescission or reformation of contracts, the refund of monies paid, disgorgement, restitution, civil 

penalties, other relief as provided in the Maine UTPA, and other equitable relief.

Case 1:17-cv-00067-NT Document 1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 2 of 46 PageID #: 2
3

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

3. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1337(a), 

and 1345, and 15 U.S.C. §§ 45(a), 53(b), 1607(c), 6102(c), and 6105(b).

4. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 6103(a) and

supplemental jurisdiction over the claims of the State of Maine pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

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

U.S.C. §§ 53(b) and 6103(e).

PLAINTIFFS

6. The FTC is an independent agency of the United States Government created by 

statute. 15 U.S.C. §§ 41-58. The FTC enforces Section 5(a) of 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 Section 12 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 52, which prohibits false advertisements for 

food, drugs, devices, services, or cosmetics in or affecting commerce; the TSR, which prohibits 

deceptive and abusive telemarketing acts or practices; and the EFTA, which regulates the rights, 

liabilities, and responsibilities of participants in electronic fund transfer systems.

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

attorneys, to enjoin violations of the FTC Act, the TSR, and the EFTA, 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. FTC 

Act, 15 U.S.C. § 53(b), TSR, 15 U.S.C. §§ 6102(c), 6105(b), and EFTA, 15 U.S.C. § 1693o(c).

8. Plaintiff State of Maine is one of fifty sovereign states of the United States. Janet 

T. Mills is the duly elected and qualified Attorney General acting for Plaintiff State of Maine and 

Case 1:17-cv-00067-NT Document 1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 3 of 46 PageID #: 3
4 

is authorized to enforce the Maine UTPA pursuant to ME. REV. STAT. tit. 5, §§ 191 and 209 and 

the powers vested in her by common law. 

9. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff State of Maine’s claims 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. 

10. Pursuant to the authority found in the Telemarketing Act at 15 U.S.C. § 6103(a), 

Plaintiff State of Maine is 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 Maine residents, or to obtain such further and 

other relief as the Court may deem appropriate. 

DEFENDANTS

11. Defendant XXL Impressions LLC, also doing business as Better Health 

Nutritionals (“XXL Impressions”), is a Wyoming limited liability company. At all times 

material to this Complaint, XXL Impressions has identified its principal place of business to 

consumers, businesses, and the general public as 165 Pleasant Avenue, South Portland, Maine, 

which is the location of Ship-Right Solutions, LLC, the shipping vendor for XXL Impressions, 

and also has done business at that address where it markets various products, including FlexiPrin, 

a product purported to provide relief from joint pain and rebuild cartilage, and CogniPrin, a 

product purported to prevent, treat, or mitigate cognitive decline. During this time, XXL 

Impressions contracted with Argo Marketing Group, Inc., located at 64 Lisbon Street in 

Lewiston, Maine, to provide telemarketing services related to the sales by XXL Impressions of 

Flexiprin and Cogniprin. Acting alone or in concert with others, XXL Impressions has labeled, 

advertised, marketed, distributed, sold, or offered for sale these products in this District and 

throughout the United States and Canada. 

Case 1:17-cv-00067-NT Document 1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 4 of 46 PageID #: 4
5

12. Defendant Jeffrey R. Powlowsky (“Powlowsky”) is the sole manager and member 

of XXL Impressions and is its sole owner. At all times material to this Complaint, he has 

identified his principal place of business to consumers, businesses, and the general public as 165 

Pleasant Avenue, South Portland, Maine. At all times material to this Complaint, acting alone or 

in concert with others, Powlowsky has formulated, directed, controlled, had the authority to 

control, or participated in the acts and practices of XXL Impressions, including the acts and 

practices set forth in this Complaint. In connection with the matters alleged herein, he transacts 

or has transacted business in this District and throughout the United States and Canada.

13. Defendant J2 Response L.L.P., also doing business as J2 Response (“J2 

Response”), is a North Dakota limited liability partnership. At all times material to this 

Complaint, J2 Response’s principal place of business has been 547 S. 7th Street, #305, Bismarck, 

ND 58504, where it has marketed a variety of products, including FlexiPrin and CogniPrin. At 

all times material to this Complaint, acting alone or in concert with others, J2 Response has 

advertised, marketed, distributed, sold, or offered for sale these products in this District and

throughout the United States and Canada.

14. Defendant Justin Bumann (“Bumann”) is a 50 percent owner of J2 Response. At 

all times material to this Complaint, Bumann’s principal place of business has been 547 S. 7th

Street, #305, Bismarck, ND 58504. Acting alone, or in concert with others, Bumann has 

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

practices of J2 Response, including the acts and practices set forth in this Complaint. In 

connection with the matters alleged herein, he transacts or has transacted business in this District 

and throughout the United States and Canada.

Case 1:17-cv-00067-NT Document 1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 5 of 46 PageID #: 5
6

15. Defendant Justin Steinle (“Steinle”) is a 50 percent owner of J2 Response. At all 

times material to this Complaint, Steinle’s principal place of business has been 547 S. 7th Street, 

#305, Bismarck, ND 58504. Acting alone, or in concert with others, Steinle has formulated, 

directed, controlled, had the authority to control, or participated in the acts and practices of J2 

Response, including the acts and practices set forth in this Complaint. In connection with the 

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

United States and Canada. Hereafter, Defendants Powlowsky, XXL Impressions, J2 Response, 

Bumann, and Steinle shall be referred to collectively as “the Powlowsky Defendants.”

16. Defendant Synergixx, LLC, also doing business as CTF Media (“Synergixx”), is a 

Massachusetts limited liability company. At all times material to this Complaint, Synergixx’s 

principal places of business have been 589 Mantua Boulevard, Sewell, NJ 08080 and 433 

Woodbury Glassboro Road, Sewell, NJ 08080. Synergixx has advertised and marketed a variety 

of products, including FlexiPrin and CogniPrin. At all times material to this Complaint, acting 

alone or in concert with others, Synergixx has advertised, marketed, sold, and offered for sale 

these products in this District and throughout the United States and Canada.

17. Defendant Charlie R. Fusco (“Fusco”) is the Chief Executive Officer, President, 

and 100 percent owner of Synergixx. At all times material to this Complaint, Fusco’s principal 

places of business have been 589 Mantua Boulevard, Sewell, NJ 08080, and 433 Woodbury 

Glassboro Road, Sewell, NJ 08080. At all times material to this Complaint, acting alone or in 

concert with others, Fusco has formulated, directed, controlled, had the authority to control, or 

participated in the acts and practices of Synergixx. In connection with the matters alleged 

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

Case 1:17-cv-00067-NT Document 1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 6 of 46 PageID #: 6
7

and Canada. Hereafter Defendants Fusco and Synergixx shall be referred to collectively as “the 

Fusco Defendants.”

18. Defendant Ronald Jahner (“Jahner”) lives in Buffalo Grove, Illinois, where he 

works as a board-certified naturopathic physician. He owns and manages naturopathic clinics in 

Algonquin and Parkridge, Illinois. Jahner has acted as a paid expert endorser for CogniPrin and 

FlexiPrin, appearing as Dr. Ronald Jahner in radio and print advertising throughout the United 

States and in Canada. He also has promoted CogniPrin and FlexiPrin through website 

advertising, is credited as the author of books promoting CogniPrin and FlexiPrin, and has

trained XXL Impressions’ third-party sales representatives how to promote the products. At all 

times material to this Complaint, acting alone or in concert with others, Jahner has transacted 

business in this District and throughout the United States and Canada.

19. Defendant Brazos Minshew (“Minshew”) lives in Scottsdale, Arizona. He has 

acted as an expert endorser for CogniPrin, appearing under the pseudonym “Samuel Brant,” a 

purported “brain scientist,” in radio and print advertising nationwide and in Canada. He also has 

trained XXL Impressions’ inbound call-room representatives how to promote CogniPrin. At all 

times material to this Complaint, acting alone or in concert with others, Minshew has transacted 

business in this District and throughout the United States and Canada.

COMMERCE

20. At all times material to this Complaint, all of the 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, and as “trade and commerce” are defined in Section 206(3) of the 

Maine UTPA, ME. REV. STAT. tit. 5, § 206(3).

Case 1:17-cv-00067-NT Document 1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 7 of 46 PageID #: 7
8 

DEFENDANTS’ BUSINESS ACTIVITIES

21. Beginning on or before December 1, 2010 and continuing to the present, all of the 

Defendants have employed unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the advertising, marketing, 

distribution, and sale of FlexiPrin and CogniPrin. Defendants sell these products directly to 

consumers, primarily through radio and print advertising nationwide and in Canada, which has 

garnered in excess of $6.5 million in gross sales from January 1, 2012 through April 30, 2015. 

