1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20580,

Plaintiff,

v.

GRAVITY DEFYER MEDICAL 

TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION, also d/b/a 

GRAVITY DEFYER CORPORATION, a 

corporation,

10643 Glenoaks Boulevard

Pacoima, CA 91331, and

ALEXANDER ELNEKAVEH, individually and 

as an officer of GRAVITY DEFYER MEDICAL 

TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION,

10643 Glenoaks Boulevard

Pacoima, CA 91331,

Defendants.

Case No. ____________

COMPLAINT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION,

CIVIL PENALTIES, AND OTHER RELIEF

Plaintiff, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”), for its Complaint 

alleges:

1. The FTC brings this action under Sections 5(a) and (l) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 

§§ 45(a) and (l), which authorize the FTC to seek, and the Court to order, monetary civil 

penalties and permanent injunctive and other relief for (a) violations of a 2001 order issued by 

the Commission and (b) Defendants’ acts or practices in violation of Sections 5(a) and 12 of the 

FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 45(a) and 52. See Exhibit A, pp. 3-6, In re Esrim Ve Sheva Holding 

Case 1:22-cv-01464 Document 1 Filed 05/25/22 Page 1 of 21
2

Corp., 132 F.T.C. 736, 2001 FTC LEXIS 192 (“Commission Order”). (The Commission Order 

is also available at https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/cases/2001/12/evshdo.pdf.)

SUMMARY OF CASE

2. Defendant Gravity Defyer Medical Technology Corporation (“Gravity Defyer”) 

labels, advertises, markets, distributes, and sells footwear under the brand name “Gravity 

Defyer.” Defendant Alexander Elnekaveh owns Gravity Defyer. This action seeks to hold 

Gravity Defyer and Alexander Elnekaveh accountable for violating the FTC Act by claiming, 

without substantiation, that Gravity Defyer footwear reduces knee, back, ankle, and foot pain and 

helps with various conditions, including conditions such as plantar fasciitis, arthritis, joint pain, 

and heel spurs. This action also seeks to hold Defendants accountable for violating the 

Commission Order, which prohibits making misrepresentations through user testimonials or 

about tests, studies, or research. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

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

and 1345.

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

15 U.S.C. § 53(b).

PLAINTIFF

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

the FTC Act, which authorizes the FTC to commence this district court civil action by its own 

attorneys. 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, and

Section 12 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 52, which prohibits false advertisements for food, drugs, 

Case 1:22-cv-01464 Document 1 Filed 05/25/22 Page 2 of 21
3

devices, services, or cosmetics in or affecting commerce. The FTC also enforces Section 5(l) of 

the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. §5(l), which makes it unlawful to violate a Commission order after it has 

become final and while it is in effect.

DEFENDANTS

6. Defendant Gravity Defyer Medical Technology Corporation, also doing business 

as Gravity Defyer Corporation, is a California corporation with its principal place of business at 

10643 Glenoaks Boulevard, Pacoima, CA 91331. Gravity Defyer transacts or has transacted 

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

Complaint, acting alone or in concert with others, Gravity Defyer has advertised, marketed, 

distributed, or sold footwear to consumers throughout the United States, including in the District 

of Columbia.

7. Defendant Alexander Elnekaveh is the founder, chairman, president, secretary, 

and sole owner of Gravity Defyer. At all times relevant to this Complaint, acting alone or in 

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

participated in the acts and practices of Gravity Defyer, including the acts and practices set forth

in this Complaint. Defendant Elnekaveh invented the VersoShock sole contained in Gravity 

Defyer footwear and has overseen daily operations of the business, including (a) product 

development, (b) business strategy, and (c) approval of advertising and marketing materials. 

Defendant Elnekaveh also (a) conceived of, (b) decided to fund, and (c) participated in 

formulating a protocol for, clinical research on the VersoShock sole that has been cited in 

Gravity Defyer ads. Defendant Elnekaveh, in connection with the matters alleged herein, 

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

Case 1:22-cv-01464 Document 1 Filed 05/25/22 Page 3 of 21
4

COMMERCE

8. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendants have maintained a substantial 

course of trade in or affecting commerce, as “commerce” is defined in Section 4 of the FTC Act, 

15 U.S.C. § 44.

THE COMMISSION ORDER

9. In 2001, the Commission issued an administrative complaint against Esrim Ve 

Sheva Holding Corporation, sometimes doing business as Gadget Universe (“Gadget Universe”), 

and Alexander Elnekaveh, individually and as an officer of the corporation. Exhibit A, pp. 1-3, 

In re Esrim Ve Sheva Holding Corp., et al., 132 F.T.C. 736, 2001 FTC LEXIS 192 (“2001 

Complaint”). The 2001 Complaint charged Gadget Universe and Defendant Elnekaveh with 

engaging in unfair or deceptive acts or practices in violation of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 

U.S.C. § 45(a). Id., p. 3, ¶ 12. It alleged that Defendant Elnekaveh, individually or in concert 

with others, formulated, directed, or controlled the policies, acts, or practices of Gadget 

Universe. Id., p. 1, ¶ 1b.

