FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 1/13/2021 | OSCAR NO. 600441 | Page 1 of 11 | PUBLIC PUBLIC

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE 

In the Matter of 

HEALTH RESEARCH LABORATORIES, LLC, 

a limited liability company, 

DOCKET NO. 9397 

WHOLE BODY SUPPLEMENTS, LLC 

a limited liability company, and 

KRAMER DUHON, 

individually and as an officer of HEALTH 

RESEARCH LABORATORIES, LLC and 

WHOLE BODY SUPPLEMENTS, LLC 

RESPONDENTS’ MOTION FOR ACCEPTANCE OF CONTESTED STIPULATED 

CEASE-AND-DESIST ORDER 

Respondents Health Research Laboratories, LLC (“HRL”), Whole Body 

Supplements, LLC (“WBS”) and Kramer Duhon (collectively, “Respondents”) file this 

Motion for Acceptance of Contested Stipulated Cease-and-Desist Order. 

REASON FOR STIPULATION 

The Commission filed this Administrative Complaint alleging that Respondents 

have “disseminated or [have] caused to be disseminated advertising and promotional 

materials”1 for four supplements that the Commission contends were “not substantiated 

at the time the representations were made.”2 Because Respondents ceased all advertising 

1 See Complaint, ¶¶ 7, 9, 11 and 13. 

2 See Complaint, ¶¶ 15, 17, 19, and 21. 

1	
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 1/13/2021 | OSCAR NO. 600441 | Page 2 of 11 | PUBLIC PUBLIC

and promotion of these supplements more than a year ago and have no intention of 

disseminating any advertising or promotional materials for the supplements in the future, 

Respondents are filing this Stipulation and requesting that the Administrative Law Judge 

and the Commission accept this Stipulation. 

STIPULATED CEASE-AND-DESIST ORDER 

Respondents hereby stipulate and agree to the following: 

Respondents shall “cease and desist”3 from disseminating or causing to be 

disseminated all advertising or promotional materials for all dietary 

supplement products referenced in the Complaint (i.e., Black Garlic 

Botanicals, BG18, The Ultimate Heart Formula, and Neupathic), as well as 

any substantially similar products. 

Respondents shall cease and desist from selling or causing to be sold all 

dietary supplement products referenced in the Complaint (i.e., Black Garlic 

Botanicals, BG18, The Ultimate Heart Formula, and Neupathic), as well as 

any substantially similar products. 

This stipulation is not a settlement agreement and it is submitted without condition 

or concession from the FTC. This stipulation uses the exact language and terms of the 

Complaint and is intended to be interpreted by reference to the Complaint. 

CEASE AND DESIST UNDER THE FTC ACT 

Section 5 of the FTC Act authorizes the FTC to initiate an administrative 

proceeding to obtain a cease-and-desist order against an unfair or deceptive act or 

practice. See 15 U.S.C. § 45(b). Because Respondents have already ceased the alleged 

unfair or deceptive act or practice, Respondents are agreeing to relief authorized by 

3

 The terms “cease and desist” are intended to have the same meaning and scope as such 

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

2	
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 1/13/2021 | OSCAR NO. 600441 | Page 3 of 11 | PUBLIC PUBLIC

Section 5 of the FTC – the ceasing and desisting of the acts and practices alleged in the 

Complaint. 

As noted in the Certificate of Conference and the attached Exhibit A, Respondents 

conferred with Complaint Counsel prior to filing this Motion. Complaint Counsel 

opposes the requested relief. Respondents modified the Motion in response to two of 

Complaint Counsel’s concerns, but Complaint Counsel advised that they still oppose the 

Motion. See Ex. A. 

CONCLUSION AND PRAYER 

Respondents request that the Administrative Law Judge and/or the Commission4 

enter a binding Order that provides as follows: 

Pursuant to the stipulation requested by Respondents, Respondents shall 

cease and desist from disseminating or causing to be disseminated all 

advertising or promotional materials for Black Garlic Botanicals, BG18, 

The Ultimate Heart Formula, and Neupathic, as well as any substantially 

similar products. 

