Case 8:22-cv-00868 Document 1 Filed 04/12/22 Page 1 of 13 PageID 1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

LITHIONICS BATTERY, LLC, a 

limited liability company; and 

STEVEN TARTAGLIA, individually 

and as an officer of 

LITHIONICS BATTERY, LLC, 

Defendants. 

Case No. 8:22-868 

COMPLAINT FOR 

PERMANENT 

INJUNCTION, CIVIL 

PENALTIES, AND 

OTHER RELIEF 

Plaintiff, the United States of America, acting upon notification and 

authorization to the Attorney General by the Federal Trade Commission 

(“FTC” or “Commission”), pursuant to Section 16(a)(1) of the FTC Act, 15 

U.S.C. § 56(a)(1), for its Complaint alleges: 

1. Plaintiff brings this action under Sections 5(a)(1), 5(m)(1)(A), 

13(b), 16(a), and 19 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (“FTC Act”), 15 

U.S.C. §§ 45(a)(1), 45(m)(1)(A), 53(b), 56(a), and 57b, and Section 323.4 of the 

Made in USA Labeling Rule (the “MUSA Labeling Rule”), 16 C.F.R. § 323.4, 

which authorize the Plaintiff to seek, and the Court to order, permanent 

injunctive relief, civil penalties, and other relief for the acts and practices of 

1 
Case 8:22-cv-00868 Document 1 Filed 04/12/22 Page 2 of 13 PageID 2 

Defendants Lithionics Battery, LLC and Steven Tartaglia in violation of 

Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a), and in violation of the MUSA 

Labeling Rule, 16 C.F.R. Part 323, in connection with the labeling and 

advertising of certain battery systems containing significant imported content 

as “Made in USA.” 

Jurisdiction, Venue, and Division Assignment 

2. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§§ 1331, 1337(a), 1345, and 1355. 

3. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)(1-2), 

(c)(1-2), and (d), 1395(a), and 15 U.S.C. § 53(b). 

4. Divisional assignment to the Tampa Division is proper under Local 

Rule 1.04(a)–(b). 

Plaintiff 

5. Plaintiff, the United States of America, brings this action under 

Sections 5(a)(1), 5(m)(1)(A), 13(b), 16(a), and 19 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 

§§ 45(a)(1), 45(m)(1)(A), 53(b), 56(a), and 57b, and Section 323.4 of the MUSA 

Labeling Rule, 16 C.F.R. § 323.4. 

Defendants 

6. Defendant Lithionics Battery, LLC (“Lithionics”) is a Florida 

limited liability company with its principal place of business at 1770 Calumet 

2 
Case 8:22-cv-00868 Document 1 Filed 04/12/22 Page 3 of 13 PageID 3 

Street, Clearwater, Florida 33765. Lithionics 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, Lithionics 

has advertised, marketed, distributed, or sold battery, battery module, and 

battery management system products to consumers throughout the United 

States. 

7. Defendant Steven Tartaglia (“Tartaglia”) is the founder, owner, 

and General Manager of Lithionics. 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 

Lithionics, including the acts and practices set forth in this Complaint. 

Defendant Tartaglia resides in this District and, in connection with the 

matters alleged herein, transacts or has transacted business in this District 

and throughout the United States. 

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. 

3 
MADE IN 

• = 

U. S. A. 

Case 8:22-cv-00868 Document 1 Filed 04/12/22 Page 4 of 13 PageID 4 

Defendants’ Business Activities 

9. For more than 20 years, Defendants have advertised, offered for 

sale, and distributed battery, battery module, and battery management 

systems. 

10. From at least 2018 until at least August 30, 2021, Defendants 

labeled their products with the following image, which consists of the 

statement “Made in U.S.A” surrounding a USA flag (the “MUSA Label”). 

11. In some instances, the MUSA Labels appeared on product 

packaging immediately adjacent to the statement, “Proudly Designed and 

Built in USA.” 

12. In numerous instances, Defendants featured photographs of 

products with the MUSA Label and other “Made in USA” claims on labels on 

product description pages on the lithionicsbattery.com website. See Exhibit A, 

(lithionicsbattery.com product listings). 

13. In addition to specific product pages, depictions of the MUSA Label 

also appeared in Lithionics’ general company advertising, sometimes paired 

with “Made in USA” narrative claims. For example, consumers who clicked on 

4 
Case 8:22-cv-00868 Document 1 Filed 04/12/22 Page 5 of 13 PageID 5 

the “Made in USA” link on Defendants’ website, lithionicsbattery.com, were 

informed that Defendants’ “battery systems are engineered and manufactured 

in [their] Clearwater, FL USA factory.” See Exhibit B (lithionicsbattery.com). 

