Case 2:19-cv-00713-DAK-DAO Document 219 Filed 02/12/21 PageID.11976 Page 1 of 56 

COLLOT GUERARD 

JOSHUA DOAN 

AMANDA GRIER 

THOMAS HARRIS 

(Each appearing pursuant to DUCivR 83-1.1(d)(1)) 

600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, CC-8528 

Washington, D.C. 20580 

Telephone: (202) 326-3338 

cguerard@ftc.gov; jdoan@ftc.gov 

agrier@ftc.gov; tharris1@ftc.gov 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

ROBERT G. WING (4445) 

THOMAS MELTON (4999) 

JONI OSTLER (9607) 

KEVIN MCLEAN (16101) 

Assistant Attorney General 

Utah Attorney General’s Office 

160 East 300 South, Fifth Floor 

Salt Lake City, Utah 84114 

Telephone: 801-366-0310 

rwing@agutah.gov; tmelton@agutah.gov 

joniostler@agutah.gov; kmclean@agutah.gov 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

UTAH DIVISION OF CONSUMER PROTECTION 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, and 

UTAH DIVISION OF CONSUMER 

PROTECTION, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

ZURIXX, LLC, a Utah limited liability 

company, 

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 

FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND 

OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF 

Case No: 2:19-CV-00713-DAK-DAO 

District Judge Dale A. Kimball 

Magistrate Judge Daphne A. Oberg 
 

 

Case 2:19-cv-00713-DAK-DAO Document 219 Filed 02/12/21 PageID.11977 Page 2 of 56 

BRAND MANAGEMENT HOLDINGS, 

LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, 

CAC INVESTMENT VENTURES, LLC, a 

Utah limited liability company; 

CAC INVESTMENT VENTURES, LLC, a 

Puerto Rico limited liability company, 

CARLSON DEVELOPMENT GROUP, 

LLC, a Utah limited liability company, 

CARLSON DEVELOPMENT GROUP, 

LLC, a Puerto Rico limited liability 

company, 

CJ SEMINAR HOLDINGS, LLC, a Utah

limited liability company, 

DORADO MARKETING AND 

MANAGEMENT, LLC, f/k/a Zurixx, LLC, 

a Puerto Rico limited liability company, 

JSS INVESTMENT VENTURES, LLC, a 

Utah limited liability company, 

JSS TRUST, individually and as an owner 

of JSS INVESTMENT VENTURES, LLC, 

ZURIXX FINANCIAL, LLC, a Utah 

limited liability company, 

ZURIXX FINANCIAL, LLC, a Puerto Rico 

limited liability company, 

CRISTOPHER A. CANNON, individually 

and as an officer of ZURIXX, LLC, 

JAMES M. CARLSON, individually and as 

an officer of ZURIXX, LLC, 

JEFFREY D. SPANGLER, individually and 

as an officer of ZURIXX, LLC, 

2 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 2:19-cv-00713-DAK-DAO Document 219 Filed 02/12/21 PageID.11978 Page 3 of 56 

GERALD D. SPANGLER, as trustee for 

the JSS TRUST, 

Defendants, and 

STEPHENIE J. SPANGLER, 

Relief Defendant. 

Plaintiffs, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) and the Utah Division of Consumer 

Protection (“Division”), for the Complaint allege: 

1. The FTC brings this action under Sections 13(b) and 19 of the Federal Trade 

Commission Act (“FTC Act”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 53(b) and 57b, the Consumer Review Fairness Act 

(“CRFA”), 15 U.S.C. § 45b, and the Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention 

Act (“Telemarketing Act”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 6101-6108, to obtain temporary, preliminary, and 

permanent injunctive relief, rescission or reformation of contracts, restitution, the refund of 

monies paid, disgorgement of ill-gotten monies, and other equitable relief for Defendants’ acts or 

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

45, and in violation of the FTC’s Telemarketing Sales Rule (“TSR”), 16 C.F.R. Part 310. 

2. The Division brings this action pursuant to the authority granted by Utah Code §§ 

13-2-5(3), 13-11-17, 13-15-6, 13-26-8, and 13-26-8, and the Telemarketing Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 

6101-6108. The Division seeks, among other things, temporary, preliminary, and permanent 

injunctive relief, rescission or reformation of contracts, restitution, the refund of monies paid, 

disgorgement of ill-gotten monies, civil penalties, fines, and other equitable relief for 

Defendants’ acts, omissions, or practices in violation of the Utah Consumer Sales Practices Act 

(“UCSPA”), Utah Code § 13-11-1 et seq., and the Business Opportunity Disclosure Act 

3 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 2:19-cv-00713-DAK-DAO Document 219 Filed 02/12/21 PageID.11979 Page 4 of 56 

(“BODA”), Utah Code § 13-15-1 et seq., the TSR, 16 C.F.R. Part 310, and the Telephone Fraud 

Prevention Act (“TFPA”), Utah Code § 13-26-1 et seq. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

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

and 1345. 

4. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the Division’s claims pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1367. 

5. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and (c), and 15 U.S.C. 

§ 53(b). 

SUMMARY OF THE CASE 

6. Since at least July 2013, Defendants Zurixx, LLC, Brand Management Holdings, 

LLC, CAC Investment Ventures, LLC (Utah), CAC Investment Ventures, LLC (Puerto Rico), 

Carlson Development Group, LLC (Utah), Carlson Development Group, LLC (Puerto Rico), CJ 

Seminar Holdings, LLC, Dorado Marketing and Management, LLC, JSS Investment Ventures, 

LLC, JSS Trust Zurixx Financial, LLC (Utah), and Zurixx Financial, LLC (Puerto Rico) 

(collectively “Zurixx”) – led by individual defendants Cristopher Cannon, James Carlson, and 

Jeffrey Spangler – have marketed and sold real estate investment products and services 

(“products”) that purport to allow consumers to make thousands of dollars in profit using 

Zurixx’s system. 

7. Zurixx’s “system” comprises two flipping strategies: “fix and flip” and 

“wholesale flips.” A “fix and flip” involves purchasing and renovating a property before selling 

4 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 2:19-cv-00713-DAK-DAO Document 219 Filed 02/12/21 PageID.11980 Page 5 of 56 

it to an end user. A “wholesale flip” involves acquiring an interest in a property and then 

transferring that interest to a wholesale buyer, who will, in turn, fix and flip the property. 

8. To entice consumers to purchase its products, Zurixx routinely hosts free live 

events that depict celebrities from house flipping, home renovation, and entrepreneurship 

television programs, who indicate that their team of “experts” will teach consumers how to make 

money by following their system of real estate investing. 

9. During the free events, Zurixx repeatedly represents that consumers who sign up 

for its 3-day workshop are likely to earn thousands of dollars in profit, often with little risk, time, 

or effort. Zurixx also represents that consumers who purchase the workshop will receive 100% 

funding for their real estate investments regardless of their credit history. It backs up these 

representations with a money-back guarantee – consumers who do not make “a minimum of 

three times” the price of the 3-day workshop within six months will receive their money back. 