10. According to the 2001 Complaint, Gadget Universe and Defendant Elnekaveh 

advertised, offered for sale, sold, and distributed to the public Super FuelMAX, an automotive 

aftermarket fuel-line magnet device. The Commission alleged that Gadget Universe and 

Defendant Elnekaveh represented that when applied to a motor vehicle fuel line, Super 

FuelMAX, among other things: (a) reduced fuel consumption; (b) reduced fuel consumption by 

27% or up to 27%; (c) reduced harmful emissions or pollutants; and (d) reduced harmful 

emissions or pollutants by 42% or up to 40%. The Commission asserted that Gadget Universe 

and Defendant Elnekaveh did not have a reasonable basis that substantiated these representations 

and that they were therefore false or misleading. Id., p. 2, ¶¶ 5-7.

Case 1:22-cv-01464 Document 1 Filed 05/25/22 Page 4 of 21
5

11. The Commission further alleged that Gadget Universe and Defendant Elnekaveh 

represented that tests performed at a certified EPA laboratory proved that Super FuelMAX 

increased mileage by 27% and reduced harmful pollutants by 42%. The Commission asserted, 

however, that tests performed by a certified EPA laboratory did not prove that Super FuelMAX 

increased mileage by 27% and reduced harmful pollutants by 42%, thus these representations 

about the test results also were false or misleading. Id., p. 2, ¶¶ 8-9.

12. Finally, the Commission alleged that Gadget Universe and Defendant Elnekaveh 

represented that a testimonial by Defendant Elnekaveh appearing in Super FuelMAX’s 

advertisements reflected both Defendant Elnekaveh’s actual findings and experience with the

product and the typical or ordinary experiences of people who used the product. The 

Commission asserted, however, that the testimonial did not reflect Defendant Elnekaveh’s actual 

findings and experience with the product and the typical or ordinary experience of people who 

used the product and, therefore, also was false or misleading. Id., p. 3, ¶¶ 10-11.

13. Gadget Universe and Defendant Elnekaveh settled the 2001 Complaint with the 

Commission Order. The Commission Order became final in December 2001.

14. Part III of the Commission Order states:

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT [Gadget Universe and Defendant 

Elnekaveh], directly or through any corporation, subsidiary, division, or other 

device, in connection with the manufacturing, labeling, advertising, promotion, 

offering for sale, sale, or distribution of any product in or affecting commerce, 

shall not misrepresent, in any manner, expressly or by implication, that the 

experience represented by any user testimonial or endorsement of the product 

represents the typical or ordinary experience of members of the public who used 

the product, unless:

A. The representation is true and, at the time it is made, 

[Gadget Universe and Defendant Elnekaveh] possess and rely upon 

competent and reliable scientific evidence that substantiates the 

representation; or

Case 1:22-cv-01464 Document 1 Filed 05/25/22 Page 5 of 21
6

B. [Gadget Universe and Defendant Elnekaveh] disclose, 

clearly and prominently, and in close proximity to the endorsement 

or testimonial, either:

1. what the generally expected results would be for

users of the product, or

2. the limited applicability of the endorser’s 

experience to what consumers may generally expect to achieve, 

that is, that consumers should not expect to experience similar 

results.

For purposes of this Part, “endorsement” shall mean as defined in 16 

C.F.R. § 255.0(b).

Exhibit A, p. 5.

15. Part IV of the Commission Order states:

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT [Gadget Universe and Defendant 

Elnekaveh], directly or through any corporation, subsidiary, division, or other 

device, in connection with the manufacturing, labeling, advertising, promotion, 

offering for sale, sale, or distribution of any product in or affecting commerce, 

shall not misrepresent, in any manner, expressly or by implication, the existence, 

contents, validity, results, conclusions, or interpretations of any test, study or 

research.

Id.

DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF THE COMMISSION ORDER

16. On behalf of himself and Gadget Universe, Defendant Elnekaveh signed an 

Agreement Containing Consent Order (“Agreement”), which included the Commission Order. 

Among other things, the Agreement states:

[Gadget Universe and Defendant Elnekaveh] have read the [2001 

Complaint] and [Commission Order]. They understand that they may be 

liable for civil penalties in the amount provided by law and other 

appropriate relief for each violation of the [Commission Order] after it 

becomes final.