14. Defendants’ MUSA Labels also appeared on their social media 

platforms. For example, Defendants published YouTube videos depicting 

company employees, including Defendant Tartaglia, printing “Made in U.S.A.” 

labels in the Lithionics facility and placing them on Lithionics products. See 

Exhibit C (composites from Lithionics YouTube page). 

15. In addition to the MUSA Label and other express “Made in USA” 

claims on Lithionics marketing materials, Lithionics published a chart in its 

marketing materials juxtaposing Lithionics products with “imports,” 

highlighting the “advantage[s]” of Lithionics’ battery systems over imported 

competing products. See Exhibit D. 

16. In numerous instances, including, but not limited to, the 

promotional materials referenced in Paragraphs 10-15, Defendants have 

represented, expressly or by implication, that their battery, battery module, 

and battery management system products are all or virtually all made in the 

United States. 

5 
Case 8:22-cv-00868 Document 1 Filed 04/12/22 Page 6 of 13 PageID 6 

17. In fact, all Lithionics battery and battery module products 

incorporate imported lithium ion cells, and Lithionics battery management 

systems incorporate significant other imported components. 

18. Therefore, Lithionics’ express or implied representations that its 

products are all or virtually all made in the United States are false and/or 

unsubstantiated. 

Tartaglia’s Knowledge 

19. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant Tartaglia had 

sole responsibility for creating, developing, approving, implementing, 

overseeing, and ensuring compliance with Lithionics’ company policies and 

procedures. 

20. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant Tartaglia had 

sole responsibility for, and control and decision-making authority over, 

Lithionics’ product marketing and labeling, including Lithionics’ U.S.-origin 

claims. 

21. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant Tartaglia was 

aware that Lithionics products incorporated significant imported content. 

Indeed, as recently as April 2021, importation documents listed Defendant 

Tartaglia as the consignee and point of contact to receive Lithionics’ shipments 

of lithium energy storage batteries arriving from Hong Kong. 

6 
Case 8:22-cv-00868 Document 1 Filed 04/12/22 Page 7 of 13 PageID 7 

22. Despite knowing Lithionics products incorporated significant 

imported components, the videos posted to Defendants’ YouTube page 

referenced in Paragraph 14 feature footage of Defendant Tartaglia describing 

how Lithionics prints “Made in U.S.A.” labels and applies them to Lithionics 

products. 

Violations of the MUSA Labeling Rule 

23. Effective August 13, 2021, the MUSA Labeling Rule, 16 C.F.R. 

Part 323, prohibits marketers from labeling products as “Made in USA” unless: 

(1) “the final assembly or processing of the product occurs in the United 

States”; (2) “all significant processing that goes into the product occurs in the 

United States”; and (3) “all or virtually all ingredients or components of the 

product are made and sourced in the United States.” 16 C.F.R. § 323.2. 

24. The MUSA Labeling Rule also provides that to the extent any mail 

order catalog or mail order promotional material includes a seal, mark, tag, or 

stamp labeling a product “Made in USA,” such label must comply with the 

requirements of 16 C.F.R. § 323.2. 16 C.F.R. § 323.3. 

25. For purposes of the MUSA Labeling Rule, “Made in USA” is 

defined as “any unqualified representation, express or implied, that a product 

or service, or a specified component thereof, is of U.S. origin, including, but not 

limited to, a representation that such product or service is ‘made,’ 

7 
Case 8:22-cv-00868 Document 1 Filed 04/12/22 Page 8 of 13 PageID 8 

‘manufactured,’ ‘built,’ ‘produced,’ ‘created,’ or ‘crafted’ in the United States or 

in America, or any other unqualified U.S.-origin claim.” 16 C.F.R. § 323.1. 

26. A violation of the MUSA Labeling Rule constitutes an unfair or 

deceptive act or practice in violation of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 

§ 45(a). 15 U.S.C. § 57a(d)(3) and 16 C.F.R. § 323.4. 

Count I: MUSA Labeling Rule Violations 

27. Between August 13, 2021, and August 30, 2021 (the “Violation 

Period”), Defendants placed “Made in U.S.A.” labels on products containing 

significant imported components. 

28. During the Violation Period, some of Defendants’ product labels 

also included claims that products were “Built in U.S.A.” 

29. Also during the Violation Period, Defendants included images of 

the labels affixed on products described in Paragraphs 27-28 in promotional 

materials, including the lithionicsbattery.com website and Lithionics’ social 

media accounts. 

30. Defendants applied the labels described in Paragraphs 27-29 to 

products containing ingredients or components that were not “all or virtually 

all . . . made and sourced in the United States.” See 16 C.F.R. § 323.2. 

31. Defendants’ practices as alleged in Paragraphs 27-30 violate the 

MUSA Labeling Rule, 16 C.F.R. §§ 323.2, 323.3, and therefore are unfair or 

8 
 

Case 8:22-cv-00868 Document 1 Filed 04/12/22 Page 9 of 13 PageID 9 

deceptive acts or practices in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 

§ 45(a). 