FLEXIPRIN ADVERTISING

22. One bottle of FlexiPrin sells for approximately $32 to $65 and contains 60

capsules. It is usually sold as a bundle of either three bottles for $129.90 or six bottles for 

$194.85. According to the FlexiPrin website, the recommended serving size is four capsules per 

day for the first month, then two capsules per day thereafter. FlexiPrin purportedly contains 

1,052 mg of a proprietary blend comprised of the following ingredients: 

• Perluxan® Proprietary Hops Extract (Humulus lupulus L.) (30% Alpha Acids) 

• FruiteX-B® Calcium Fructoborate

• Cynatine FLX® (Solubilized Keratin)

• BosPure® Boswelia Serrata Powdered Extract (standardized to 10% AKBA)

• Hyal-Joint® (natural rooster comb extract, min. 60% hyaluronic acid, min. 10% 

hydrolyzed collagen, min. 10% other glucosaminoglycans) 

• Ginger Powdered Extract 

• Turmeric Powdered Extract

• Black Pepper Extract 

23. Radio advertisements for FlexiPrin created by Defendants Synergixx, Fusco, J2 

Response, Bumann, and Steinle, and reviewed and approved by Defendants XXL Impressions 

and Powlowsky promote FlexiPrin through 30-minute “cutting edge health and wellness news”

programs featuring a radio host, Defendant Fusco, interviewing a purported pain relief expert, 

Defendant Jahner. Exh. A-1 (FlexiPrin radio audio file) at 24:44-24:47; Exh. A-2 (FlexiPrin 

radio transcript excerpt) at 17:5. In the introduction, the interviewer announces, “We’re going to 

Case 1:17-cv-00067-NT Document 1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 8 of 46 PageID #: 8
9

be talking about pain today.” Defendant Fusco then introduces Defendant Jahner as a 

naturopathic physician with expertise in pain management. Exh. A-1 (FlexiPrin radio audio file) 

at 00:25-00:39; 01:18-01:33; Exh. A-2 (FlexiPrin radio transcript excerpt) at 3:14-19; and 4:10-

15. Defendant Fusco does not disclose in the advertisement that the toll-free number she gives 

consumers to claim their “free supply” is that of a call center owned by the Fusco Defendants.

Furthermore, the Powlowsky Defendants pay Defendants Jahner and Synergixx a percentage of

revenues generated from FlexiPrin sales. However, Defendants Fusco and Jahner do not disclose 

these royalty payments, nor do they disclose that the show is actually an advertisement paid for 

by the Powlowsky Defendants, thereby implying that Defendants Jahner and Fusco are stating 

independent, objective, and, in the case of Jahner, expert opinions about FlexiPrin. Exh. A-1 

(FlexiPrin radio audio file); Exh. A-2 (FlexiPrin radio transcript excerpt).

24. In the radio ad, Defendant Jahner states “[FlexiPrin] targets the tissue and it’s an

amazing anti-inflammatory. But the best part is [that] it works fast. Within two hours, people 

are getting relief.” Exh. A-1 (FlexiPrin radio audio file) at 06:28-06:36; Exh. A-2 (FlexiPrin 

radio transcript excerpt) at 7:11-15. Defendant Jahner goes on to state: “[M]ost people actually 

experience relief in the first two hours to two days. Those clinical studies I mentioned showed 

that 80 percent of the participants were able to reduce or eliminate their pain medications. . . .

And, in fact, in that same four week period, one month, 100 percent of the participants were able 

to perform their daily tasks better, reported less stiffness in the morning.” Exh. A-1 (FlexiPrin 

radio audio file) at 07:07-07:31; Exh. A-2 (FlexiPrin radio transcript excerpt) at 8:8-18.

25. During the radio program, Defendant Fusco states that “the manufacturers are 

guaranteeing people that they’re going to get out of pain in as little as two hours, because these

five ingredients are so powerful.” Exh. A-1 (FlexiPrin radio audio file) at 05:12-05:19; Exh. A-2 

Case 1:17-cv-00067-NT Document 1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 9 of 46 PageID #: 9
10

(FlexiPrin radio transcript excerpt) at 5:25-6:2. Dr. Jahner claims that “[FlexiPrin] provides the 

key building blocks for joint repair, reduces inflammation, which we’ve already talked about, 

and it also is a very powerful antioxidant.” Exh. A-1 (FlexiPrin radio audio file) at 08:59-09:06;

Exh. A-2 (FlexiPrin radio transcript excerpt) at 9:25-10:3. Defendant Fusco then states, “Now, 

we’re talking about a supplement that has this wonderful hops extract with the clinical studies 

that says, hey, you’re going to be out of pain in two hours, proven clinically.” Exh. A-1 

(FlexiPrin radio audio file) at 11:23-11:30; Exh. A-2 (FlexiPrin radio transcript excerpt) at 

11:24-12:2. She continues, “[W]e’re going to send you a free supply of FlexiPrin, and with no

risk to you, and it’s going to get you out of pain in two hours or you’re not going to pay for it.” 

Exh. A-1 (FlexiPrin radio audio file) at 20:50-20:57; Exh. A-2 (FlexiPrin radio transcript 

excerpt) at 15:1-4. 

26. Defendant Fusco then claims that FlexiPrin will “get [you] out of pain in two 

hours . . . ,” to which Defendant Jahner responds, “Exactly,” adding, “[W]ith FlexiPrin, you get 

the results and you get them clinically.” Exh. A-1 (FlexiPrin radio audio file) at 20:53-21:14; 

Exh. A-2 (FlexiPrin radio transcript excerpt) at 15:3-13.

27. Defendant Jahner further claims, “Well, you’re going to get an immediate effect. 

In almost every case, within two hours to two days, you’re going to get relief from the acute 

pain. Then it’s going to begin the process of controlling long-term inflammation, which helps 

prevent further deterioration. Then you get the ingredients that the body uses to actually rebuild 

not only the joint, but the bone and also the synovial fluid.” Exh. A-1 (FlexiPrin radio audio file) 

at 22:47-23:08; Exh. A-2 (FlexiPrin radio transcript excerpt) at 16:7-14.

28. Nowhere in FlexiPrin radio advertising is it disclosed that Defendant Jahner 

receives a percentage of revenues generated from FlexiPrin sales.

Case 1:17-cv-00067-NT Document 1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 10 of 46 PageID #: 10
11

29. A FlexiPrin print ad created by Defendants Synergixx, Fusco, J2 Response, 

Bumann, and Steinle, and reviewed and approved by Defendants XXL Impressions and

Powlowsky, begins with the headline “Thousands Combat Back Pain in 2 Hours Without 

Side Effects ...” The print ad goes on to claim that FlexiPrin’s “Natural ‘fire extinguishing’ 

nutrients quelch inflammation that causes lower, middle and upper back pain as well as 

improves stiffness in joints and revives flexibility.” Defendant Jahner then claims:

By reducing inflammation you reduce pain and you encourage healing. This allows the 

other proprietary ingredients in FlexiprinTM to start repairing and rebuilding the 

cartilage within your joints – which gives you amazing freedom and allows you to start 

living your life again – PAIN FREE!

Exh. B (FlexiPrin print ad) (emphasis in original).

30. In that print ad, the Powlowky Defendants and the Fusco Defendants claim that 

“FlexiPrinTM’

s ingredients have been proven effective in multiple clinical studies” and “Clinical 

Studies Prove 2 Hour Pain Relief.” The Powlowsky Defendants and the Fusco Defendants

further claim:

And the clinical results are nothing short of impressive. Immediately FlexiPrinTM

can improve joint comfort and flexibility in as little as 2 hours . . . Long term, in 

about 4 weeks, 80% of users reported using less medication or stopped taking 

them all together [sic].

Exh. B (FlexiPrin print ad) (emphasis in original).

31. Defendant Jahner also appears on the FlexiPrin website created by or at the 

direction of Defendants J2 Response, Bumann, and Steinle, and approved by Defendants XXL 

Impressions and Powlowsky, www.flexiprin.com. Exh. C (FlexiPrin website). From at least 

January 1, 2012 through January 7, 2015, that website prominently displayed a column with 

Defendant Jahner’s image and a description of his credentials, accompanied by the claim:

Dr. Ronald Jahner recommends FlexiPrinTM within his practice and the results 

have been a miracle[,] as his patients stated . . . 

Case 1:17-cv-00067-NT Document 1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 11 of 46 PageID #: 11
12

“FlexiPrinTM has been extinguishing inflammation by flooding dry joints with 

rejuvenating lubrication and rebuilding damaged cartilage.” 

Exh. C (FlexiPrin website), at 2-3.

32. That same FlexiPrin website featured the following claims:

REDUCE JOINT PAIN,

INFLAMMATION AND STIFFNESS

IN AS LITTLE AS TWO HOURS!

* * *

How does FlexiprinTM help with Arthritis?

FlexiPrin’s ingredients have been proven effective in multiple clinical studies. The 

proprietary blend of ingredients is the only product on the market that specifically 

targets the cause of your joint pain AND provides the nutrients necessary to rebuild 

cartilage and connective tissues.

First it triggers a deactivation of the inflammatory process in the joints. By taking 

FlexiPrinTM[,] it turns off the killer t-cells and tells them to stop attacking our joints.

* * *

Are the ingredients in FlexiprinTM Clinically Studied? 

The ingredients in FlexiPrinTM have been clinically studied to:

• Improves [sic] joint comfort and flexibility in as little as 2 hours...not months like 

other products

After 4 Weeks:

• 80% reported using less medication or stopped taking them all together [sic]

• 100% had improved function for daily tasks (getting out of bed, taking off shoes 

and socks...)

• 100% had either less stiffness in the morning or no stiffness

After 8 Weeks:

• 88% found improvement in the pain experienced during walking

• 78% experienced better joint movement

• 83% had less pain while climbing stairs

Exh. C (FlexiPrin website), at 7-8.

