UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Federal Trade Commission

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20580

1

JOINT STATEMENT OF CHAIR LINA KHAN, COMMISSIONER ROHIT CHOPRA,

AND COMMISSIONER REBECCA KELLY SLAUGHTER

In the Matter of Resident Home LLC

Commission File No. 202 3179

October 8, 2021

The parties named in this matter are no strangers to the Commission. In 2018, the FTC finalized 

a settlement with Nectar Brand LLC (also doing business as DreamCloud, LLC, and 

DreamCloud Brand LLC) (“Nectar”) related to false “Assembled in USA” claims about the 

company’s wholly imported mattresses. Shortly after that settlement, CEO Ran Reske and 

Nectar’s other officers reorganized the company and its subsidiaries under a new ultimate parent 

entity, Resident Home LLC (“Resident”). 

Despite the reorganization and being under active compliance monitoring as part of the 2018 

Nectar order, old habits die hard. Misleading made in USA (“MUSA”) claims continued to 

appear on the website of DreamCloud Brand LLC in 2019 and 2020, contrary to Reske’s 

statements made under penalty of perjury as part of required compliance reports. 

Today’s action sends an unambiguous message about the importance of complying with prior 

Commission orders. In addition to injunctive provisions, the proposed settlement contains 

monetary relief of $753,300 and requires Resident to notify consumers of the FTC’s action. 

Together with the Commission’s recent MUSA rule1

, these remedies signal to businesses that 

MUSA abuses—which harm both consumers and honest competitors—will not be tolerated by 

the FTC. 

Our dissenting colleagues suggest that the proposed settlement is not authorized by statute. This 

is incorrect. The settlement is squarely within the Commission’s statutory authority. 

The dissent contends that the monetary relief in this settlement goes beyond what is permitted by 

Section 19 of the FTC Act. In fact, Section 19 expressly authorizes payment of redress and 

damages. The dissent attempts to sidestep this clear statutory authority by narrowly equating 

“damages” with restoration of money to particular consumers. However, such an interpretation 

runs contrary to the standard legal meaning of the term.2 Furthermore, MUSA fraud can result in 

 1 See Press Release, Fed Trade Comm’n, FTC Issues Rule to Deter Rampant Made in USA Fraud (July 1, 2021), 

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2021/07/ftc-issues-rule-deter-rampant-made-usa-fraud.

2 See Rohit Chopra and Samuel Levine, The Case for Resurrecting the FTC Act’s Penalty Offense Authority, U. PA.

L. REV. (forthcoming), footnote 37, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3721256 (“Black’s Law 

Dictionary defines consequential damages as ‘[l]osses that do not flow directly and immediately from an injurious 

act but that result indirectly from the act.’ DAMAGES, Black's Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019). We have been 

unable to identify a Section 19 matter where the FTC pursued damages, which is traditionally understood to be a 
2

significant consequential damages, both to consumers and, especially, to honest businesses that 

lose out on sales. Against this backdrop, the proposed monetary relief, far from being a penalty 

of the sort prohibited by Section 19, is reasonable and well within the Commission’s legal 

authority.

The dissent also presents a highly restrictive reading of the types of relief “explicitly authorized” 

by Section 19. But despite admonishing the Commission “that the words of a statute matter”, the 

dissent misses the statute’s language expressly stating that the relief available is not limited to 

the types explicitly enumerated (“Such relief may include, but shall not be limited to...”). Thus, 

even if the dissent were not mistaken about what is covered under “damages”, the relief obtained 

here still would not be foreclosed by the statutory language.

Finally, even if the dissent were not incorrect about the extent of the relief the Commission could 

obtain under Section 19 at trial, it would still be wrong about the lawfulness of the relief obtained 

in this settlement. Supreme Court precedent makes clear that federal courts may approve 

settlements that include relief beyond what could have been awarded at trial.3

 

We agree with our dissenting colleagues that Congress should act swiftly to restore our Section 

13(b) authority, and like them we have directly urged Congress to do so.4 But, as we have also 

consistently emphasized, the FTC needs to use all its tools to protect consumers and competition 

 

legal remedy rather than an equitable remedy. Unlike equitable relief, damages can conceivably capture a broad 

range of harms, including indirect consequences of deception. As the FTC faces threats to its authority to seek 

equitable relief, the agency should consider pursuing this alternative form of relief in more cases.”).

3 Firefighters v. City of Cleveland, 478 U.S. 501, 525 (1986) (“a federal court is not necessarily barred from entering 

a consent decree merely because the decree provides broader relief than the court could have awarded after a trial”).

4 See Press Release, Fed Trade Comm’n, FTC Asks Congress to Pass Legislation Reviving the Agency’s Authority to 

Return Money to Consumers Harmed by Law Violations and Keep Illegal Conduct from Reoccurring (Apr. 27, 

2021), https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2021/04/ftc-asks-congress-pass-legislation-reviving-agencysauthority. See also Hearing on “Strengthening the Federal Trade Commission’s Authority to Protect Consumers”: 

Before the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Prepared Oral Statement of FTC 

Commissioner Noah Joshua Phillips, Fed. Trade Comm’n (Apr. 20, 2021), 

https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements/1589176/formatted_prepared_statement_0420_senat

e_hearing_42021_final.pdf; Hearing on “Strengthening the Federal Trade Commission’s Authority to Protect 

Consumers”: Before the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Oral Statement of 

Commissioner Christine S. Wilson, Fed. Trade Comm’n (Apr. 20, 2021), 

https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements/1589180/opening_statement_final_for_postingrevd.p

df; Hearing on “Strengthening the Federal Trade Commission’s Authority to Protect Consumers”: Before the U.S. 

Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Opening Statement of Acting Chairwoman Rebecca 

Kelly Slaughter, Fed. Trade Comm’n (Apr. 20, 2021), 

https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements/1589184/opening_statement_april_20_senate_oversi

ght_hearing_420_final.pdf; Hearing on “Strengthening the Federal Trade Commission’s Authority to Protect 

Consumers”: Before the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Prepared Opening 

Statement of Commissioner Rohit Chopra, Fed. Trade Comm’n (Apr. 20, 2021), 

https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements/1589172/final_chopra_opening_statement_for_senat

e_commerce_committee_20210420.pdf. 
3

within the bounds of our existing authority.5 While Congress works to deliver a Section 13(b) 

fix, Section 19 and other extant statutory tools6 will be crucial in allowing the FTC to obtain 

monetary redress in consumer protection cases.

 5 See, e.g., Joint Statement of Commissioner Rohit Chopra and Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter Concurring 

in Part, Dissenting in Part, In the Matter of Flo Health, Inc., Fed. Trade Comm’n (Jan. 13, 2021), 

https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements/1586018/20210112_final_joint_rcrks_statement_on_

flo.pdf; Remarks of Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, FTC Data Privacy Enforcement: A Time of Change, 

Cybersecurity and Data Privacy Conference, New York University School of Law (Oct. 16, 2020), 

https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements/1581786/slaughter_-

_remarks_on_ftc_data_privacy_enforcement_-_a_time_of_change.pdf.

6 For instance, violators of administrative orders are subject to penalties and various forms of relief under Section 

5(l) of the FTC Act. See Statement of Rohit Chopra In the Matter of Resident Home LLC

Commission File No. 2023179, Oct. 8, 2021.