Pursuant to the Respondents’ request, Respondents shall cease and desist 

from selling or causing to be sold all dietary supplement products referenced 

in the Complaint (i.e., Black Garlic Botanicals, BG18, The Ultimate Heart 

Formula, and Neupathic), as well as any substantially similar products. 

Respondents also request such other relief to which Respondents may justly be entitled. 

4 Pursuant to 16 C.F.R. § 3.42(c)(6) & (c)(8) and (c)(12), the Administrative Law Judge 

has the power to grant this Motion and entered the requested Cease-and-Desist Order. 

However, to the extent that the Administrative Law Judge believes that he does not have 

the authority to enter the requested Order, Respondents request that Administrative Law 

Judge refer the Motion to the Commission for determination. 

3	
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 1/13/2021 | OSCAR NO. 600441 | Page 4 of 11 | PUBLIC PUBLIC

Dated: January 13, 2021 Respectfully submitted, 

REESE MARKETOS LLP 

By: /s/ Joel W. Reese 

Joel W. Reese 

Texas Bar No. 00788258 

joel.reese@rm-firm.com 

Joshua M. Russ 

Texas Bar No. 24074990 

josh.russ@rm-firm.com 

750 N. Saint Paul St., Suite 600 

Dallas, TX 75201-3201 

Telephone: (214) 382-9810 

Facsimile: (214) 501-0731 

ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENTS 

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE 

I hereby certify that on January 7 and 8, 2021, I conferred with Complaint 

Counsel for the FTC, Elizabeth Averill and Jonathan Cohen, regarding this Motion. 

Complaint Counsel advised me that the FTC OPPOSES the requested relief and Motion. 

Attached to this Motion as Exhibit A is a copy of the discussion with Complaint Counsel 

regarding this Motion. A draft copy of the Motion was provided to Complaint Counsel. 

In response to Complaint Counsel’s concern that the Stipulated Order (a) would not 

include “virtually identical” products to the ones in the Complaint; and (b) would not 

stop “ongoing sales,” the draft motion was revised. The FTC still opposed the Motion 

and refused to provide alternate language. See Ex. A (Email communications from 

January 6, 2021 through January 8, 2021 between Joel W. Reese and Jonathan Cohen). 

/s/ Joel W. Reese 

Joel W. Reese 

4	
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 1/13/2021 | OSCAR NO. 600441 | Page 5 of 11 | PUBLIC PUBLIC

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on January 13, 2021, I filed the foregoing document 

electronically using the FTC’s E-Filing system, which will send notification to: 

April J. Tabor The Honorable D. Michael Chappell 

Acting Secretary Administrative Law Judge 

Federal Trade Commission Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Rm. H-113 600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Rm. H-110 

Washington, DC 20580 Washington, DC 20580 

ElectronicFilings@ftc.gov 

Elizabeth Averill 

eaverill@ftc.gov 

Jonathan Cohen 

jcohen2@ftc.gov 

COMPLAINT COUNSEL 

/s/ Joel W. Reese 

Joel W. Reese 

5	
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 1/13/2021 | OSCAR NO. 600441 | Page 6 of 11 | PUBLIC PUBLIC

EXHIBITA	
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 1/13/2021 | OSCAR NO. 600441 | Page 7 of 11 | PUBLIC

• From: Cohen, Jonathan jcohen2@ftc.gov

Subject: RE: FTC v. HRL; Docket 9397; Motion to Accept Stipulation 

Date: January 8, 2021 at 5:52 PM

To: Joel Reese joel.reese@rm-firm.com

Cc: Averill, Elizabeth eaverill@ftc.gov, Russ Josh josh.russ@rm-firm.com

PUBLIC

 We’re not sure how drafting specific language for you will help. Making 

the proposal marginally more comprehensive won’t address its myriad 

procedural and substantive problems (some of which we’ve raised with you). 