10. For example, a Zurixx presenter made the following representations during a 

December 2018 free event in Georgia: 

Not only are [Tarek and Christina El Moussa] going to give you a professional education, 

not only are they going to give you a list of all their lending partners to fund all your 

deals plus to rehab regardless of your credit, not only are they going to give you the cash 

buyers list so you have the buyers, but they are going to guarantee that you or your 

partners closes a deal within three months, you get your money back... 

11. A Zurixx presenter at a June 2018 free event in California told attendees, “[i]f it 

doesn’t work for you, we still give you $2,000 back. This really is a no-lose situation as long as 

you try it.” 

12. Zurixx telemarketers have also called consumers who have purchased Zurixx’s 

products to sell them real estate coaching packages, representing to consumers that the coaching 

5 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 2:19-cv-00713-DAK-DAO Document 219 Filed 02/12/21 PageID.11981 Page 6 of 56 

packages will allow consumers to be even more successful financially in their real estate 

business. Zurixx’s representations are false or unsubstantiated. Consumers are unlikely to earn 

thousands of dollars in profit from real estate investments by using Zurixx’s products. 

Consumers are unlikely to receive 100% funding for real estate deals through Zurixx or its 

partners and affiliates. Moreover, Zurixx’s six-month money-back guarantee contains 

substantial limitations that Zurixx fails to disclose adequately until after consumers have paid for 

the 3-day workshop. 

13. Many dissatisfied consumers have requested refunds from Zurixx. When Zurixx 

agrees to refund consumers’ money, it routinely provides only a partial refund, which in many 

instances, Zurixx conditions on the consumers signing an agreement barring them from speaking 

with the FTC, state Attorneys General, and other regulators, submitting complaints to the Better 

Business Bureau, or posting negative reviews or complaints about Zurixx and its products. 

14. In perpetrating its scheme, Zurixx has violated the FTC Act, the CRFA, the TSR, 

the UCSPA, the BODA and the TFPA. 

PLAINTIFFS 

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

statute. 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. The FTC also 

enforces the CRFA, 15 U.S.C. § 45b. The CRFA prohibits the offering of provisions in form 

contracts that restrict individual consumers’ ability to communicate reviews, performance 

assessments, and similar analyses about a seller’s products, services, or conduct. The FTC also 

enforces the Telemarketing Act. Pursuant to the Telemarketing Act, the FTC promulgated and 

6 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 2:19-cv-00713-DAK-DAO Document 219 Filed 02/12/21 PageID.11982 Page 7 of 56 

enforces the TSR, 16 C.F.R. Part 310, which prohibits deceptive and abusive telemarketing acts 

or practices. 

16. The FTC is authorized to initiate federal district court proceedings, by its own 

attorneys, to enjoin violations of the FTC Act, the CRFA, and the TSR and to secure such relief 

as may be appropriate in each case, including rescission or reformation of contracts, restitution, 

the refund of monies paid, disgorgement of ill-gotten monies, other equitable relief, and 

damages. 15 U.S.C. §§ 53(b), 57b, and the CRFA, 15 U.S.C. § 45b. 

17. The Division is an agency of the State of Utah created by statute. Utah Code § 13-

2-1(1). The Division administers and enforces the UCSPA, which prohibits deceptive acts and 

practices in connection with consumer transactions. It administers and enforces the BODA, 

which requires sellers of assisted marketing plans to file certain information with the Division 

and to provide disclosures to prospective purchasers. 

18. The Division is authorized to take legal action against persons who violate the 

UCSPA and the BODA to enjoin violations of the acts, seek other equitable relief, and to obtain 

damages, fines, civil penalties, fees, and costs. Utah Code §§ 13-2-5(3); 13-11-17(1)(a)-(d); 13-

15-6(3). 

DEFENDANTS 

19. Defendant Zurixx, LLC is a Utah limited liability company with its principal 

place of business at 2750 East Cottonwood Parkway, Suite 200, Cottonwood Heights, Utah 

84121. It does business under numerous fictitious names including, but not limited to, Advanced 

Financial Training, Advanced Real Estate Education, Doug Hopkins Real Estate Formula, Fast 

Track Flips, Flip Advantage, Flip It Forward, Flippin’ On The Side, Flipping Formula Education, 

7 
 

 

 

 

Case 2:19-cv-00713-DAK-DAO Document 219 Filed 02/12/21 PageID.11983 Page 8 of 56 

Good Flips, High Point Training, LLC, Property Wars, Real Estate Elevated, Rules of 

Renovation, Side Flips, Success Path Education, Two Chicks and Training Tools, Winning the 

Property War, 10X Success Real Estate, Fixing to Flip, Karen and Mina’s Real Estate Education, 

Next Level Success Real Estate, and Will to Win Real Estate. Zurixx, LLC transacts or has 

transacted business in this District and throughout the United States. Its bank accounts have 

been located in Utah, most of its employees have been located in Utah, it has directed its 

activities from its Utah headquarters, the majority of its efforts to fulfill its contracts have arisen 

from Utah, and it has used Utah transactional resources in engaging in its efforts. It formulated 

the Zurixx system in Utah. At all times material to this Complaint, acting alone or in concert 

with others, Zurixx, LLC has advertised, marketed, distributed, or sold the real estate investment 

products at issue in this Complaint to consumers throughout the United States. 

20. Defendant Brand Management Holdings, LLC (“Brand Management”) is a 

Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business at 2750 East Cottonwood 

Parkway, Suite 200, Cottonwood Heights, Utah 84121. Brand Management transacts or has 

transacted business in this District and throughout the United States. Its bank accounts have 

been located in Utah, it has directed its activities from its Utah headquarters, the majority of its 

efforts to fulfill its contracts have arisen from Utah, and it has used Utah transactional resources 

in engaging in its efforts. It formulated the Zurixx system in Utah. Since at least October 2016, 

acting alone or in concert with others, Brand Management has advertised, marketed, distributed, 

or sold the real estate investment products at issue in this Complaint to consumers throughout the 

United States. 