33. On this website the Powlowsky Defendants also claim that FlexiPrin is “a 

breakthrough joint supplement that includes the TOP 5 CLINICALLY TESTED ingredients for 

stopping inflammation and pain,” and that these ingredients “work together to reduce the painful 

Case 1:17-cv-00067-NT Document 1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 12 of 46 PageID #: 12
13

inflammation while they rebuild joint cartilage.” Exh. C (FlexiPrin website), at 2. The website

claims that “FlexiPrinTM also provides clinically proven nutrients to help rebuild . . . cartilage . . . 

that has been . . . damaged.” Exh. C (FlexiPrin website), at 2. 

34. A print ad created by Defendants Synergixx, Fusco, J2 Response, Bumann, and 

Steinle and reviewed and approved by Defendants XXL Impressions and Powlowsky features

testimonials from product endorsers who claim that FlexiPrin provides immediate pain relief 

more effectively than prescription drugs. “R. Kelly” claims that “[a]fter one dose of FlexiPrinTM

I knew that I could be pain free again.” In that same print ad, “Scott P” claims, “I had major 

back surgery. I was told it would be months before I could move around easily and even longer 

before i [sic] could ween [sic] off the pain medications. FlexiPrinTM had me moving around in 

under 30-days.” Exh. B (FlexiPrin print ad). The Powlowsky Defendants and the Fusco 

Defendants have no basis for determining the existence or truthfulness of these endorsers, and 

they do not know how these endorsers, if they exist, may be identified or contacted.

35. The Powlowsky Defendants paid Defendant Jahner to train their call 

center representatives to repeat advertising claims to customers that the product works as 

advertised and has been clinically proven to work. Inbound sales scripts created by 

Defendants Synergixx, Fusco, J2 Response, Bumann, and Steinle, and reviewed and 

approved by Defendants XXL Impressions and Powlowsky, claim that FlexiPrin is 

clinically proven to reduce inflammation and rebuild cartilage.

COGNIPRIN ADVERTISING

36. One bottle of CogniPrin sells for approximately $32 to $65 and contains 60

capsules. It is usually sold as part of a minimum order of three bottles for $99.90. The 

Case 1:17-cv-00067-NT Document 1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 13 of 46 PageID #: 13
14

recommended serving size is four capsules per day for the first month, then two capsules per day 

thereafter. CogniPrin purportedly contains the following ingredients:

• Vitamin B12 (as methylcobalamin), 1,000 mcg

• Proprietary Blend, 238 mg, comprised of:

o Sharp PS® GOLD Conjugated PS DHA (Phosphatidylserine Docosahexanoic 

Acid)

o d-Alpha Lipoic Acid

o Nicotinamide Adenine Dinucleotide (NADH) 

o Bioperine®

o Vinpocetine®

o Huperzine-A

37. Radio advertisements for CogniPrin created by Defendants Synergixx, Fusco, J2 

Response, Bumann, and Steinle, and reviewed and approved by Defendants XXL Impressions 

and Powlowsky, are presented as 30-minute news programs, featuring a radio host, Defendant 

Fusco, identified as “Natalie Day,” interviewing a purported medical expert, Defendant 

Minshew, identified only as “Samuel Brant.” Exh. D-1 (CogniPrin/Minshew radio audio file) at 

00:05-01:05; Exh. D-2 (CogniPrin/Minshew radio transcript excerpt) at 3:4-4:1. Natalie Day and 

Samuel Brant are stage names.

38. Defendant Fusco introduces the radio program as one directed to those who “have 

been dealing with memory issues, forgetfulness, [and] brain fog” and introduces Defendant 

Minshew, appearing as Samuel Brant, as a “brain scientist” and “past director of the 

Neurological Treatment Center for Tiena Health.” Exh. D-1 (CogniPrin/Minshew radio audio 

file) at 00:05-01:19; Exh. D-2 (CogniPrin/Minshew radio transcript excerpt) at 3:5-4:6. 

Defendant Minshew does not possess expertise in neurology, brain science, or cognitive decline. 

39. In this radio advertisement the Powlowsky Defendants, the Fusco Defendants,

and Defendant Minshew claim that CogniPrin:

fight[s] off this brain erosion and increase[s] our memory by up to 44 percent. 

Just imagine, being 44 percent sharper than you are today or remembering 44 

Case 1:17-cv-00067-NT Document 1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 14 of 46 PageID #: 14
15

percent more than you do today, or . . . getting back the memory you had up to 12 

years ago.

Exh. D-1 (CogniPrin/Minshew radio audio file) at 15:00-15:14; Exh. D-2 (CogniPrin/Minshew 

radio transcript excerpt) at 7:11-16. Defendant Fusco states, “Again, the reports out of Stanford 

University have shown that these brain-specific nutrients can help restore up to 12 years of 

memory loss . . .” Exh. D-1 (CogniPrin/Minshew radio audio file) at 07:22-07:29; Exh. D-2 

(CogniPrin/Minshew radio transcript excerpt) at 6:9-12.

40. In this radio ad, Defendant Minshew also claims that “over 64 clinical studies on 

the ingredients in CogniPrin prove that we can get back to having a clear, sharp, focused mind 

with no brain fog, no forgetfulness.” Exh. D-1 (CogniPrin/Minshew radio audio file) at 6:35-

6:46; Exh. D-2 (CogniPrin/Minshew radio transcript excerpt) at 5:21-24. Defendant Minshew 

also claims:

CogniPrin is guaranteed to reduce that mental decline . . . . CogniPrin is backed 

by research that proves it works. The support includes more than 64 worldwide 

clinical studies and more than 2,800 research papers documenting the 

effectiveness and safety of this brain-boosting memory-protecting nutrient.

Exh. D-1 (CogniPrin/Minshew radio audio file) at 24:56-25:19; Exh. D-2 (CogniPrin/Minshew 

radio transcript excerpt) at 10:14-20. Similarly, Defendant Fusco claims, “The research here is 

clear. Sixty-four clinical trials and over 2,800 research papers prove that the ingredients in 

CogniPrin can give you back the sharp mind you once had.” Exh. D-1 (CogniPrin/Minshew 

radio audio file) at 7:03-7:15; Exh. D-2 (CogniPrin/Minshew radio transcript excerpt) at 6:4-7.

41. In the same radio ad, Defendant Minshew claims: 

Now, take [CogniPrin] for three weeks and then ask your wife or husband or children or 

the people around you, ask them, am I -- does it look to you like my processing speed is 

speeding up here? Because that should be observable as well as something we 

experience.

Case 1:17-cv-00067-NT Document 1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 15 of 46 PageID #: 15
16

Exh. D-1 (CogniPrin/Minshew radio audio file) at 20:08-20:23; Exh. D-2 (CogniPrin/Minshew 

radio transcript excerpt) at 8:19-23.

42. Another CogniPrin radio advertisement presented as a 30-minute news program, 

created by Defendants Synergixx, Fusco, J2 Response, Bumann, and Steinle, and reviewed and 

approved by Defendants XXL Impressions and Powlowsky, features Defendant Fusco

interviewing a purported medical expert, Defendant Jahner. Defendant Fusco claims to be 

hosting a program “about the brain and memory loss and how you can easily improve your 

memory, focus and concentration.” She interviews Defendant Jahner, introducing him as a 

national board-certified naturopathic physician. Exh. E-1 (CogniPrin/Jahner radio audio file) at 

00:10-00:15, 01:04-01:09; Exh. E-2 (CogniPrin/Jahner radio transcript excerpt) at 3:6-7, 3:24-

4:1. Defendant Fusco does not disclose in the advertisement that the toll-free number she gives 

consumers to claim their “free supply” is that of an inbound call center owned and operated by 

the Fusco Defendants. The Powlowsky Defendants pay Defendants Jahner and Synergixx a 

percentage of revenues generated from CogniPrin sales. However, Defendants Fusco and Jahner

do not disclose these payments, nor do they disclose that the show is actually an advertisement 

paid for by the Powlowsky Defendants, thereby giving consumers the impression that 

Defendants Jahner and Fusco are stating independent, objective, and, in the case of Jahner, 

expert opinions about CogniPrin. Exh. E-1 (CogniPrin/Jahner radio audio file); Exh. E-2 

(CogniPrin/Jahner radio transcript excerpt).

43. In the radio ad, the Powlowsky Defendants, the Fusco Defendants, and Defendant 

Jahner claim that:

Thanks to a breakthrough in the nutritional world, we can now all safely and 

easily roll back mental decline by as much as 12 years. This means we can

improve our memory by 44 percent right now.

Case 1:17-cv-00067-NT Document 1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 16 of 46 PageID #: 16
17

* * *

[CogniPrin] sharpens focus, clears away brain fog and erases 12 years of lost 

Memory power.

* * *

The ingredients in CogniPrin have been thoroughly researched and are proven

to improve mental function in almost everyone who takes it.

Exh. E-1 (CogniPrin/Jahner radio audio file) at 00:42-00:55, 05:09-05:14, 04:42-04:50; Exh. E-2 

(CogniPrin/Jahner radio transcript excerpt) at 3:17-21, 5:12-13, 5:3-6.