Defendant Elnekaveh also signed a statement acknowledging receipt of the Commission 

Order.

Case 1:22-cv-01464 Document 1 Filed 05/25/22 Page 6 of 21
7

17. As an officer and the sole owner of Gravity Defyer, Defendant Elnekaveh’s 

knowledge of the Commission Order is imputed to Gravity Defyer. Gravity Defyer thus has had 

actual notice of the Commission Order. By virtue of the business activities described below, 

Gravity Defyer acted in active concert or participation with Defendant Elnekaveh in violating it. 

DEFENDANTS’ BUSINESS ACTIVITIES

18. Since at least 2011, Defendants have advertised, offered to sell, distributed, and 

sold Gravity Defyer footwear to consumers. Since at least 2016, Defendants have advertised that 

Gravity Defyer footwear contains soles with VersoShock technology that relieve pain, including 

pain in people suffering from numerous conditions. Gravity Defyer’s customers are primarily 

people aged 55 and older. 

19. Defendants have sold Gravity Defyer’s footwear to consumers throughout the 

United States, including to consumers in the District of Columbia, through Gravity Defyer’s 

website, www.gravitydefyer.com; its in-house call center; stores located in Los Angeles, 

Huntington Beach, Palm Desert, and Encino, CA; and retailers such as The Walking Company, 

Hammacher Schlemmer, and Shoe City. At various times relevant to this complaint, 

gravitydefyer.com has offered for sale over 100 different styles of shoes for men and women, 

including athletic shoes, casual shoes, dress shoes, hiking shoes and boots, and sandals.

20. Retail prices for Gravity Defyer footwear have included, but are not limited to, 

the following approximate prices: $140 for men’s and women’s sandals; $155 for the Mighty 

Walk and the Ion, which are widely-advertised men’s and women’s walking shoes; $155 for the 

Iokia, which is a walking shoe without laces; $170 and $180 for the Compass and the Cloud 

Walk, respectively, which are part of Gravity Defyer’s ProWork line for people such as medical 

professionals who are on their feet all day; $185 and $210, respectively, for low-top and high-top 

Case 1:22-cv-01464 Document 1 Filed 05/25/22 Page 7 of 21
8

hiking shoes; $175 to $200 for various styles of men’s casual and dress shoes; and up to $235 for 

men’s work boots. 

21. Gravity Defyer’s annual footwear sales, excluding refunds, totaled approximately 

$3.9 million in 2016, $9.6 million in 2017, and $13.1 million in 2018. Sales of its footwear 

minus refunds in the first three quarters of 2019 were approximately $11.2 million. 

22. Defendants have advertised and marketed Gravity Defyer footwear through 

magazine advertisements, gravitydefyer.com, Facebook ads, Internet ads, radio commercials, and 

catalogs. Gravity Defyer’s magazine advertisements have appeared in a wide variety of 

publications, including Reader’s Digest, The Saturday Evening Post, WebMD, Weight Watchers, 

Arthritis Today, Diabetes Forecast, Guideposts, Sunset, The National Enquirer, Star, This Old 

House, Popular Science, Discover, Field & Stream, Outdoor Life, Sierra, Smithsonian, TV 

Guide, National Review, The New Yorker, The Atlantic, Time, and Military Officer. These 

advertisements have been widely disseminated to consumers throughout the United States.

23. Defendants have represented that Gravity Defyer footwear will relieve pain, 

including knee, back, ankle, and foot pain, and pain in people suffering from conditions such as 

plantar fasciitis, arthritis, joint pain, and heel spurs.

24. Defendants have represented that Gravity Defyer footwear is clinically proven to 

relieve pain, including 85% less knee pain, 91% less back pain, 92% less ankle pain, and 75% 

less foot pain.

25. To induce consumers to purchase Gravity Defyer footwear, Defendants have 

disseminated or caused to be disseminated advertisements for various kinds of Gravity Defyer 

footwear. These and other advertisements contain the following statements and depictions, 

among others:

Case 1:22-cv-01464 Document 1 Filed 05/25/22 Page 8 of 21
9

A. An excerpt of a magazine advertisement that ran from approximately 2017 to 

2018:

Case 1:22-cv-01464 Document 1 Filed 05/25/22 Page 9 of 21
10

B. An excerpt of a magazine advertisement that ran from approximately 2018 to 

2020: 

Case 1:22-cv-01464 Document 1 Filed 05/25/22 Page 10 of 21
11

C. An excerpt of gravitydefyer.com captured on October 23, 2019 (page entitled 

“Knee Pain”):