8 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 2:19-cv-00713-DAK-DAO Document 219 Filed 02/12/21 PageID.11984 Page 9 of 56 

21. Defendant CAC Investment Ventures LLC (“CAC Ventures Utah”) is a Utah 

limited liability company with its principal place of business at 2750 East Cottonwood Parkway, 

Suite 200, Cottonwood Heights, Utah 84121. CAC Ventures Utah is a member of CJ Seminar 

Holdings, LLC. CAC Ventures Utah transacts or has transacted business in this District and 

throughout the United States. At all times material to this Complaint, acting alone or in concert 

with others, CAC Ventures Utah, by way of CJ Seminar and through Zurixx, LLC, has 

advertised, marketed, distributed, or sold the real estate investment products at issue in this 

Complaint to consumers throughout the United States 

22. Defendant CAC Investment Ventures LLC (“CAC Ventures Puerto Rico”) is a 

Puerto Rico limited liability company with its principal place of business at Centro Commercial 

Paseo del Plata, 602 Avenue José Efrón, Office 1002, Dorado, Puerto Rico 00646. CAC 

Ventures Puerto Rico is a member of Dorado Marketing and Management, LLC. CAC Ventures 

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

Since at least July 2015, acting alone or in concert with others, CAC Ventures Puerto Rico, as a 

member of Dorado, has advertised, marketed, distributed, or sold the real estate investment 

products at issue in this Complaint to consumers throughout the United States. 

23. Defendant Carlson Development Group, LLC (“CDG Utah”) is a Utah limited 

liability company with its principal place of business at 2750 East Cottonwood Parkway, Suite 

200, Cottonwood Heights, Utah 84121. CDG Utah is a manager and member of Zurixx 

Financial Utah. CDG Utah transacts or has transacted business in this District and throughout 

the United States. Its bank accounts have been located in Utah, it has directed its activities from 

its Utah headquarters, the majority of its efforts to fulfill its contracts have arisen from Utah, and 

9 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 2:19-cv-00713-DAK-DAO Document 219 Filed 02/12/21 PageID.11985 Page 10 of 56 

it has used Utah transactional resources in engaging in its efforts. It formulated the Zurixx 

system in Utah. At all times material to this Complaint, acting alone or in concert with others, 

CDG Utah, by way of Zurixx Financial Utah and through Zurixx, LLC, has advertised, 

marketed, distributed, or sold the real estate investment products at issue in this Complaint to 

consumers throughout the United States. 

24. Defendant Carlson Development Group, LLC (“CDG Puerto Rico”) is a Puerto 

Rico limited liability company with its principal place of business at 12 Dorado Beach East, 

Dorado, Puerto Rico. CDG Puerto Rico is a member of Zurixx Financial Puerto Rico. CDG 

Puerto Rico also owns James Carlson’s Puerto Rico residence. CDG Puerto Rico transacts or 

has transacted business in this District and throughout the United States. Since at least July 

2015, acting alone or in concert with others, CDG Puerto Rico, by way of Zurixx Financial 

Puerto Rico and through Dorado and Brand Management, has advertised, marketed, distributed, 

or sold the real estate investment products at issue in this Complaint to consumers throughout the 

United States. 

25. Defendant CJ Seminar Holdings, LLC (“CJ Seminar”) is a Utah limited 

liability company with its principal place of business at 2750 East Cottonwood Parkway, Suite 

200, Cottonwood Heights, Utah 84121. CJ Seminar is a member of Zurixx, LLC and Brand 

Management. CJ Seminar transacts or has transacted business in this District and throughout the 

United States. At all times material to this Complaint, acting alone or in concert with others, CJ 

Seminar, as a member of Zurixx, LLC and Brand Management, has advertised, marketed, 

distributed, or sold the real estate investment products at issue in this Complaint to consumers 

throughout the United States. 

10 
 

 

 

Case 2:19-cv-00713-DAK-DAO Document 219 Filed 02/12/21 PageID.11986 Page 11 of 56 

26. Defendant Dorado Marketing and Management, LLC (“Dorado”), formerly 

known as Zurixx, LLC, is a Puerto Rico limited liability company with its principal place of 

business at 1302 Ponce de Leon Avenue, San Juan, Puerto Rico 00907. Dorado transacts or has 

transacted business in this District and throughout the United States. Since at least August 2014, 

acting alone or in concert with others, Dorado has advertised, marketed, distributed, or sold the 

real estate investment products at issue in this Complaint to consumers throughout the United 

States. 

27. Defendant JSS Investment Ventures, LLC (“JSS Ventures”) is a Utah limited 

liability company that has identified 814A Saiz Lane, Bloomfield, New Mexico 87413 as its 

principal place of business since October 11, 2019. Before that, JSS Ventures identified Jeffrey 

Spangler’s residence, which JSS Ventures owns, as its principal place of business. JSS Ventures 

is a member of CJ Seminar and Dorado. JSS Ventures transacts or has transacted business in this 

District and throughout the United States. At all times material to this Complaint, acting alone or 

in concert with others, JSS Ventures, by way of CJ Seminar and through Zurixx, LLC and 

Dorado, has advertised, marketed, distributed, or sold the real estate investment products at issue 

in this Complaint to consumers throughout the United States. 

28. Defendant JSS Trust is a Utah trust for which Jeffrey D. Spangler is the grantor. 

JSS Trust owns JSS Ventures. JSS Trust transacts or has transacted business in this District and 

throughout the United States. At all times material to this Complaint, acting alone or in concert 

with others, JSS Trust, by way of JSS Ventures and CJ Seminar, and through Zurixx, LLC and 

Dorado, has advertised, marketed, distributed, or sold the real estate investment products at issue 

in this Complaint to consumers throughout the United States. 

11 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 2:19-cv-00713-DAK-DAO Document 219 Filed 02/12/21 PageID.11987 Page 12 of 56 

29. Defendant Zurixx Financial, LLC (“Zurixx Financial Utah”) is a Utah limited 

liability company with its principal place of business at 2750 East Cottonwood Parkway, Suite 

200, Cottonwood Heights, Utah 84121. Zurixx Financial Utah is a manager and member of 

Zurixx, LLC. Zurixx Financial Utah transacts or has transacted business in this District and 

throughout the United States. At all times material to this Complaint, acting alone or in concert 

with others, Zurixx Financial Utah, as a manager and member of Zurixx, LLC, has advertised, 

marketed, distributed, or sold the real estate investment products at issue in this Complaint to 

consumers throughout the United States. 

30. Defendant Zurixx Financial, LLC (“Zurixx Financial Puerto Rico”) is a 

Puerto Rico limited liability company with its principal place of business at 12 Dorado Beach 

East, Dorado, Puerto Rico. Zurixx Financial Puerto Rico is a member of Dorado and Brand 

Management. Zurixx Financial Puerto Rico transacts or has transacted business in this District 

and throughout the United States. Since at least July 2015, acting alone or in concert with others, 

Zurixx Financial Puerto Rico, as a member of Dorado and Brand Management, has advertised, 

marketed, distributed, or sold the real estate investment products at issue in this Complaint to 

consumers throughout the United States. 