You could look at the Notice of Contemplated Relief attached to the Complaint 

for a general sense of what a proper cease-and-desist order might contain, but 

ultimately, we won’t draft cease-and-desist language for you unless we’re settling 

the case (and you’ve emphasized to us that this proposal isn’t even a partial 

settlement). 

 Furthermore, your clients can still make jurisprudential or statutory 

arguments to challenge the Complaint by sufficiently asserting, in accordance 

with applicable law, that they will accept the Contemplated Relief or elements 

thereof. Those arguments lack merit for many reasons, but regardless, your 

clients can still advance them without everyone extensively briefing—and both 

the Court and Commission needlessly adjudicating—the propriety of a nonsettlement unilateral voluntary cessation of, or voluntary acquiescence to, certain 

things. 

As an aside, it’s unclear whether we could enforce a nonstandard, selfimposed cease-and-desist order that: (i) we haven’t requested; (ii) we don’t want 

(or at least, that we don’t want if divorced from a proper settlement or litigated 

result); and (iii) for which we provided no consideration (or maybe for which 

you provided no consideration, which is a little funky to think about, but you’re 

not providing us anything we want in exchange for agreeing to something you 

want). Maybe we could enforce it—it’s not something we’ve considered—but 

there’s still no difference between sufficiently establishing to the Court that 

you’ll accept certain things through a brief or other submission, and attempting 

to reach the same place through this proposal. 

 Anyway, we remain concerned that this proposal’s net effect will be that 

both parties end up where they are now, except after extensive briefing and 

delay. 

 As always, happy to talk further. 

 Have a good weekend, 
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 1/13/2021 | OSCAR NO. 600441 | Page 8 of 11 | PUBLIC

Jonathan Cohen 

Enforcement Division | Bureau of Consumer Protection | Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., CC-9528 Washington, D.C. 20580 

PUBLIC

(202) 326-2551 | jcohen2@ftc.gov 

From: Joel Reese <joel.reese@rm-firm.com>

Sent: Thursday, January 7, 2021 7:40 PM 

To: Cohen, Jonathan <jcohen2@ftc.gov>

Cc: Averill, Elizabeth <eaverill@ftc.gov>; Russ Josh <josh.russ@rm-firm.com>

Subject: Re: FTC v. HRL; Docket 9397; Motion to Accept Stipulation 

Jonathan: 

Thank you for your email. We may not be able to resolve all issues regarding the motions, 

but I would like to resolve as many issues as possible. 

1. This Administrative Complaint discusses four supplements. If FTC is concerned that the 

stipulation would not cover virtually identical supplements, is there any language that the 

FTC could propose that would alleviate this concern? 

2. If the FTC is concerned about the sale of the supplements, is there language that the FTC 

can propose that would cover the sale of the supplements? 

Please advise. 

Reese Marketos LLP 

Joel W. Reese 

750 N. Saint Paul St., Suite 600 

Dallas, Texas 75201 | Direct: (214) 382-9801 | Main: (214) 382-9810 

www.rm-firm.com 

On Jan 7, 2021, at 5:38 PM, Cohen, Jonathan <jcohen2@ftc.gov> wrote:

 We’ve given this some additional consideration. Of course, we 

welcome your clients’ willingness to stop advertising the potentially 

harmful products at issue. And your clients can certainly memorialize 

their voluntary cessation in various ways other than through this 

proposed stipulation. However, the proposed stipulation still permits 

—among other things—ongoing sales of the potentially dangerous 

products at issue, and advertising virtually identical ones. In fact, the 

stipulation would give us almost none of the important relief the 
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 1/13/2021 | OSCAR NO. 600441 | Page 9 of 11 | PUBLIC

ipulat ould gi impor 

Complaint seeks. 

