UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Federal Trade Commission

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20580

Office of Commissioner

Rohit Chopra

STATEMENT OF 

COMMISSIONER ROHIT CHOPRA 

In the Matter of Patriot Puck

April 17, 2019 

George Statler III and his companies doing business as Patriot Puck imported approximately 400,000 

hockey pucks from China and subsequently marketed them as Made in America, stealing sales from his 

competitors who were truthful with their customers. 

When settling this matter, Statler negotiated a term which stated that he and his companies “neither admit 

nor deny any of the allegations....”1

 After the announcement of the settlement, Statler gave an interview 

that suggested he was the victim, noting, “[w]hat happened to me was unfair and not right.”2

 

“No-admit, no-deny” clauses have long been controversial.3 Enforcement agencies often agree to exclude 

formal findings and include these no-admit, no-deny clauses to expedite the resolution of a matter that 

provides substantial monetary relief.

4

 But, in this case, the Federal Trade Commission did not obtain any 

meaningful relief for the consumers and competitors harmed by Patriot Puck’s false Made in USA claims. 

The Commission should rethink its approach to its “no-admit, no-deny” settlements, particularly when we 

do not obtain any monetary remedies. Findings of fact, conclusions of law, and admissions can provide 

injured consumers, competitors, and counterparties with valuable information to seek relief on their own 

and protect their own interests going forward. Further, they help prevent misleading denials while 

advancing the public’s interest in knowing the truth.5

As the FTC continues its efforts to assess and improve the effectiveness of the agency’s overall 

enforcement program, it will be important to examine how findings and admissions can enhance 

accountability when we do not obtain any money from those who flagrantly violate the law. 

 

1 Agreement Containing Consent Order, In the Matter of Underground Sports Inc. d/b/a Patriot Puck, 

https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/patriot_puck_order.pdf. 2 Ken Schachter, FTC: LI Firm Sold Chinese Hockey Pucks as '100% American Made', NEWSDAY

(Sept. 12, 2018, 6:45 PM), https://www.newsday.com/business/ice-hockey-ftc-patriot-puck-farmingdale1.20969946. 3 See, e.g., SEC v. Citigroup Glob. Mkts., Inc., 827 F. Supp. 2d 328, 332–335 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (rejecting a consent 

decree entered without admissions), vacated, 752 F.3d 285 (2d Cir. 2014); See also Verity Winship & Jennifer K. 

Robbennolt, Admissions of Guilt in Civil Enforcement, 101 MINN. L. REV. 1077 (forthcoming) (discussing 

regulators’ approach to admissions in settlements), http://www.minnesotalawreview.org/wpcontent/uploads/2018/02/WinshipRobbennolt_MLR.pdf. 4 Winship & Robbennolt, supra note 3, at 1129 (discussing the impact of fines). 5 Cf. Citigroup, 827 F. Supp. 2d at 332–335 (rejecting a consent decree entered without admissions and citing “an 

overriding public interest in knowing the truth” about cases of public significance). Some agencies restrict 

defendants from making statements that give the impression a complaint is without any factual basis. See, e.g., 17 

C.F.R. § 202.5(e) (SEC); 17 C.F.R. Part 10, App’x A (CFTC).