31. Defendant Cristopher A. Cannon is an officer of Zurixx, LLC and Dorado, a 

manager of CJ Seminar, and a manager and member of CAC Ventures Utah and CAC Ventures 

Puerto Rico. At all times material 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 set forth in this Complaint. Cannon, in connection with the matters alleged herein, 

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

12 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 2:19-cv-00713-DAK-DAO Document 219 Filed 02/12/21 PageID.11988 Page 13 of 56 

32. Defendant James M. Carlson is the chief executive officer of Zurixx, LLC, an 

officer of Dorado, and a manager and member of CDG Utah and CDG Puerto Rico. At all times 

material 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 set forth in this 

Complaint. Carlson, in connection with the matters alleged herein, transacts or has transacted 

business in this District and throughout the United States. 

33. Defendant Jeffrey D. Spangler is an officer of Zurixx, LLC and Dorado, a 

manager of CJ Seminar, a member and manager of JSS Ventures, and the grantor of JSS Trust. 

At all times material 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 set forth 

in this Complaint. Jeffrey Spangler, in connection with the matters alleged herein, transacts or 

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

34. Defendant Gerald D. Spangler is the trustee of JSS Trust, and holds legal title to 

all of JSS Trust’s assets, including Zurixx and Dorado through CJ Seminar and JSS Ventures. In 

his capacity as trustee of JSS Trust, Gerald Spangler, at all times material to this Complaint, 

acting alone or in concert with others, has formulated, directed, controlled, had the authority to 

control, or participated in the acts and practices set forth in this Complaint. In his capacity as 

trustee of JSS Trust and in connection with the matters alleged herein, Gerald Spangler transacts 

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

35. Relief Defendant Stephenie J. Spangler is the spouse of Jeffrey Spangler and the 

beneficiary of the JSS Trust. She was a homemaker at all times relevant to this Complaint. She 

has received funds that can be traced directly to Defendants’ deceptive and unlawful acts or 

13 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 2:19-cv-00713-DAK-DAO Document 219 Filed 02/12/21 PageID.11989 Page 14 of 56 

practices alleged below, and she has no legitimate claim to those funds. Stephenie Spangler 

resides in this District. 

DEFENDANTS ARE A COMMON ENTERPRISE 

36. Defendants Zurixx, LLC, Brand Management, CAC Ventures Utah, CAC 

Ventures Puerto Rico, CDG Utah, CDG Puerto Rico, CJ Seminar, Dorado, JSS Ventures, JSS 

Trust, Zurixx Financial Utah, and Zurixx Financial Puerto Rico (collectively “Corporate 

Defendants” or “Zurixx”) have operated as a common enterprise while engaging in the deceptive 

acts or practices and other violations of the law alleged herein. Corporate Defendants have 

conducted the business practices described herein through an interrelated and interdependent 

network of companies that have a common business purpose, ownership, officers, managers, 

members, business functions, and office locations. Because Corporate Defendants have operated 

as a common enterprise, each of them is jointly and severally liable for the acts and practices 

alleged herein. 

37. Individual Defendants Cristopher A. Cannon, James M. Carlson, and Jeffrey D. 

Spangler have formulated, directed, controlled, or had the authority to control the acts or 

practices of the Corporate Defendants that constitute the common enterprise. 

38. Carlson, Zurixx’s CEO, has co-managed the day-to-day operations of the 

Corporate Defendants, splitting his time between Zurixx’s Utah office and Dorado’s Puerto Rico 

office. Carlson has overseen the marketing, accounting, and customer-service departments, 

approved expenses, and participated in weekly management meetings with Cannon, Spangler, 

and others. As part of his responsibilities, Carlson has attended regular meetings where 

recordings of Zurixx’s free events and 3-day workshops were reviewed. 

14 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 2:19-cv-00713-DAK-DAO Document 219 Filed 02/12/21 PageID.11990 Page 15 of 56 

39. Cannon, the President of Dorado, has also been involved in managing the day-today operations of the Corporate Defendants, primarily within the Puerto Rico office, but also in 

Zurixx’s Utah office. Cannon has managed Zurixx’s business development, relationships with 

celebrity endorsers, sales training, and free events and 3-day workshops. Cannon has attended 

weekly management meetings and regular meetings where recordings of free events and 3-day 

workshops were reviewed. 

40. Spangler, President of Zurixx, has managed the Corporate Defendants’ coaching 

and telesales departments. Spangler has been present in the Utah office on a daily basis, 

overseeing the day-to-day activities in that office, including issues that arise while Cannon and 

Carlson are in the Puerto Rico office. He has attended weekly management meetings and the 

regular meetings where recordings of Zurixx’s free events and 3-day workshops were reviewed. 

41. All three Individual Defendants have participated in meetings with the Electronic 

Retailing Self-Regulation Program (“ERSP”), a program administered by the Council of Better 

Business Bureaus, during which ERSP staff brought to the Individual Defendants’ attention 

misrepresentations and inadequate disclaimers ERSP had identified by its monitoring of Zurixx’s 

sale presentations at the free events and 3-day workshops. 

42. All three Individual Defendants knew about and discussed chargeback levels that 

stemmed from consumers seeking to reverse their credit card payment because consumers felt 

that the presenters and telesales employees had made false earnings claims, and other false 

claims. 

43. All three have managed the common enterprise and received millions of dollars in 

distributions, salaries, and other funds from the enterprise. 

15 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 2:19-cv-00713-DAK-DAO Document 219 Filed 02/12/21 PageID.11991 Page 16 of 56 

44. Dorado has paid dividends, distributions, or disbursements to CAC Ventures 

Puerto Rico, JSS Ventures, and Zurixx Financial Puerto Rico. CAC Ventures Puerto Rico has 

paid dividends, distributions, or disbursements to Cristopher Cannon. Zurixx Financial Puerto 

Rico has paid dividends, distributions, or disbursements to CDG Puerto Rico. CDG Puerto Rico 

has paid dividends, distributions, or disbursements to James Carlson. 

45. Zurixx, LLC has paid dividends, distributions, or disbursements to CJ Seminar 

and Zurixx Financial Utah. CJ Seminar has paid dividends, distributions, or disbursements to 

CAC Ventures Utah and JSS Ventures. CAC Ventures Utah has paid dividends, distributions, or 

disbursements to Cristopher Cannon. Zurixx Financial Utah has paid dividends, distributions, or 

disbursements to CDG Utah. CDG Utah has paid dividends, distributions, or disbursements to 

James Carlson. 

46. Jeffrey Spangler has been an authorized signer on JSS Ventures’ checking 

accounts at Zions Bank and Wells Fargo and has written checks from those accounts to 

Stephenie Spangler. 

COMMERCE 

47. At all times material 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. 

ZURIXX’S BUSINESS ACTIVITIES 

48. Since at least July 2013, Zurixx has advertised, marketed, distributed, promoted, 

and sold its products to consumers throughout the United States and Canada. 