44. In this radio ad Defendant Jahner claims that “In fact, the studies say the 

ingredient[s] in CogniPrin can improve your memory by up to 44 percent.” Exh. E-1 

(CogniPrin/Jahner radio audio file) at 11:39-11:44; Exh. E-2 (CogniPrin/Jahner radio transcript 

excerpt) at 6:19-20. Similarly, Defendant Jahner claims:

* * *

[B]ased on research done at Stanford University, they tested some of the

key ingredients in CogniPrin and they actually were able to show significant 

improvement in all aspects of cognitive function. That includes learning, 

memory, recalling numbers, names, faces. And the results were so 

dramatic that they actually felt that the average person in the study had 

reversed their cognitive decline by 10 to 12 years.

Exh. E-1 (CogniPrin/Jahner radio audio file) at 16:32-16:56; Exh. E-2 (CogniPrin/Jahner radio 

transcript excerpt) at 8:8-15.

45. In the same radio ad, Defendant Fusco states:

[T]he makers of CogniPrin are making a guarantee to everyone in my listening 

audience today. What they’re saying is try CogniPrin just even for three weeks 

and you’re going to improve your memory and reduce mental decline or it’s free, 

you won’t pay for it.

Exh. E-1 (CogniPrin/Jahner radio audio file) at 12:07-12:20; Exh. E-2 (CogniPrin/Jahner radio 

transcript excerpt) at 7:6-10.

Case 1:17-cv-00067-NT Document 1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 17 of 46 PageID #: 17
18 

46. A print ad created by Defendants J2 Response, Bumann, and Steinle, and 

reviewed and approved by Defendants XXL Impressions and Powlowsky, claims that CogniPrin 

is clinically proven.

This powerful formula helps sluggish, tired, forgetful brains to snap alert . . . . 

In a peer-reviewed research study, participants not only saw improvement in 

their memory, mood and concentration, but they also regained lost brain power 

[so that] their brains were equal to that of someone 15 years younger . . . in 

just 30 days! 

Exh. F. (CogniPrin Print Ad) 

47. The same print ad features testimonials from purported product endorsers such as 

“Jeff S.,” who claims that he “feels so much more focused and more energized now that [he is]

no longer fearful of forgetting things,” and “Jessica T.,” who claims: 

I was about ready to see a neurologist when I came across this product. In about a 

month, it was like a light switch. My memories just flooded back to me. And I 

have my clarity and focus back as well. 

Exh. F (CogniPrin print ad). The Powlowsky Defendants have no information concerning the 

existence or truthfulness of these endorsers, and they do not know how these endorsers, if they 

exist, can be identified or contacted. 

48. The Powlowsky Defendants paid Defendant Jahner to train the Fusco Defendants’ 

inbound sales representatives to repeat the Powlowsky Defendants’ advertising claims to 

customers. Also, the inbound sales scripts written by Defendants Synergixx, Fusco, J2 

Response, Bumann, and Steinle, and reviewed and approved by Defendants XXL Impressions 

and Powlowsky instruct inbound sales representatives to tell customers that CogniPrin users 

“will recover as much as 12 years of mental sharpness,” “improve your memory by 44 percent,” 

and that “you can actually start to feel that difference in as little as three weeks.” 

49. On a website, www.cogniprin.com, created by or at the direction of Defendants J2 

Response, Bumann, and Steinle, and reviewed and approved by Defendants XXL Impressions 

Case 1:17-cv-00067-NT Document 1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 18 of 46 PageID #: 18
19 

and Powlowsky, Defendant Jahner makes claims about the effectiveness of CogniPrin. Exh. G 

(CogniPrin website). The website features a captioned photo of Defendant Jahner, accompanied 

by the following text: 

Exh. G (CogniPrin website), at 1. On that same website, the Powlowsky Defendants claim: 

Dr. Ronald Jahner has dedicated over 30 years of his life to studying, 

practicing, and teaching natural alternatives to medicine . . . He has spent 

time researching the brain and it’s [sic] cognitive functions of processing 

emotions, thoughts, and memories. It was during this time Dr. Jahner 

discovered CogniPrinTM. 

Exh. G (CogniPrin website), at 3-4 (emphasis in original). Nowhere on the CogniPrin website 

do either the Powlowsky Defendants or Defendant Jahner disclose that Defendant Jahner 

receives a percentage of revenues generated from FlexiPrin sales. Exh. G (CogniPrin website). 

50. On or about March 16, 2014, Defendant Jahner posted a blog entry entitled, 

“Cogniprin for Maximizing Brain Power!” on a third-party website, Good Gut Solution Powered 

by Crohns.net (www.crohns.net/blog). Exh. H (Good Gut Solution website). In the blog post, 

Defendant Jahner makes several efficacy claims about CogniPrin, including: 

Thanks to breakthroughs in the nutraceutical world, we can safely and 

easily roll back, yes! We can roll back . . . 

1. mental decline up to 12 years,

2. improve our memory by 44%,

. . .

4. get rid of brain fog,

5. improve recall, and even,

6. wake up brain cells that have been sleeping!

Case 1:17-cv-00067-NT Document 1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 19 of 46 PageID #: 19
20

* * *

. . . By replacing this key resource, Cogniprin helps rejuvenate brain 

function and roll back the clock on our ability to think and remember.

* * *

Cogniprin is a unique, proprietary blend of key nutrients researched to 

improve memory and brain function. . . .

– Dr. Ron Jahner

Exh. H (Good Gut Solution website), at 2.

51. In that blog post, Defendant Jahner fails to disclose that he receives a percentage 

of revenues generated from CogniPrin sales, thereby giving consumers the impression that he is

writing an independent, objective, and expert review of CogniPrin. Exh. H (Good Gut Solution 

website).

52. In his blog post about CogniPrin, Defendant Jahner makes clinically proven 

claims about CogniPrin. For example, Defendant Jahner claims: 

Cogniprin works on many different levels to help the body and especially the 

brain and nervous system. We know that because the ingredients in 

Cogniprin have far more clinical testing than almost any other nutraceutical 

product on the market. Cogniprin truly maximizes brain power.

Exh. H, at 2.

 

THE POWLOWSKY DEFENDANTS’ AND THE FUSCO DEFENDANTS’ 

MARKETING PRACTICES

53. FlexiPrin and CogniPrin are sold almost exclusively through inbound sales calls 

generated by print and radio advertising. In the case of FlexiPrin, these radio and print ads claim 

that ordering the product is “risk-free” and backed by a 90-day money back guarantee. For 

example, one of the FlexiPrin radio advertisements claims, “The manufacturer is . . . willing to 

let you try [FlexiPrin] risk-free for a full 90 days . . . [Y]our satisfaction is guaranteed.” Exh. ACase 1:17-cv-00067-NT Document 1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 20 of 46 PageID #: 20
21

1 (FlexiPrin radio audio file) at 07:55-08:12; Exh. A-2 (FlexiPrin radio transcript excerpt), at

9:1-8.

54. In the case of CogniPrin, the radio and print ads claim that “every new customer 

will automatically receive a free 30-day supply,” and that CogniPrin will “improve your memory 

and reduce mental decline or it’s free, you won’t pay for it.” Exh. E-1 (CogniPrin/Jahner radio 

audio file) at 12:53-12:57, 12:18-12:21; Exh. E-2 (CogniPrin/Jahner radio transcript excerpt) at 

7:19-20, 7:9-10. 

55. Consumers who call to order FlexiPrin and CogniPrin are told that there is an 

unconditional, 90 Day MONEY BACK GUARANTEE on their orders. However, in order to 

receive these products consumers must pay for a 90-day supply, accept a 90-day continuity plan,

and pay an initial shipping charge of $9.95.

56. Typically, consumers receive their products between 7 and 10 days after placing 

the order. Many consumers believe that the 90-day money-back guarantee starts when they 

receive the product, giving them 90 days to try it. The Powlowsky Defendants and the Fusco 

Defendants do not disclose, either before or after the initial offer, that the Powlowsky Defendants

compute the 90-day money-back guarantee to begin on the date of the initial sales call, nor do

they disclose that the continuity shipment is sent on or before 90 days after the date of the initial 

sales call.

57. When consumers call customer service toward the end of their 90-day trial 

periods to cancel their FlexiPrin and CogniPrin orders and get their money back, they discover

that the time for cancellation has expired because the Powlowsky Defendants use the initial order 

date — not the date of receipt — as the beginning of the 90-day trial period. Also, the 

Powlowsky Defendants ship continuity orders of FlexiPrin and CogniPrin on or before 90 days 

Case 1:17-cv-00067-NT Document 1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 21 of 46 PageID #: 21
22

following the initial order date, subsequently denying refunds to consumers for initial purchases 

because of a previously undisclosed condition that disallows refunds for initial purchases after a 

continuity order has shipped. The application of this undisclosed condition significantly shortens

the risk-free 90-day money back guarantee.

58. Even when consumers attempt to cancel their FlexiPrin and CogniPrin orders 

within the initial 90-day money-back guarantee period, they are required to meet a number of 

conditions not disclosed by the Powlowsky Defendants and the Fusco Defendants in the initial 

offer. In order to take advantage of the 90-day money-back guarantee, consumers must:

a. Call customer service to obtain a Return Merchandise Authorization 

number;

b. Return, at their own expense, all products, including empty bottles, to the 

company; and

c. Pay for and track return shipments. 

In numerous instances, the Powlowsky Defendants deny refunds to consumers who fail to 

comply with these undisclosed conditions.