D. An excerpt of the gravitydefyer.com landing page captured on December 13, 

2019:

Case 1:22-cv-01464 Document 1 Filed 05/25/22 Page 11 of 21
12

E. An excerpt of gravitydefyer.com captured on January 15, 2020:

F. An excerpt of the gravitydefyer.com technology page captured on April 3, 2020:

Case 1:22-cv-01464 Document 1 Filed 05/25/22 Page 12 of 21
13

G. A Facebook ad from January 2020: 

Case 1:22-cv-01464 Document 1 Filed 05/25/22 Page 13 of 21
14

H. A Google ad: 

I. A Google text ad: 

Shoes for Plantar Fasciitis

Clinically Proven Pain Relief

Pain Relief Is What We’re All About!

No Risk 30 Day Home Trial + Free Shipping

Case 1:22-cv-01464 Document 1 Filed 05/25/22 Page 14 of 21
15

J. The cover of Gravity Defyer’s September 2019 catalog:

Case 1:22-cv-01464 Document 1 Filed 05/25/22 Page 15 of 21
16

26. Defendants have also disseminated or caused to be disseminated advertisements 

for Gravity Defyer footwear that contain user testimonials. Through these testimonials, 

Defendants have claimed that Gravity Defyer shoes alleviate pain located in the knees, back, or 

feet, or associated with conditions such as plantar fasciitis, arthritis, or neuropathy.

27. Defendants lacked competent and reliable scientific evidence to substantiate the 

claims identified above. The study cited in Gravity Defyer’s ads has substantial flaws. Among 

other things, it was of insufficient size and duration, failed to ensure adequate double-blinding, 

failed to adequately control for other treatments that participants might have received (such as 

medications or physical therapy), relied solely on participants’ self-reported pain levels instead 

of including range of motion or other functional tests, failed to take into account data from 

approximately twice as many participants who wore Gravity Defyer shoes with and without the 

VersoShock sole, and included results from participants who stopped wearing the shoes. It was 

also only designed to measure knee pain. Thus, the study was not sufficient to determine the 

effects of wearing Gravity Defyer footwear on knee, back, ankle, or foot pain, or pain associated 

with the specific conditions claimed.

28. Based on the facts and violations of law alleged in this Complaint, the FTC has 

reason to believe that Defendants are violating or are about to violate laws enforced by the 

Commission because, among other things:

A. Defendants continue to make deceptive pain relief claims on the website 

gravitydefyer.com;

B. Defendants have engaged in their unlawful acts and practices repeatedly 

over a period of approximately ten years;

Case 1:22-cv-01464 Document 1 Filed 05/25/22 Page 16 of 21
17

C. Defendant Elnekaveh has previously settled FTC charges of false or 

misleading advertising;

D. Defendants continued to disseminate their deceptive advertising despite 

repeated recommendations from the National Advertising Division of BBB 

National Programs, Inc. that they discontinue such claims; and

E. Defendants remain in the business of marketing and selling footwear and 

maintain the means, ability, and incentive to continue their unlawful conduct.

VIOLATIONS OF THE COMMISSION ORDER

Count I

MISREPRESENTING THAT A USER TESTIMONIAL IS TYPICAL

29. Part III of the Commission Order prohibits Defendant Elnekaveh and those with 

notice of the Commission Order who act in active concert or participation with him from 

claiming that the experience described in a user testimonial represents the typical or ordinary 

experience of people who use the product, unless the representation is true and Defendant 

Elnekaveh possesses and relies upon competent and reliable scientific evidence that substantiates 

the claim or there is a disclosure that complies with Part III of the Commission Order.

30. Since at least 2016, advertisements for Gravity Defyer footwear have contained 

user testimonials claiming that the shoes alleviate pain located in the knees, back, or feet, or 

associated with conditions such as plantar fasciitis, arthritis, or neuropathy. Through these 

testimonials, Defendants have implied that the experiences described in the testimonials 

represent the typical or ordinary experiences of people who use the product.

31. Defendants’ representation that the experiences described in the testimonials 

represent the typical or ordinary experiences of people who use the product were not 

Case 1:22-cv-01464 Document 1 Filed 05/25/22 Page 17 of 21
18

substantiated by competent and reliable scientific evidence, nor did they contain a disclosure that 

complied with Part III of the Commission Order.

32. Therefore, the representations set forth in Paragraph 30 violate Part III of the 

Commission Order.

Count II 

MISREPRESENTING THE RESULTS OF A STUDY

33. Part IV of the Commission Order prohibits Defendant Elnekaveh and those with 

notice of the Commission Order who act in active concert or participation with him from 

misrepresenting “the existence, contents, validity, results, conclusions, or interpretations of any 

test, study, or research.”