16 
 

 

Case 2:19-cv-00713-DAK-DAO Document 219 Filed 02/12/21 PageID.11992 Page 17 of 56 

49. Zurixx has sold its products under numerous brand names including, but not 

limited to: Advanced Financial Training, Advanced Real Estate Education, Doug Hopkins Real 

Estate Formula, Fast Track Flips, Flip Advantage, Flip It Forward, Flippin’ On The Side, 

Flipping Formula Education, Good Flips, High Point Training, LLC, Property Wars, Real Estate 

Elevated, Rules of Renovation, Side Flips, Success Path Education, Two Chicks and Training 

Tools, Winning the Property War, 10X Success Real Estate, Fixing to Flip, Karen and Mina’s 

Real Estate Education, Next Level Success Real Estate, and Will to Win Real Estate. 

50. The advertised “retail” prices for Zurixx’s products typically range from $5,995 to 

$73,973; the “discounted” prices typically range from $1,997 to $41,297. 

51. Zurixx has received net deposits of more than $530 million from the sale of its 

real estate products and services, and the company claims to have sold its products to more than 

70,000 individuals. 

52. Zurixx’s products are “assisted marketing plans” as defined by the BODA 

because the products cost $500 or more and are sold for the purpose of enabling consumers to 

start a real estate investing business. Utah Code § 13-15-2(1). In addition, Zurixx has 

represented that its real estate investment products will enable the consumer to derive a profit 

that exceeds the price paid for the products. Utah Code § 13-15-2(1)(a)(iv). 

53. Zurixx is a “seller” as that term is defined by the BODA because Zurixx has sold 

or offered to sell assisted marketing plans. Utah Code § 13-15-2(8). 

54. Zurixx has sold assisted marketing plans, but has not filed the required 

information with the Division, including names and addresses of the business, trademarks or 

trade names, the business experience of the company’s directors and officers, amounts to be paid 

17 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 2:19-cv-00713-DAK-DAO Document 219 Filed 02/12/21 PageID.11993 Page 18 of 56 

by consumers, a statement of services the seller will perform for the purchaser, a statement of 

representations made to prospective purchasers, a copy of any contracts, numbers of marketing 

plans sold to date, and numbers of cancelled sales. 

55. Zurixx has sold assisted marketing plans to consumers, but has not provided 

consumers with a disclosure statement containing the following warning after any earnings 

representation: 

CAUTION 

No guarantee of earnings or ranges of earnings can be made. The number of purchasers 

who have earned through this business an amount in excess of the amount their initial 

payment is at least ___ which represents ___% of the total number of purchasers of this 

business opportunity. 

Utah Code §§ 13-15-4; 13-15-5. 

Zurixx’s Free Teaser Event 

56. In an effort to lure consumers into purchasing its products, Zurixx conducts free 

live events throughout the country. 

57. Zurixx markets its free events via direct mailers, the internet, email, radio, social 

media, and newspaper advertisements. 

58. Zurixx has routinely advertised its free events as sponsored by celebrities from 

fix-and-flip, home renovation, and entrepreneurship television programs including, among 

others, Peter Souhleris and Dave Seymour from the A&E show “Flipping Boston,” Hilary Farr 

from the HGTV show “Love It or List It,” Tarek and Christina El Moussa from the HGTV show 

“Flip or Flop,” and Robert Herjavec and Daymond John from the ABC show “Shark Tank.” 

59. Zurixx invites consumers to attend the free event to learn how to make thousands 

of dollars in profit by investing in real estate “using other people’s money.” 

18 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 2:19-cv-00713-DAK-DAO Document 219 Filed 02/12/21 PageID.11994 Page 19 of 56 

60. In some instances, the free event starts with welcome videos by celebrity 

endorsers who indicate that their team of “experts” will teach consumers how to make money by 

following their system of real estate investing. 

61. In numerous instances at the free event, Zurixx teaches consumers very little, if 

anything, about how to make thousands of dollars in profit by investing in real estate. Instead, 

Zurixx uses the free event to sell its 3-day workshop, which it advertises as retailing for $5,995. 

It routinely uses misrepresentations to convince consumers to pay the “discounted” price of 

$1,997 for the workshop, a price Zurixx represents is available only at the free event. 

Misrepresentations At The Free Event That Consumers Are Likely To Earn 

Thousands Of Dollars In Profit Through Real Estate Investing 

62. To persuade attendees to pay for the 3-day workshop, Zurixx routinely makes 

earnings claims and shares testimonials about or from purportedly successful purchasers of its 

products. For example, Zurixx presenters made the following representations between March 

2018 and July 2019 in California, Florida, Georgia, and Virginia: 

A. “... our students are making right now in this area anywhere from $60,000 to 

upwards of $150,000 per flip, per transaction they do.” 

B. “The average profit margin’s about 20 percent [per flip]. So on a $500,000, I 

expect to walk away with...$100,000 on one check.” 

C. The “average profit last year alone on a flip was about $68,000, which, by the 

way, represent a 40 percent – just under a 50 percent ROI...Is 50 percent, is 

that a pretty good ROI?” 

D. “... the average profit margin up here is about 25 percent. So 25 percent of 

$200,000 is $50,000 per flip.” 

E. “... average fix and flip profit margin in this country per house, do you want 

to know why so many people are loving and doing it, 68,000 dollars, per 

deal.” 

19 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 2:19-cv-00713-DAK-DAO Document 219 Filed 02/12/21 PageID.11995 Page 20 of 56 

F. “As far as expected profits – and these are averages for this area – on average 

with wholesale deals, you can expect to put $3,000 to $15,000 cash in your 

pocket. Now, flipping is where you are going to make your bigger paychecks, 

$20,000, 50--, 100--....” 

G. “... you’re making $15,000, $20,000” with a wholesale deal. 

H. “Now write this down, in this area finder’s fee, low end, are going to be 6 

grand, high end 20” for a wholesale deal. 

63. Zurixx’s earnings claims are false and unsubstantiated. Consumers who attend its 

3-day workshop are not likely to earn thousands of dollars in profit through real estate investing. 

Misrepresentations At The Free Event That Consumers Will Receive 

100% Funding For Their Real Estate Investments 

64. Zurixx routinely promises that consumers will have access to lenders that will 

provide 100% funding for consumers’ real estate deals, including any rehabilitation costs. In 

some instances, Zurixx represents that consumers will obtain 100% funding regardless of their 

credit score or background. 

65. In numerous instances, Zurixx represents to consumers that they will not have to 

use any of their own money for real estate deals because they will be using “other people’s 

money”. In some instances, Zurixx represents that consumers will incur “no liability” investing 

in real estate. For example, Zurixx presenters made the following representations between 

March 2018 and July 2019 in California, Florida, Georgia, and Virginia: 

A. We have “our own group of private money lenders who will put up 100 

percent of the money to fund your real estate deals, including rehab with no 

regard to your personal income, assets or credit.” 

B. “Would you like to know how you can make some immediate profits in real 

estate without using any money, none of your, none of ours, and have no 

liability, yes or no?” 