59. Once the continuity shipment has been sent, the Powlowsky Defendants offer 

consumers only store credit for their first purchase in the form of exchanges for other 

merchandise. Obtaining store credit is difficult or impossible because it requires consumers to 

pay for the return of unopened products, which in most cases have already been opened and used 

during the free-trial period.

60. If consumers calling to order CogniPrin decline to purchase a 90-day supply, the 

Powlowsky Defendants and the Fusco Defendants disclose, for the first time, that in order to take 

advantage of the advertised 30-day free trial offer for CogniPrin, consumers must agree to a 60-

Case 1:17-cv-00067-NT Document 1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 22 of 46 PageID #: 22
23

day continuity plan and must provide a credit or debit card number to pay an initial shipping 

charge of $9.95 in order to receive their free trial. 

61. Consumers who agree to enroll in the 60-day continuity plan are sent a purported 

30-day free supply of CogniPrin. Under this plan, a new shipment of CogniPrin is sent to 

consumers 21 days after the initial order, and every 60 days thereafter. Because the initial 30-

day “free trial” supply takes 7 to 10 days to reach consumers, consumers have less than two 

weeks to take advantage of their purported 30-day “free trial.” Consumers who choose to cancel 

within 30 days of receiving their initial “free trial” often discover that they are too late. Twentyone days after the initial order, the Powlowsky Defendants charge $99.90 to consumers’ credit or 

debit card numbers on file for the first 60-day continuity shipment of CogniPrin, plus an 

additional $9.95 for shipping. On many occasions, the Powlowsky Defendants refuse to refund 

these charges to consumers.

The Powlowsky Defendants’ and the Fusco Defendants’ 

Offers on Behalf of Third Parties

62. Once consumers accept the Powlowsky Defendants’ and the Fusco Defendants’

primary offer (i.e., FlexiPrin or CogniPrin), the Fusco Defendants’ inbound sales representatives

offer consumers a series of “upsells” in the form of additional goods and services sold by third 

parties (“external upsells”). The Powlowsky Defendants and the Fusco Defendants receive 

commissions when consumers accept free or low-cost trial offers for these additional goods and 

services, which are “read on,” in industry parlance, after the initial product sale is completed.

63. The Powlowsky Defendants and the Fusco Defendants sell two discount buying 

clubs together as a package, Savers Central and Holiday Savers, which cost $17.83 per month 

each after a low-cost 14-day trial period. They also sell a supplemental health savings plan, 

CARExpress Health Savings Program, which costs $39.99 per month after a free 14-day trial 

Case 1:17-cv-00067-NT Document 1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 23 of 46 PageID #: 23
24

period. At the end of the free or low-cost trial period, these charges are billed to the same credit 

and debit cards used by consumers to place initial orders for FlexiPrin and CogniPrin. All of 

these services are automatically billed to consumers by these third parties every month after the 

expiration of the trial period (i.e., a negative option); however, in numerous instances, the 

Powlowsky Defendants and the Fusco Defendants fail to disclose all material terms and 

conditions for this negative option feature. In addition, the Powlowsky Defendants and the 

Fusco Defendants represent to consumers that they will honor requests for refunds and 

cancellations. However, in numerous instances, they fail to disclose all material terms and 

conditions for cancellation of these services. The Powlowsky Defendants and Fusco Defendants 

also fail to disclose the identity of the third parties providing the services being upsold. Finally, 

they cause consumers’ billing information to be submitted for payment, directly or indirectly, 

without consumers’ express informed consent.

Failure to Obtain Authenticated Authorization Under Regulation E

in Advance of Charging Debit Cards

64. The Powlowsky Defendants obtain debit card numbers from many consumers 

with the intention of charging them for continuity plans but fail to obtain consumers’ written or 

other similarly authenticated authorization in advance that describes the terms of the 

preauthorized transfer in a clear and understandable form.

VIOLATIONS OF THE FTC ACT

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

or practices in or affecting commerce.”

66. Misrepresentations or deceptive omissions of material fact constitute deceptive 

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

67. Section 12 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 52, prohibits the dissemination of any 

Case 1:17-cv-00067-NT Document 1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 24 of 46 PageID #: 24
25

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 the purposes of Section 

12 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 52, FlexiPrin and CogniPrin are “drugs,” as defined in Section 

15(c) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 55(c). The term “false advertisement” means an 

advertisement, other than labeling, which is misleading in a material respect. 15 U.S.C. 

§ 55(a)(1).

COUNT I

THE POWLOWSKY DEFENDANTS’ AND THE FUSCO DEFENDANTS’ FALSE OR 

UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIMS ABOUT FLEXIPRIN

68. Through the means described in Paragraphs 24 through 29 and 31 through 32,

including, but not limited to, the statements and representations contained in advertising and 

telemarketing scripts attached as Exhibits A-1 through C, the Powlowsky Defendants and the 

Fusco Defendants have represented, directly or indirectly, expressly or by implication, that:

a. FlexiPrin reduces joint and back pain, inflammation, and stiffness in as 

little as two hours;

b. FlexiPrin rebuilds damaged joints and cartilage; and

c. FlexiPrin has been clinically proven to:

i. Reduce the need for medication in 80% of users;

ii. Reduce joint stiffness in the morning in 100% of users;

iii. Relieve joint pain in two hours;

iv. Provide better joint flexibility; and

v. Rebuild damaged joints and cartilage.

69. The representations set forth in Paragraph 68 are false or misleading, or, with 

respect to the representations set forth in Paragraph 68 a and b, were not substantiated at the time 

Case 1:17-cv-00067-NT Document 1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 25 of 46 PageID #: 25
26

the representations were made. Therefore, the making of the representations set forth in 

Paragraph 68 constitutes a deceptive act or practice and the making of false 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.

COUNT II

THE POWLOWSKY DEFENDANTS’ AND THE FUSCO DEFENDANTS’ FALSE OR 

UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIMS ABOUT COGNIPRIN

70. Through the means described in Paragraphs 39 through 41 and 43 through 45, 

including, but not limited to, the statements and representations contained in advertising and 

telemarketing scripts attached as Exhibits D-1 through H, the Powlowsky Defendants and the 

Fusco Defendants have represented, directly or indirectly, expressly or by implication, that:

a. CogniPrin reverses mental decline by twelve years;

b. CogniPrin improves memory by 44 percent;

c. CogniPrin improves memory in as little as three weeks; and

d. CogniPrin is clinically proven to improve memory.

71. The representations set forth in Paragraph 70 are false or misleading, or, with 

respect to the representations set forth in Paragraph 70 a through c, were not substantiated at the 

time the representations were made. Therefore, the making of the representations set forth in 

Paragraph 70 constitutes a deceptive act or practice and the making of false 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.

Case 1:17-cv-00067-NT Document 1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 26 of 46 PageID #: 26
27

COUNT III

EXPERT ENDORSERS’ FALSE OR UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIMS 

ABOUT FLEXIPRIN AND COGNIPRIN

72. Through the means described in Paragraphs 24 through 27, 43 through 44, 49 

through 50, and 52, Defendant Jahner, appearing as a medical or expert endorser, has

represented, directly or indirectly, expressly or by implication, that:

a. FlexiPrin reduces joint pain, inflammation, and stiffness in as little as two 

hours;

b. FlexiPrin rebuilds damaged joints and cartilage;

c. FlexiPrin has been clinically proven to:

i. Reduce the need for medication in 80% of users;

ii. Reduce joint stiffness in the morning in 100% of users; and

iii. Relieve joint pain in two hours;

d. CogniPrin reverses mental decline by twelve years;

e. CogniPrin improves memory by 44 percent;

f. CogniPrin increases memory in as little as three weeks; and

g. CogniPrin is clinically proven to improve memory.

73. Through the means described in Paragraphs 39 through 41, Defendant Minshew, 

appearing as a medical or expert endorser, has represented, directly or indirectly, expressly or by 

implication, that:

a. CogniPrin reverses mental decline by twelve years;

b. CogniPrin improves memory by 44 percent;

c. CogniPrin increases memory in as little as three weeks; and

d. CogniPrin is clinically proven to improve memory.

Case 1:17-cv-00067-NT Document 1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 27 of 46 PageID #: 27
28

74. The representations set forth in Paragraphs 72 and 73 are false or misleading, or, 

with respect to the representations set forth in Paragraph 72 a, b, and d through f, and Paragraph

73 a through c, were not substantiated at the time the representations were made. Moreover, 

Defendants Jahner and Minshew did not exercise their purported expertise in the form of an 

examination or testing of the products. Their purported scientific proof for the representations 

set forth in Paragraphs 72 and 73 was not the result of an examination or testing at least as 

extensive as an expert in the represented field of expertise would normally conduct in order to 

support the conclusions presented in their endorsements.

75. Therefore, the making of the representations as set forth in Paragraphs 72 and 73

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

COUNT IV

FALSE ADVERTISING CLAIMS THROUGH CONSUMER ENDORSERS

76. Through the means described in Paragraph 34, the Powlowsky Defendants and the 

Fusco Defendants have represented, directly or indirectly, expressly or by implication, that the

product users depicted in their advertising were actual persons who had successfully used

FlexiPrin to provide relief from back and joint pain. 

77. Through the means described in Paragraph 47, the Powlowsky Defendants have 

represented, expressly or by implication, that the product users depicted in their advertising were 

actual persons who had successfully used CogniPrin to mitigate cognitive decline.