32. Section 5(m)(1)(A) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(m)(1)(A), as 

modified by Section 4 of the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act 

of 1990, 28 U.S.C. § 2461, as amended, and as implemented by 16 C.F.R. 

§ 1.98(d), authorizes this Court to award monetary civil penalties of up to 

$46,517 for each violation of the MUSA Labeling Rule. Defendants violated 

the MUSA Labeling Rule with “actual knowledge or knowledge fairly implied 

on the basis of objective circumstances that [their acts] [were] unfair or 

deceptive and [were] prohibited” by the MUSA Labeling Rule. 15 U.S.C. 

§ 45(m)(1)(A). 

Additional Violations of the FTC Act 

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

deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce.” 

34. Misrepresentations or deceptive omissions of material fact 

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

Count II: Section 5 Violation 

35. In numerous instances since 2018, in connection with the 

advertising, marketing, promotion, offering for sale, or sale of goods—namely, 

batteries, battery modules, and battery management systems—Defendants 

9 
Case 8:22-cv-00868 Document 1 Filed 04/12/22 Page 10 of 13 PageID 10 

have represented, directly or indirectly, expressly or by implication, that their 

goods are all or virtually all made in the United States. 

36. In truth and in fact, in numerous instances in which Defendants 

have made the representations set forth in Paragraph 35, Defendants’ goods 

were not all or virtually all made in the United States because they included 

significant imported components. 

37. The fact that Defendants’ goods were not all or virtually all made 

in the United States would be material to users when deciding whether to 

purchase batteries, battery modules, and battery management systems. 

38. Therefore, Defendants’ representations as set forth in Paragraph 

35 are false, misleading, and/or were not substantiated at the time the 

representations were made, and constitute deceptive acts or practices in 

violation of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a). 

Ongoing Conduct 

39. Based on the facts and violations of law alleged in this Complaint, 

Plaintiff has reason to believe that Defendants are violating or are about to 

violate laws enforced by the Commission because, among other things, 

Defendants engaged in their unlawful acts and practices repeatedly over a 

period of at least three years, and Defendants only ceased their unlawful 

activities after learning of the FTC’s investigation into their unlawful conduct. 

10 
 

Case 8:22-cv-00868 Document 1 Filed 04/12/22 Page 11 of 13 PageID 11 

Consumer Injury 

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

substantial injury as a result of Defendants’ violations of the MUSA Labeling 

Rule and FTC Act. Absent injunctive relief by this Court, Defendants are likely 

to continue to injure consumers and harm the public interest. 

Prayer for Relief 

Wherefore, Plaintiff requests that the Court: 

A. Enter judgment against Defendants in favor of Plaintiff for each 

violation alleged in this Complaint; 

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

MUSA Labeling Rule and FTC Act by Defendants; 

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

D. Award Plaintiff monetary civil penalties from Defendant for each 

violation of the MUSA Labeling Rule; and 

E. Award any additional relief as the Court determines just and proper. 

11 
Case 8:22-cv-00868 Document 1 Filed 04/12/22 Page 12 of 13 PageID 12 

Dated: April 12, 2022 

Of Counsel: 

JAMES A. KOHM 

Associate Director 

Division of Enforcement 

LAURA KOSS 

Assistant Director 

Division of Enforcement 

JULIA SOLOMON ENSOR 

Attorney

Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Mail Stop CC-9528

Washington, D.C. 20580 

Tel.: 202-326-2377 

Fax: 202-326-3197 

jensor@ftc.gov 

Respectfully Submitted, 

FOR THE UNITED STATES: 

BRIAN BOYNTON 

Principal Deputy Assistant

Attorney General

Civil Division 

ARUN G. RAO 

Deputy Assistant Attorney General 

GUSTAV W. EYLER 

Director 

Consumer Protection Branch 

LISA K. HSIAO 

Assistant Director 

/s/ Deborah S. Sohn

DEBORAH S. SOHN 

ZACHARY L. COWAN 

Trial Attorneys

Consumer Protection Branch 

U.S. Department of Justice

450 5th Street, N.W., Suite 6400-S 

Washington, DC 20002 

Phone: (202) 305-9983 

Fax: (202) 514-8742 

Deborah.S.Sohn@usdoj.gov 

Zachary.L.Cowan@usdoj.gov 

12 
Case 8:22-cv-00868 Document 1 Filed 04/12/22 Page 13 of 13 PageID 13 

ROGER B. HANDBERG 

United States Attorney 

Middle District of Florida 

LACY R. HARWELL, JR. 

(Florida Bar No. 714623) 

Assistant United States Attorney

Middle District of Florida 

400 North Tampa Street, Suite 3200 

Tampa, FL 33602 

Phone: (813) 301-3008 

Fax: (813) 274-6358 

RHarwell@usa.doj.gov 

13