20 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 2:19-cv-00713-DAK-DAO Document 219 Filed 02/12/21 PageID.11996 Page 21 of 56 

C. Tarek and Christina’s lending partners “will fund 100 percent of the real estate 

you buy, fund 100 percent of the rehab, regardless of your credit or your 

background.” 

D. “... we’re going to give you money to buy and to renovate” the properties. 

E. Trusted lending partners “will fund all of your deals, folks.” 

F. “Our lending partners, they don’t care about your credit. They don’t care 

about your job history. All that they care about is the what? Is the deal. If 

the deal is a good deal, then they will fund it.” 

G. The funding sources will help the audience “with no money out of your own 

pocket.” 

H. “Okay, then we’re going to teach you to implement the right plan, start to 

finish. When that happens, call us up, we get the funding for you, not you. 

We deal with these 100 percent funding partners every day, not you...And if 

they won’t fund it, we’ll get your deal funded, just know that, and we do that, 

not you, all right.” 

66. Zurixx’s 100% funding claims are false or unsubstantiated. In numerous 

instances, if not virtually always, consumers who attempt to get 100% funding for potential real 

estate investments are unable to do so. 

Misrepresentations At The Free Event That Making Thousands of Dollars In Profit From 

Real Estate Investing Requires Little Time And Effort 

67. Zurixx routinely represents to consumers that little time and effort are required to 

make thousands of dollars in profit through real estate investing. 

68. For example, Zurixx presenters made the following representations between 

March 2018 and December 2018 in California and Florida: 

A. “A lot of our students are spending anywhere from eight to 10 hours a week 

and getting above average results. Because once you know the recipe, you’re 

able to get the results a whole lot faster.” 

B. “Flipping...figure 10 to 20 hours of your time....” 

21 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 2:19-cv-00713-DAK-DAO Document 219 Filed 02/12/21 PageID.11997 Page 22 of 56 

C. A single mother who spent “twenty hours of work, [earned a] $42,000 profit” 

on her “first deal from start to finish.” 

D. “So, in the beginning, to make 40 offers, that would take anywhere from about 

15 to maybe 20 hours over the next 12 months....” 

E. “Frank” who purchased property for $335,000, sold it for $490,000, for a 

profit of $131,000 and spent “25 hours of [his] time total invested in this 

deal.” 

F. “... it will take anywhere from ten hours to 40 hours in the next six months to 

make ten offers.” 

G. “... wholesaling, figure five to ten hours of your time....” 

69. Zurixx’s claims that little time and effort are needed to make thousands of dollars 

in profit by investing in real estate are false and unsubstantiated. Consumers are not likely to 

make thousands of dollars in profit by spending only a few hours a week on their real estate 

investment business. 

Misrepresentations At The Free Event That Consumers Who Attend The 3-Day Workshop 

Will Learn Everything They Need To Know To Make Thousands of Dollars in Profit From 

Real Estate Investing 

70. Zurixx routinely represents that consumers will learn all they need to know at the 

3-day workshop to make thousands of dollars in profit through real estate investing. 

71. For example, Zurixx made the following representations between March 2018 and 

July 2019 in California, Florida, Georgia, and Virginia: 

A. “By the end of our three-day investment accelerator, graduates will have the 

knowledge, expertise, and training to put together sound, effective loan 

packages that are custom-tailored to appeal to the right lending solutions to fit 

your needs. We will teach you what to do and what not to do to make sure 

your deals are profitable and attractive to lenders whether you’re wholesaling, 

flipping, or acquiring income-producing properties.” 

22 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 2:19-cv-00713-DAK-DAO Document 219 Filed 02/12/21 PageID.11998 Page 23 of 56 

B. “You are going to come out of our three-day training class all set to be making 

ten offers a week on distressed properties....” 

C. “Not only are [Tarek and Christina El Moussa] going to give you a 

professional education, not only are they going to give you a list of all their 

lending partners to fund all your deals plus to rehab regardless of your credit, 

not only are they going to give you the cash buyers list so you have the 

buyers, but they are going to guarantee that you or your partners closes a deal 

within three months, you get your money back or you and partner don’t do the 

deal in six months, if you want to make five offers and your partner makes 

five offers, that includes the ten right here.” 

D. “Our three day investment accelerator will teach you to leverage cutting-edge 

real estate strategies to generate profits repeatedly and we’ll grant you access 

to our network of lenders and private investors who are always looking to lend 

capital on sound real estate deals.” 

72. The claim that consumers are likely to learn at the 3-day workshop all they need 

to know to make thousands of dollars in profit from investing in real estate is false or 

unsubstantiated. In fact, at the 3-day workshop, Zurixx itself routinely represents to consumers 

that the workshop is a just a “beginner” course, and in order to make thousands of dollars in 

profit, consumers need to also purchase Zurixx’s Diamond, Platinum, or Gold advanced package, 

which it advertises as “retailing” from $35,792 to $73,973, and is available at discounted prices 

from $21,297 to $41,297, but only if purchased at the 3-day workshop. 

Failure To Disclose Material Aspects Of Zurixx’s Refund Policy At The Free Event 

73. Zurixx routinely touts two money-back guarantees to convince consumers to 

purchase the 3-day workshop. Zurixx represents that consumers who successfully complete a 

“positive cash flow real estate transaction” within three months, and provide a testimonial to 

Zurixx, will get their workshop purchase price back (the “three-month guarantee”). 

23 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 2:19-cv-00713-DAK-DAO Document 219 Filed 02/12/21 PageID.11999 Page 24 of 56 

74. Zurixx also represents that consumers who fail to “make a minimum of THREE 

TIMES the amount” of the 3-day workshop within six months will receive 100% of the 

workshop purchase price back (the “six-month guarantee”). 

75. For example, Zurixx presenters made the following representations between 

March 2018 and July 2019 in California, Florida, Georgia, and Virginia: 

A. “. . . we know our system works . . . And because of the fact that we are 

confident in our system, we’re willing to give you not only one but two 100 

percent money-back guarantees around your success with this program.” 

B. “If it doesn’t work for you, we still give you $2,000 back. This really is a nolose situation as long as you try it.” 

C. “Remember, do a deal in 90 days, get your $2,000 back. Don’t do a deal in 

six months, still get your $2,000 back.” 

D. “You will either close your first profitable real estate deal within the first six 

months after that three-day [workshop] or 100 percent of your tuition will be 

sent back to you.” 

E. “So do a deal within three months after the [3-day workshop], give us a 

testimonial, you get your tuition back...You then have six months. If you 

have not closed at least one profitable real estate deal in six months with our 

help, the company sends you back 100 percent of your tuition anyway.” 

F. “If you don’t make any money, you’re going to get your money back . . . If it 

does not work out for you and your family, as long as you make an effort, 

they’re going to give you your money back, okay?” 