PUBLIC

 There are other problems with the proposal, not all of which 

we’ll identify here. As we mentioned yesterday, though, we don’t 

understand what procedural mechanism you propose to use to file 

this motion, or what substantive authority the Court or Commission 

would have to grant it. 

 We disagree about what the decision to voluntarily cease 

advertising certain products means, but we recognize that, from your 

perspective, this decision is important to your defense. But filing 

your proposal without our consent will simply require us to brief its 

procedural and substantive infirmities—potentially twice, once before 

the Court and again before the Commission—when you could make 

the same point more quickly and cheaply. You’ve already asserted in 

your answer that your clients no longer market the exact products the 

Complaint identifies, and you’ve already told the Court that you’ll 

accept a restriction preventing you from resuming that advertising, so 

it’s not clear how this proposal moves anything along. 

 Anyway, we can’t consent. If you think it would be helpful to 

talk further, just let us know, and we’ll find a time. 

Jonathan Cohen 

Enforcement Division | Bureau of Consumer Protection | Federal Trade 

Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., CC-9528 Washington, D.C. 20580 

From: 

(202) 326-2551 | jcohen2@ftc.gov 

Joel Reese <joel.reese@rm-firm.com> 

Sent: Thursday, January 7, 2021 3:13 PM 

To: Cohen, Jonathan <jcohen2@ftc.gov> 

Cc: Averill, Elizabeth <eaverill@ftc.gov> 

Subject: Re: FTC v. HRL; Docket 9397; Motion to Accept Stipulation 

Ok. Thanks. No problem. 

Reese Marketos LLP 

Joel W. Reese 

750 N. Saint Paul St., Suite 600 
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 1/13/2021 | OSCAR NO. 600441 | Page 10 of 11 | PUBLIC

750 N. Saint Paul St., Suite 600 

Dallas, Texas 75201 | Direct: (214) 382-9801 | Main: (214) 382-9810 

PUBLIC

www.rm-firm.com 

On Jan 7, 2021, at 2:00 PM, Cohen, Jonathan <jcohen2@ftc.gov> 

wrote:

 I’m swamped; we’ll get back to you with 24 hours 

of when you sent it to us.

 Or sooner. 

Jonathan Cohen 

Enforcement Division | Bureau of Consumer Protection | Federal 

Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., CC-9528 Washington, D.C. 20580 

(202) 326-2551 | jcohen2@ftc.gov 

From: Joel Reese <joel.reese@rm-firm.com> 

Sent: Thursday, January 7, 2021 2:34 PM 

To: Averill, Elizabeth <eaverill@ftc.gov>; Cohen, Jonathan 

<jcohen2@ftc.gov> 

Subject: Re: FTC v. HRL; Docket 9397; Motion to Accept 

Stipulation 

Liz and Jonathan: 

Does the FTC oppose or agree to the requested relief and motion? 

Reese Marketos LLP 

Joel W. Reese 

750 N. Saint Paul St., Suite 600 

Dallas, Texas 75201 | Direct: (214) 382-9801 | Main: (214) 382-9810 

www.rm-firm.com 

On Jan 6, 2021, at 7:30 PM, Joel Reese 

<joel.reese@rm-firm.com> wrote: 

Liz and Jonathan: 
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 1/13/2021 | OSCAR NO. 600441 | Page 11 of 11 | PUBLIC PUBLIC

Liz and Jonathan: 

Attached is a DRAFT Motion for Acceptance of 

Stipulated Cease-and-Desist Order. 

As I requested on January 4, please tell me if the FTC 

agrees to, or opposes, the requested relief and motion. 

Reese Marketos LLP 

Joel W. Reese 

750 N. Saint Paul St., Suite 600 

Dallas, Texas 75201 | Direct: (214) 382-9801 | Main: (214) 

382-9810 

www.rm-firm.com 

<2020_01_04_Stipulation .docx>