78. The representations set forth in Paragraphs 76 and 77 are false or misleading. 

Therefore, the making of the representations set forth in Paragraphs 76 and 77 of this Complaint 

Case 1:17-cv-00067-NT Document 1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 28 of 46 PageID #: 28
29 

constitutes a deceptive act or practice and the making of false 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.

COUNT V 

DECEPTIVE FORMAT OF RADIO ADVERTISING 

79. Through the means described in Paragraphs 23, 37, 38, and 42, the Powlowsky 

Defendants and the Fusco Defendants have represented, directly or indirectly, expressly or by 

implication, that the FlexiPrin and CogniPrin radio shows referenced in Exhibits A-1, A-2, D-1, 

D-2, E-1, and E-2 were objective news or informational programming. 

80. In fact, the referenced radio programs were not objective news or informational 

programming. They were paid commercial advertising. Therefore, the making of the 

representation set forth in Paragraph 79 constitutes a deceptive act or practice and the making of 

false 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. 

COUNT VI 

FALSE ADVERTISING IN CONNECTION WITH 

DEFENDANT JAHNER AS AN ENDORSER 

81. Through the means described in Paragraphs 23 through 28, 42 through 44, and 50 

through 52, including, but not limited to the statements and representations contained in radio 

advertising and an internet blog, attached as Exhibits A-1, A-2, E-1, E-2, and H, the Powlowsky 

Defendants, the Fusco Defendants, and Defendant Jahner have represented, directly or indirectly, 

expressly or by implication, that Defendant Jahner was presenting his objective, independent 

expert opinions regarding the efficacy of FlexiPrin and CogniPrin. 

Case 1:17-cv-00067-NT Document 1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 29 of 46 PageID #: 29
30

82. The representations set forth in Paragraph 81 are false. In fact, the Powlowsky 

Defendants made royalty payments to Defendant Jahner to appear as an expert endorser for 

FlexiPrin and CogniPrin. 

83. Therefore, the making of the representation set forth in Paragraph 81 constitutes a 

deceptive act or practice and the making of false 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.

COUNT VII

MISREPRESENTION OF DEFENDANT MINSHEW’S EXPERTISE

84. Through the means described in Paragraphs 37 and 38, including, but not limited 

to, the statements and representations contained in the radio advertising attached as Exhibits D-1 

and D-2, the Powlowsky Defendants, the Fusco Defendants, and Defendant Minshew have 

represented, directly or indirectly, expressly or by implication, that Defendant Minshew, a/k/a

Samuel Brant, is an expert in neurology, brain science, or cognitive decline.

85. The representation set forth in Paragraph 84 is false. In fact, Defendant Minshew, 

a/k/a Samuel Brant, is not an expert in neurology, brain science, or cognitive decline.

86. Therefore, the making of the representation set forth in Paragraph 84 constitutes a 

deceptive act or practice and the making of false 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.

COUNT VIII

FALSE RISK-FREE, UNCONDITIONAL MONEY-BACK GUARANTEE OFFER 

87. Through the means described in Paragraphs 53 through 55, the Powlowsky 

Defendants and the Fusco Defendants have represented to consumers, directly or indirectly, 

Case 1:17-cv-00067-NT Document 1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 30 of 46 PageID #: 30
31

expressly or by implication, that they could try FlexiPrin or CogniPrin risk-free with an

unconditional 90-day money-back guarantee.

88. The representations in Paragraph 87 are false because Defendants required 

consumers to pay: the cost of the initial shipment, which was not refundable; the cost of 

returning both full and empty bottles of the product; the full cost of FlexiPrin and CogniPrin if 

consumers did not follow the undisclosed or inadequately disclosed return and refund policies 

described in Paragraphs 57 through 59; and additional charges for inadequately disclosed 

continuity shipments of FlexiPrin and CogniPrin.

89. Therefore, the making of the representation set forth in Paragraph 87 constitutes a 

deceptive act or practice in or affecting commerce, in violation of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 

15 U.S.C. § 45(a).

COUNT IX

MISREPRESENTATION ABOUT THE COGNIPRIN 30-DAY FREE TRIAL OFFER

90. Through the means described in Paragraphs 45 and 60, the Powlowsky 

Defendants have represented to consumers, directly or indirectly, expressly or by implication, 

that they could try CogniPrin for 30 days without incurring any financial obligation.

91. The representation in Paragraph 90 is false because the Powlowsky Defendants 

failed to disclose, or did not adequately disclose, that: (a) in order to qualify for the 30-day free 

trial, consumers had to accept a 60-day continuity plan that would begin 21 days after placing the 

order; and (b) consumers would not receive their products until 7 to 10 days after placing their 

orders, thereby giving them 14 days or less to try the product, as described in Paragraph 61.

Case 1:17-cv-00067-NT Document 1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 31 of 46 PageID #: 31
32

92. Therefore, the making of the representation set forth in Paragraph 90 constitutes a 

deceptive act or practice in or affecting commerce, in violation of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 

15 U.S.C. § 45(a).

THE TELEMARKETING SALES RULE

93. 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. The 

FTC adopted the original Telemarketing Sales Rule (“TSR”) in 1995, extensively amended it in 

2003, and amended certain provisions thereafter. 16 C.F.R. Part 310.

94. The Powlowsky Defendants and the Fusco Defendants are “sellers” and/or 

“telemarketers” engaged in “telemarketing,” as those terms are defined in the TSR, 16 C.F.R. 

§§ 310.2(dd), (ff), and (gg). Although the TSR generally exempts “[t]elephone calls initiated by 

a customer or donor in response to an advertisement through any medium,” 16 C.F.R. 

§ 310.6(b)(5), this exemption does not apply to “any instances of upselling” during those 

telephone calls. Id. The TSR therefore applies to the “upsells” that the Powlowsky Defendants 

and the Fusco Defendants offer to those purchasing their products over the telephone.

95. The TSR prohibits sellers and telemarketers from failing to disclose truthfully, in 

a clear and conspicuous manner, before a customer consents to pay for goods or services offered, 

the following material information: (a) the total costs to purchase, receive, or use, and the 

quantity of, any goods or services that are the subject of the sales offer; (b) if the seller or 

telemarketer makes a representation about a refund, cancellation, exchange, or repurchase policy, 

a statement of all material terms and conditions of such policy; and (c) if the offer includes a 

negative option feature, all material terms and conditions of the negative option feature, 

including, but not limited to, the fact that the customer’s account will be charged unless the 

Case 1:17-cv-00067-NT Document 1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 32 of 46 PageID #: 32
33

customer takes an affirmative action to avoid the charge(s), the date(s) the charge(s) will be 

submitted for payment, and the specific steps the customer must take to avoid the charge(s). 

16 C.F.R. § 310.3(a)(1)(i), (iii), and (vii).

96. “Upselling” is defined by the TSR as “soliciting of the purchase of goods or 

services following an initial transaction during a single telephone call. The upsell is a separate 

telemarketing transaction, not a continuation of the initial transaction.” 16 C.F.R. § 310.2(ee).

97. Additionally, the TSR requires sellers or telemarketers in an internal or external 

upsell to disclose truthfully, promptly, and in a clear and conspicuous manner the following 

information:

a. The identity of the seller;

b. That the purpose of the call is to sell goods or services; and 

c. The nature of the goods or services.

16 C.F.R. § 310.4(d)(1), (2), and (3).

98. The TSR prohibits sellers and telemarketers from “[c]ausing billing information 

to be submitted for payment, directly or indirectly, without the express informed consent of the 

customer . . . .” 16 C.F.R. § 310.4(a)(7).

Pursuant to Section 3(c) of the Telemarketing Act, 15 U.S.C. § 6102(c), and Section 

18(d)(3) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 57a(d)(3), a violation of the TSR constitutes an unfair or 

deceptive act or practice in or affecting commerce, in violation of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 

15 U.S.C. § 45(a).

Case 1:17-cv-00067-NT Document 1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 33 of 46 PageID #: 33
34

VIOLATIONS OF THE TELEMARKETING SALES RULE

COUNT X

FAILURE TO DISCLOSE MATERIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF 

REFUND AND CANCELLATION POLICY

(By Both Plaintiffs)

99. In numerous instances, in connection with the Powlowsky Defendants’ and the 

Fusco Defendants’ efforts to add external upsells of discount buying clubs and a supplemental 

health savings plan, as described in Paragraphs 62 and 63, before a customer consents to pay for 

goods or services, the Powlowsky Defendants and the Fusco Defendants represent they will

honor requests for refunds and cancellations but fail to disclose truthfully and in a clear and 

conspicuous manner, a statement of all material terms and conditions of such refund or 

cancellation policy.

100. The Powlowsky Defendants’ and the Fusco Defendants’ acts or practices, as 

described in Paragraph 99, are deceptive telemarketing acts or practices that violate the TSR, 16 

C.F.R. § 310.3(a)(1)(iii).

COUNT XI

FAILURE TO DISCLOSE MATERIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS 

OF NEGATIVE OPTION

(By Both Plaintiffs)

101. In numerous instances, in connection with the Powlowsky Defendants’ and the 

Fusco Defendants’ efforts to upsell discount buying clubs and a supplemental health savings 

plan, as described in Paragraphs 62 and 63, and before a customer consents to pay for goods and 

services offered, they represent that customers are being enrolled in a negative option feature, yet

the Powlowsky Defendants and the Fusco Defendants fail to disclose truthfully, in a clear and 

conspicuous manner, a statement of: all material terms and conditions of the negative option 

Case 1:17-cv-00067-NT Document 1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 34 of 46 PageID #: 34
35

feature, including, but not limited to, the fact that the customer’s account will be charged unless 

the customer takes an affirmative action to avoid the charge(s), the date(s) the charge(s) will be 

submitted for payment, and the specific steps the customer must take to avoid the charge(s).