G. “If you didn’t make at least 6 grand, which is basically a finder’s fee, if we 

didn’t teach you how to find a property and where the buyers are to sell them 

and at least make a little [over] 6 grand, then you get your 2 grand back.” 

H. “If this isn’t everything you said it was or I said it was, six months, you’ll 

know, if we weren’t great at teaching you how to do it and it didn’t work, 

you’ll get your 2 grand back, in writing.” 

76. Zurixx’s oral representations at the free event about the six-month guarantee are 

false or misleading. Its presenters routinely fail to disclose material conditions that Zurixx 

24 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 2:19-cv-00713-DAK-DAO Document 219 Filed 02/12/21 PageID.12000 Page 25 of 56 

requires consumers to meet in order to receive a refund of the money that they paid for the 3-day 

workshop. 

77. To be eligible for a refund under Zurixx’s six-month guarantee, the consumer 

must make more than 25 offers within the time period, and make 15 offers under the “guidance 

of [Zurixx’s] resource line help desk associates” if “in the first ten offers, [the consumer] ha[s] 

not made THREE TIMES [the] purchase price” of the 3-day workshop. 

78. Numerous consumers first receive any information about the conditions described 

in Paragraph 72 after they pay Zurixx for the 3-day workshop. These conditions are written, in 

fine print, in a “Guarantee Certificate,” which Zurixx includes in a package of materials it 

provides to consumers who purchased the 3-day workshop. 

79. Zurixx’s presenters routinely fail to mention these restrictions in their oral 

presentations, and often provide consumers the package that includes the Guarantee Certificate 

only after the consumers have paid for the 3-day workshop. 

80. In numerous instances, consumers are not able to obtain a refund of the $1,997 

they paid for the 3-day workshop because they do not meet the fine print requirements relating to 

the six-month guarantee. 

81. Zurixx also fails to inform consumers that, as described in Paragraphs 110 

through 113 below, in order to receive a refund of the $1,997 fee for the 3-day workshop, a 

consumer must sign Zurixx’s standard form agreement, which prohibits them from filing a 

complaint about Zurixx or its products with regulators, including the FTC and state Attorneys 

General, or communicating with others about Zurixx or their settlement. The form agreement 

25 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 2:19-cv-00713-DAK-DAO Document 219 Filed 02/12/21 PageID.12001 Page 26 of 56 

also prohibits consumers from posting reviews regarding Zurixx or its products in written 

publications and on the internet. 

The 3-Day Workshop 

82. Zurixx typically conducts the 3-day workshops a week or two after holding the 

free event in a given locale. 

83. Zurixx’s presenters typically ask the audience how many attendees are new or just 

getting started in real estate investing. In numerous instances, consumers attending the 3-day 

workshop do not have experience in real estate investing. 

84. The presenters speak generally about “fix and flipping” and “wholesaling” real 

estate investments. However, they spend much of the three days telling attendees they need to 

purchase one of Zurixx’s three “advanced” packages in order to make thousands of dollars in 

profit through real estate investing. 

85. At the workshop and on the receipts, Zurixx represents that the “retail” prices for 

its advanced Gold, Platinum, and Diamond packages are $35,972, $45,997, and $73,973, 

respectively. The least expensive is the Gold package, which includes various components such 

as attendance at a Las Vegas Investors Summit, where consumers can purchase purported 

“discounted ‘turnkey’” properties, and access to an online resource center. The Platinum 

package, the mid-level package, includes the components in the Gold package and adds the “Fast 

Start Three-Day Bootcamp,” at which Zurixx’s instructors “come to your area and work in a 

small group setting in class and in the field.” The Diamond package, the most expensive 

package, includes all of the components from the two less expensive packages and adds a twoday one-on-one mentorship. 

26 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 2:19-cv-00713-DAK-DAO Document 219 Filed 02/12/21 PageID.12002 Page 27 of 56 

86. Zurixx’s presenters and its receipts state that the “discounted” prices, which are 

$21,297, $26,297, and $41,297 for the Gold, Platinum, and Diamond packages, are only 

available if purchased at the 3-day workshop. 

87. Zurixx sells its three pricier “advanced” packages and related products, such as 

on-site mentoring or one-on-one telephone coaching, with misrepresentations designed to 

convince consumers they need to purchase one of the three advanced packages or the related 

products in order to make thousands of dollars in profit through real estate investing. 

Misrepresentations At The 3-Day Workshop That Consumers 

Are Likely To Make Thousands Of Dollars In Profit Through Real Estate Investing 

88. Zurixx makes representations about profit in order to sell its Gold, Platinum, and 

Diamond packages. For instance, Zurixx presenters made the following representations between 

April 2018 and July 2019 in Florida, Texas, and Virginia: 

A. “So that’s a pretty average flip, $40,000.” 

B. “The average rehab makes $66,000 in the U.S.” 

C. With flipping, “you make a lot more money, probably about 40 to 100 

[thousand] in your market.” 

D. “... we set goals of $120,000 to $180,000 your first year.” 

E. “Most of our rehab deals are 20 to 30 percent. 25 percent of 230,000 in 

Richmond, that’s about 60 grand, maybe 55.” 

F. “... allows you to make well over $100,000 in a fraction of the time with even 

still the same set of repairs and things factored in.” 

G. If “I’m not making $30,000 on each flip, its not worth my time. Investors 

make far more money than most people do in the workplace.” 

H. “That’s what most of our students make on their first or second deal. 

Sometimes you can make more than that. So $25,000 to $55,000.” 

27 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 2:19-cv-00713-DAK-DAO Document 219 Filed 02/12/21 PageID.12003 Page 28 of 56 

I. “It doesn’t take long to get $2 million when you’re flipping houses over the 

years that you’re working.” 

J. “With wholesaling...you make about three to five thousand dollars in profit, 

just pure cash” whereas flipping leads to about “40 to 100 grand....” 

K. “So somewhere between three to five grand is typical for a wholesale deal.” 

L. “$384,126. Now, let’s say you make 10 percent of that on your first wholesale 

deal. That’s $38,000. How many think that’s okay? I said okay.” 

M. “So if you do $100,000-plus deals, you can probably do one deal a month and 

make 10 grand from wholesaling.” 

89. In addition, Zurixx typically distributes workbooks to attendees that contain the 

following earnings representations regarding wholesale deals: 

A. “Make $5,000 (Minimum)...6 Hours Total” 

B. “How much is that per hour?...$833.33 per hour!!!” 

C. “Two Wholesale Deals Per Month is $120,000 Annual Income!” 

90. Zurixx presenters commonly reference consumers who purportedly purchased 

Zurixx’s advanced packages and made a profit from fixing and flipping or wholesaling real 

estate properties, or completed numerous deals within a short period. 