34. Since at least 2017, Defendants, citing a study, have represented that Gravity 

Defyer footwear is clinically proven to relieve pain, including knee, back, ankle, and foot pain. 

35. In fact, the study did not demonstrate that Gravity Defyer footwear was clinically 

proven to relieve pain.

36. Therefore, the representations set forth in Paragraph 34 violate Part IV of the 

Commission Order.

VIOLATIONS OF THE FTC ACT

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

or practices in or affecting commerce.”

38. Misrepresentations or deceptive omissions of material fact constitute deceptive 

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

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

false advertisement in or affecting commerce for the purpose of inducing, or which is likely to 

Case 1:22-cv-01464 Document 1 Filed 05/25/22 Page 18 of 21
19

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, Gravity Defyer footwear is a “device” as defined in Section 

15(d) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 55(d).

Count III

FALSE OR UNSUBSTANTIATED EFFICACY CLAIMS

40. In numerous instances in connection with the advertising, marketing, promotion,

offering for sale, or sale of Gravity Defyer footwear, including through the means described in 

Paragraphs 18 to 26, Defendants have represented, directly or indirectly, expressly or by 

implication, that:

A. People who have knee pain and wear Gravity Defyer footwear will 

experience significantly less pain, including by as much as 85%; 

B. People who have back pain and wear Gravity Defyer footwear will 

experience significantly less pain, including by as much as 91%;

C. People who have ankle pain and wear Gravity Defyer footwear will 

experience significantly less pain, including by as much as 92%;

D. People who have foot pain and wear Gravity Defyer footwear will 

experience significantly less pain, including by as much as 75%; and

E. Gravity Defyer footwear will relieve pain, including pain in people 

suffering from conditions such as plantar fasciitis, arthritis, joint pain, and 

heel spurs.

41. The representations set forth in Paragraph 40 are false or misleading or were not 

substantiated at the time the representations were made.

42. Therefore, the making of the representations as set forth in Paragraph 40 

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

Sections 5(a) and 12 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 45(a), 52.

Case 1:22-cv-01464 Document 1 Filed 05/25/22 Page 19 of 21
20

Count IV

FALSE PROOF CLAIMS

43. In numerous instances in connection with the advertising, marketing, promotion, 

offering for sale, or sale of Gravity Defyer footwear, including through the means described in 

Paragraphs 18 to 26, Defendants have represented, directly or indirectly, expressly or by 

implication, that Gravity Defyer footwear is clinically proven to:

A. Relieve pain, including knee, back, ankle, and foot pain; 

B. Reduce knee pain by 85%;

C. Reduce back pain by 91%;

D. Reduce ankle pain by 92%; and

E. Reduce foot pain by 75%.

44. The representations set forth in Paragraph 43 are false.

45. Therefore, the making of the representations as set forth in Paragraph 43 

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

Sections 5(a) and 12 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 45(a), 52.

CONSUMER INJURY

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

injury as a result of Defendants’ violations of the Commission Order and the FTC Act. Absent 

injunctive relief by this Court, Defendants are likely to continue to injure consumers and harm 

the public interest.

Case 1:22-cv-01464 Document 1 Filed 05/25/22 Page 20 of 21
21

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Wherefore, Plaintiff requests that the Court:

A. Enter judgment against Defendants and in favor of Plaintiff for violating the 

Commission Order as alleged in this Complaint;

B. Enter judgment against Defendants and in favor of Plaintiff for violating the FTC 

Act as alleged in this Complaint; 

C. Award Plaintiff monetary civil penalties from Defendants for each violation of the 

Commission Order;

D. Enter a permanent injunction to prevent future violations of the FTC Act;

E. Award monetary and other relief within the Court’s power to grant; and

F. Award any additional relief as the Court determines to be just and proper.

Dated: May 25, 2022 Respectfully submitted,

 /s/ Maria Del Monaco_____________

Maria Del Monaco, OH Bar 0067930

mdelmonaco@ftc.gov, (216) 263-3405

Dana C. Barragate, OH Bar 0065748

dbarragate@ftc.gov, (216) 263-3402

Mathew M. Scheff, OH Bar 0082229

mscheff@ftc.gov, (216) 263-3414

Adrienne M. Jenkins, OH Bar 0089568

ajenkins@ftc.gov, (216) 263-3411

Federal Trade Commission

1111 Superior Avenue, Suite 200

Cleveland, OH 44114

(216) 263-3426 (fax)

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Federal Trade Commission

Case 1:22-cv-01464 Document 1 Filed 05/25/22 Page 21 of 21