102. The Powlowsky Defendants’ and the Fusco Defendants’ acts or practices, as 

described in Paragraph 101, are deceptive telemarketing acts or practices that violate the TSR, 16 

C.F.R. § 310.3(a)(1)(vii).

COUNT XII

FAILURE TO MAKE REQUIRED ORAL DISCLOSURES

(By Both Plaintiffs)

103. In numerous instances, in connection with the Powlowsky Defendants’ and the 

Fusco Defendants’ efforts to externally “upsell” discount buying clubs and a supplemental health 

savings plan, as described in Paragraphs 62 and 63, they fail to disclose promptly and in a clear 

and conspicuous manner to consumers the identity of the third-party seller.

104. The Powlowsky Defendants’ and the Fusco Defendants’ acts or practices, as 

described in Paragraph 103, are abusive telemarketing acts or practices that violate the TSR, 16 

C.F.R. § 310.4(d)(1).

COUNT XIII

FAILURE TO OBTAIN EXPRESS INFORMED CONSENT

(By Both Plaintiffs)

105. In numerous instances, in connection with the Powlowsky Defendants’ and the 

Fusco Defendants’ efforts to “upsell” discount buying clubs and a supplemental health savings 

plan, as described in Paragraphs 62 and 63, the Powlowsky Defendants cause billing information 

to be submitted for payment without the express informed consent of the consumer.

Case 1:17-cv-00067-NT Document 1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 35 of 46 PageID #: 35
36

106. The Powlowsky Defendants’ and the Fusco Defendants’ acts or practices, as 

described in Paragraph 105, are abusive telemarketing acts or practices that violate the TSR, 16 

C.F.R. § 310.4(a)(7).

VIOLATIONS OF EFTA AND REGULATION E

107. Section 907(a) of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (“EFTA”), 15 U.S.C. 

§ 1693e(a), provides that a “preauthorized electronic fund transfer from a consumer’s account 

may be authorized by the consumer only in writing, and a copy of such authorization shall be 

provided to the consumer when made.” Section 903(10) of EFTA, 15 U.S.C. § 1693a(10), 

provides that the term “preauthorized electronic fund transfer” means “an electronic fund transfer 

authorized in advance to recur at substantially regular intervals.”

108. Section 1005.10(b) of Regulation E, 12 C.F.R. § 1005.10(b), provides that 

“[p]reauthorized electronic fund transfers from a consumer’s account may be authorized only by 

a writing signed or similarly authenticated by the consumer. The person that obtains the 

authorization shall provide a copy to the consumer.”

109. Section 1005.10(b) of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s Official Staff 

Commentary to Regulation E, 12 C.F.R. § 1005.10(b), Supp. I, provides that “[t]he authorization 

process should evidence the consumer’s identity and assent to the authorization.” Id. ¶ 10(b), 

cmt. 5. The Official Staff Commentary further provides that “[a]n authorization is valid if it is 

readily identifiable as such and the terms of the preauthorized transfer are clear and readily 

understandable.” Id. ¶ 10(b), cmt. 6.

110. Pursuant to Section 917(c) of EFTA, 15 U.S.C. § 1693o(c), every violation of 

EFTA and Regulation E constitutes a violation of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 41 et seq.

Case 1:17-cv-00067-NT Document 1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 36 of 46 PageID #: 36
37

COUNT XIV

EFTA AND REGULATION E

(By Plaintiff FTC)

111. In numerous instances, the Powlowsky Defendants debit consumers’ bank 

accounts on a recurring basis without obtaining a written authorization signed or similarly 

authenticated from consumers for preauthorized electronic fund transfers from their accounts, 

thereby violating Section 907(a) of EFTA, 15 U.S.C. § 1693e(a), and Section 1005.10(b) of 

Regulation E, 12 C.F.R. § 1005.10(b).

112. In numerous instances, the Powlowsky Defendants debit consumers’ bank 

accounts on a recurring basis without providing to the consumer a copy of a written authorization 

signed or similarly authenticated by the consumer for preauthorized electronic fund transfers 

from the consumer’s account, thereby violating Section 907(a) of EFTA, 15 U.S.C. § 1693e(a), 

and Section 1005.10(b) of Regulation E, 12 C.F.R. § 1005.10(b).

113. By engaging in violations of EFTA and Regulation E as set forth in Paragraphs

112 and 113 the Powlowsky Defendants have engaged in violations of 15 U.S.C. § 1693o(c) and 

the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 41 et seq.

VIOLATIONS OF MAINE LAW

114. Section 207 of the Maine UTPA, ME. REV. STAT. tit. 5, § 207, declares unlawful 

“unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any 

trade or commerce.”

115. Material misrepresentations or omissions of material fact constitute deceptive acts 

or practices prohibited by Section 207 of the UTPA.

Case 1:17-cv-00067-NT Document 1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 37 of 46 PageID #: 37
38

116. Section 206 of the UTPA defines “trade” and “commerce” as including “the 

advertising, offering for sale, sale or distribution of any services and any property, tangible or 

intangible, real, personal or mixed, and any other article, commodity or thing of value wherever 

situate, and shall include any trade or commerce directly or indirectly affecting the people of this 

State.” ME. REV. STAT. tit. 5, § 206.

117. Chapter 205-A, “Required Disclosures to Consumers,” of Title 10 of Maine’s 

statutes prohibits certain practices related to free trial offers. ME. REV. STAT. tit. 10, §§ 1210 

through 1210-B.

118. Section 1210(2) prohibits making free offers unless, at the time of the offer, “the 

seller provides the consumer with clear and conspicuous information regarding the terms of the 

free offer, including any additional financial obligations that may be incurred as a result of 

accepting the free offer.” ME. REV. STAT. tit. 10, § 1210.

119. Section 1210-A provides that a violation of Title 10, Chapter 205-A is a violation 

of the Maine UTPA.

COUNT XV

THE POWLOWSKY DEFENDANTS’ AND THE FUSCO DEFENDANTS’

FALSE OR UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIMS ABOUT FLEXIPRIN

120. Plaintiff State of Maine incorporates herein by reference all of the allegations 

contained in Paragraph 68 of this Complaint. 

121. The representations set forth in Paragraph 68 are false or misleading, or, with 

respect to the representations set forth in Paragraph 68 a and b, were not substantiated at the time 

the representations were made. Therefore, the making of the representations set forth in 

Paragraph 68 constitutes a deceptive act or practice and the making of false advertisements, in or 

affecting trade or commerce, in violation of ME. REV. STAT. tit. 5, § 207. 

Case 1:17-cv-00067-NT Document 1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 38 of 46 PageID #: 38
39

122. The Powlowsky Defendants’ and the Fusco Defendants’ conduct, as described 

herein, is intentional.

COUNT XVI

THE POWLOWSKY DEFENDANTS’ AND THE FUSCO DEFENDANTS’

FALSE OR UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIMS ABOUT COGNIPRIN

123. Plaintiff State of Maine incorporates herein by reference all of the allegations 

contained in Paragraph 70 of this Complaint. 

124. The representations set forth in Paragraph 70 are false or misleading, or, with 

respect to the representations set forth in Paragraph 70 a through c, were not substantiated at the 

time the representations were made. Therefore, the making of the representations set forth in 

Paragraph 70 constitutes a deceptive act or practice and the making of false advertisements, in or 

affecting trade or commerce, in violation of ME. REV. STAT. tit. 5, § 207. 

125. The Powlowsky Defendants’ and the Fusco Defendants’ conduct, as described 

herein, is intentional.

COUNT XVII

EXPERT ENDORSERS’ FALSE OR UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIMS 

ABOUT FLEXIPRIN AND COGNIPRIN

126. Plaintiff State of Maine incorporates herein by reference all of the allegations 

contained in Paragraphs 72 and 73 of this Complaint.

127. The representations set forth in Paragraphs 72 and 73 are false or misleading, or, 

with respect to the representations set forth in Paragraph 72 a, b, and d through f, and Paragraph 

73 a through c, were not substantiated at the time the representations were made. Moreover, 

Defendants Jahner and Minshew did not exercise their purported expertise in the form of an 

examination or testing of the products. Their purported scientific proof for the representations 

set forth in Paragraphs 72 and 73 was not the result of an examination or testing at least as 

Case 1:17-cv-00067-NT Document 1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 39 of 46 PageID #: 39
40

extensive as an expert in the represented field of expertise would normally conduct in order to 

support the conclusions presented in their endorsements.

128. Therefore, the making of the representation as set forth in Paragraphs 72 and 73 

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

in or affecting trade or commerce, in violation of ME. REV. STAT. tit. 5, § 207.

129. The conduct of Defendants Jahner and Minshew, as described herein, is

intentional.

COUNT XVIII

FALSE ADVERTISING CLAIMS THROUGH CONSUMER ENDORSERS

130. Plaintiff State of Maine incorporates herein by reference all of the allegations 

contained in Paragraphs 76 and 77 of this Complaint.

131. The representations set forth in Paragraphs 76 and 77 are false or misleading. 

Therefore, the making of the representations set forth in Paragraphs 76 and 77 of this Complaint 

constitutes a deceptive act or practice and the making of false advertisements, in or affecting 

trade or commerce, in violation of ME. REV. STAT. tit. 5, § 207.

132. The conduct of the Powlowsky Defendants and the Fusco Defendants, as 

described herein, is intentional.

COUNT XIX

DECEPTIVE FORMAT OF RADIO ADVERTISING

133. Plaintiff State of Maine incorporates herein by reference all of the allegations 

contained in Paragraph 79 of this Complaint.

134. In fact, the referenced radio programs were not objective news or informational 

programming. They were paid commercial advertising. Therefore, the making of the 

representations set forth in Paragraph 79 constitutes a deceptive act or practice and the making of 

Case 1:17-cv-00067-NT Document 1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 40 of 46 PageID #: 40
41

false advertisements, in or affecting trade or commerce, in violation of ME. REV. STAT. tit. 5, 

§ 207.

135. The conduct of the Powlowsky Defendants and the Fusco Defendants, as 

described herein, is intentional.

COUNT XX

FALSE ADVERTISING IN CONNECTION WITH 

DEFENDANT JAHNER AS AN ENDORSER

136. Plaintiff State of Maine incorporates herein by reference all of the allegations 

contained in Paragraph 81.

137. The representations set forth in Paragraph 81 are false. In fact, the Powlowsky 

Defendants made royalty payments to Defendant Jahner to appear as an expert endorser for 

FlexiPrin and CogniPrin.

138. Therefore, the making of the representations set forth in Paragraph 81 constitutes 

a deceptive act or practice and the making of false advertisements, in or affecting trade or 

commerce, in violation of ME. REV. STAT. tit. 5, § 207.

139. The conduct of the Powlowsky Defendants, the Fusco Defendants, and Defendant 

Jahner, as described herein, is intentional.

COUNT XXI

MISREPRESENTATION OF DEFENDANT MINSHEW’S EXPERTISE

140. Plaintiff State of Maine incorporates herein by reference all of the allegations 

contained in Paragraph 84 of this Complaint.

141. The representation set forth in Paragraph 84 is false. In fact, Defendant Minshew, 

a/k/a Samuel Brant, is not an expert in neurology, brain science, or cognitive decline 

142. Therefore, the making of the representation set forth in Paragraph 84 constitutes a 

Case 1:17-cv-00067-NT Document 1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 41 of 46 PageID #: 41
42

deceptive act or practice and the making of false advertisements, in or affecting trade or

commerce, in violation of ME. REV. STAT. tit. 5, § 207.

143. The conduct of the Powlowsky Defendants, the Fusco Defendants, and Defendant 

Minshew, as described herein, is intentional.

COUNT XXII

FALSE RISK-FREE UNCONDITIONAL MONEY-BACK GUARANTEE OFFER 

144. Plaintiff State of Maine incorporates herein by reference all of the allegations 

contained in Paragraph 87 of this Complaint.

145. The representations in Paragraph 87 are false because Defendants charged 

consumers: the cost of the initial shipment, which was not refundable; the cost of returning both

full and empty bottles of the product; the full cost of FlexiPrin and CogniPrin if consumers did 

not follow the undisclosed or inadequately disclosed return and refund policies described in 

Paragraphs 57 through 59 and, additional charges for inadequately disclosed continuity 

shipments of FlexiPrin and CogniPrin.

146. Therefore, the making of the representations set forth in Paragraph 87 constitutes 

a deceptive practice in or affecting trade or commerce, in violation of ME. REV. STAT. tit. 5, § 

207 and ME. REV. STAT. tit. 10, § 1210.

147. The conduct of the Powlowsky Defendants and the Fusco Defendants, as 

described herein, is intentional.

COUNT XXIII

MISREPRESENTATIONS ABOUT THE COGNIPRIN 30-DAY FREE TRIAL OFFER

148. Plaintiff State of Maine incorporates herein by reference all of the allegations 

contained in Paragraph 90 of this Complaint.

Case 1:17-cv-00067-NT Document 1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 42 of 46 PageID #: 42
43

149. The representation in Paragraph 90 is false because the Powlowsky Defendants 

failed to disclose, or did not adequately disclose, that: (a) in order to qualify for the 30-day free 

trial, consumers had to accept a 60-day continuity plan that would begin 21 days after placing the 

order; and (b) consumers would not receive their products until 7 to 10 days after placing their 

orders, thereby giving them 14 days or less to try the product, as described in Paragraph 61.

150. Therefore, the making of the representation set forth in Paragraph 90 constitutes a 

deceptive act or practice in or affecting trade or commerce, in violation of ME. REV. STAT. tit. 5, 

§ 207 and ME. REV. STAT. tit. 10, § 1210.

151. The conduct of the Powlowsky Defendants, as described herein, is intentional.

CONSUMER INJURY

152. Consumers have suffered and will continue to suffer substantial injury as a result 

of Defendants’ violations of the FTC Act, the TSR, the EFTA, the Maine UTPA, and ME. REV.

STAT. tit. 10, § 1210. 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 consumers, reap unjust enrichment, and harm the public interest.

THE COURT’S POWER TO GRANT RELIEF

153. 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, including the Telemarketing Act, the TSR, the 

EFTA, and Reg. E. 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.

Case 1:17-cv-00067-NT Document 1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 43 of 46 PageID #: 43
44

154. Section 4(a) of the Telemarketing Act, 15 U.S.C. § 6103(a), empowers this Court 

to grant injunctive and such other relief as the Court may deem appropriate to halt violations of 

the TSR and to redress injury to consumers, including the award of damages, restitution, or other 

compensation in an action brought by a state.

155. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, this Court has supplemental jurisdiction to allow 

Plaintiff State of Maine to enforce its state law claims under the Maine Unfair Trade Practices 

Act, ME. REV. STAT. tit. 5, §§ 205-a through 214, against Defendants in this Court. Section 209 

of the Maine UTPA empowers this Court to grant injunctive and such other relief, including civil 

penalties for intentional violations, as the Court may deem appropriate to halt and redress 

violations of any provision of the UTPA enforced by the Maine Attorney General. 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 illgotten monies, to prevent and remedy any violation of the UTPA enforced by the Maine 

Attorney General.

FTC PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Wherefore, Plaintiff Federal Trade Commission, pursuant to Section 13(b) of the FTC 

Act, 15 U.S.C. § 53(b), Section 6(b) of the Telemarketing Act, 15 U.S.C. § 6105(b), Section

917(c) of the EFTA, 15 U.S.C. § 1693o(c), and the Court’s own equitable powers, requests that 

the Court:

A. Enter a permanent injunction to prevent future violations of the FTC Act, the 

TSR, and the EFTA and its implementing Reg. E by all Defendants;

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

resulting from Defendants’ violations of the FTC Act and the TSR, including but 

Case 1:17-cv-00067-NT Document 1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 44 of 46 PageID #: 44
45

not limited to, rescission or reformation of contracts, restitution, the refund of 

monies paid, and the disgorgement of ill-gotten monies; and

C. Award Plaintiff FTC the costs of bringing this action, as well as such other and 

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

MAINE PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Wherefore, Plaintiff State of Maine, pursuant to Section 4(a) of the Telemarketing Act, 

15 U.S.C. § 6103(a), Section 209 of the Maine UTPA, ME. REV. STAT. tit. 5, § 209, and the 

Court’s own equitable powers, requests that the Court:

A. Enter an order declaring Defendants’ above-described conduct to be in violation 

of the TSR and the Maine UTPA, § 207, and to be intentional violations pursuant 

to the Maine UTPA, § 209; 

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

Maine UTPA by Defendants;

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

resulting from Defendants’ violations of the TSR and the Maine UTPA, including 

but not limited to, rescission or reformation of contracts, restitution, the refund of 

monies paid, and the disgorgement of ill-gotten monies;

D. Adjudge civil penalties of not more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for each 

intentional violation of the Maine UTPA pursuant to ME. REV. STAT. tit. 5, § 209; 

and

Case 1:17-cv-00067-NT Document 1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 45 of 46 PageID #: 45
46 

E. Award Plaintiff State of Maine the costs of bringing this action, prejudgment 

interest pursuant to ME. REV. STAT. tit. 14, § 1602-B, and such other and 

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

Respectfully submitted,

DAVID C. SHONKA

Acting General Counsel 

___________________________________

James A. Prunty

David P. Frankel 

Federal Trade Commission

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, D.C. 20580 

Telephone: 202-326-2438, 2812 

Facsimile: 202-326-3259 

Email: jprunty@ftc.gov 

dfrankel@ftc.gov 

Attorneys for Plaintiff

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

JANET T. MILLS

Attorney General, State of Maine

________________________________

Linda J. Conti 

Brendan F.X. O’Neil 

Assistant Attorneys General

Office of the Attorney General

6 State House Station 

Augusta, ME 04333 

Telephone: 207-626-8591, 8842 

Facsimile: 207-624-7730 

Email: linda.conti@maine.gov 

brendan.oneil@maine.gov 

/s/ James A. Prunty

/s/ Brendan F.X. O'Neil

Case 1:17-cv-00067-NT Document 1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 46 of 46 PageID #: 46