91. For example, Zurixx presenters made the following representations between April 

2018 and July 2019 in Florida, Texas, and Virginia: 

A. Brian did 40 flips in his first year. 

B. Izzie made $75 thousand on his first flip in Tulsa. 

C. Courtney and his wife used the credit they raised during the first day of the 

workshop to pay for the advanced education. He was able to make $35,000 

on his first flipping deal after the advanced education and $67,000 after a 

second deal. 

28 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 2:19-cv-00713-DAK-DAO Document 219 Filed 02/12/21 PageID.12004 Page 29 of 56 

D. “Brittany joined us. She was living in her car at one point...The first year, 

she did four deals, made about 300 grand using other people’s money.” 

E. “Our students are at least doing 10, 15, 20, 30 deals a month.” 

F. “A lot of [our students] net 20 to 30 percent, sometimes 40 percent on their 

rehabs.” 

G. “We’ve had students literally in their first year make upwards of half a million 

dollars. That’s not an exaggeration.” 

H. “We have students . . . making 30 grand a year doing five deals a year. 40, 50, 

60, 70 grand, making hundreds of thousands of dollars . . . .” 

I. “A lot of our students on a deal or two make about 75 grand . . . .” 

J. “[MF], one of our students, he’s a wholesaler in Hagerstown, Maryland, 

Washington, D.C., somewhere here in Virginia...He does 30 to 50 wholesale 

deals a month.” 

92. Zurixx’s earnings claims are false or unsubstantiated. Contrary to its 

representations, consumers who purchase one of the advanced packages are not likely to earn 

thousands of dollars in profit through real estate investing. 

Zurixx Instructs Consumers At The 3-Day Workshop To Provide Speculative And 

Unsubstantiated Future Income On Credit Applications 

93. Many consumers need to rely on credit to pay for Zurixx’s pricey advanced 

packages. 

94. Zurixx routinely instructs consumers to contact credit card issuers during the 

workshops in order to obtain new credit cards or increases in credit limits on existing cards to 

fund real estate deals. It often provides a list of banks it suggests consumers contact. 

95. Zurixx presenters routinely instruct workshop attendees, to represent to credit 

card issuers, income that is significantly higher than the consumer’s current income. 

29 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 2:19-cv-00713-DAK-DAO Document 219 Filed 02/12/21 PageID.12005 Page 30 of 56 

96. Zurixx’s presenters routinely tell consumers that it is permissible to state a higher 

income to credit issuers because of the income the consumers will realize from investing in real 

estate. For example, Zurixx presenters made the following statements in April 2018 and 

September 2018 in Texas and Virginia: 

A. “Tell them [(credit card issuers)] how much you are going to make this year as 

a real estate investor, okay? So a good rule of thumb there would be about 

100K more than you did last year...We are not lying. We are projecting.” 

B. You are “legally able to...reasonably estimate the next 12 months of income” 

and “you decide anywhere between $120,000 to $200,000...you’re reasonable 

estimating your next 12 months of income.” 

97. Zurixx’s income projection instructions to consumers, as described in Paragraphs 

83 through 91, constitute another example of its use of false or unsubstantiated earnings claims 

to persuade consumers to purchase its products. Zurixx has no reasonable basis for the earnings 

projections it instructs consumers to submit to credit issuers. 

98. In numerous instances, Zurixx’s presenters tell consumers to use their credit cards 

to purchase the advanced packages. In numerous instances, consumers spend some or all the 

money that they obtain from their increased credit limits to pay for Zurixx’s advanced packages. 

Misrepresentations At The 3-Day Workshop That Profitable Real Estate Investing 

Requires Little Time And Effort 

99. Zurixx often reiterates that making thousands of dollars in profit from real estate 

investing takes little time and effort. 

100. For example, Zurixx presenters made the following representations between 

February 2019 and July 2019 in Florida and Virginia: 

A. “Our system is designed to fit into your life because it’s been . . . changed in 

order to say, okay, start off at five to 10 hours a week . . . Because it was 

designed for adults with children and full-time jobs.” 

30 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 2:19-cv-00713-DAK-DAO Document 219 Filed 02/12/21 PageID.12006 Page 31 of 56 

B. “Most of our students are part-time.” 

C. “It’s easy to find great deals.” 

D. “It’s easy to find buyers and money.” 

E. “Three to five hours a week focused.” 

101. The claims that little time and effort are needed to generate thousands of dollars in 

profit from real estate investing are false or unsubstantiated. 

102. Purchasers of Zurixx’s products are not likely to make thousands of dollars in 

profit through real estate investing with little time or effort. 

Zurixx’s Telemarketing Activities 

103. In numerous instances, Zurixx’s telemarketers in its telesales division call 

consumers who have purchased and attended Zurixx’s 3-day workshop to pitch coaching 

packages. 

104. These coaching packages often cost thousands or tens of thousands of dollars, in 

addition to the amount the consumer has already paid for the 3-day workshop, or the tens of 

thousands of dollars that some of these consumers have paid for advanced packages. 

105. Zurixx’s telemarketers often tell consumers that the coaching packages are 

necessary to generate a profit of thousands of dollars in real estate investing—substantially more 

than they could earn after taking the 3-day workshop or purchasing the advanced packages. 

106. Zurixx’s telemarketers often tell consumers that purchasing the coaching 

packages will help consumers generate profit more quickly than if the consumers had purchased 

only the 3-day workshop and the advanced packages. 

31 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 2:19-cv-00713-DAK-DAO Document 219 Filed 02/12/21 PageID.12007 Page 32 of 56 

107. Zurixx’s telemarketers often tell consumers that the coaching packages are only 

offered to a select group of investors who have been vetted to ensure that they will be successful. 

108. Zurixx telemarketers often tell consumers that the coaching packages will pay for 

themselves. 

109. Numerous consumers have paid Zurixx thousands of dollars for the coaching 

packages. 

110. Contrary to Zurixx’s representations, consumers who purchase its coaching 

packages are not likely to make thousands of dollars in profit. 

111. Contrary to Zurixx’s representations, consumers who purchase the coaching 

packages are not likely to generate a profit more quickly than if they had purchased only the 3-

day workshop and the advanced packages. 

112. Contrary to Zurixx’s representations, Zurixx’s coaching packages are not offered 

only to a select group of investors who have been vetted to ensure that they will be successful. 

113. Contrary to Zurixx’s representations, Zurixx’s coaching packages do not pay for 

themselves. 

114. In numerous instances, consumers not only fail to earn back the thousands or tens 

of thousands of dollars they spent on Zurixx’s coaching packages sold by the telemarketers, but 

also are left to deal with significant credit card debt they incurred to finance the purchase of 

Zurixx’s products, or to pay off loans that they obtained to pay for those products. In some 

instances, consumers have had to file for bankruptcy because of such debt. 

Form Settlement Provisions That Prohibit Consumers From 

Pursuing Or Filing Complaints With Regulators And Other Entities 

32 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 2:19-cv-00713-DAK-DAO Document 219 Filed 02/12/21 PageID.12008 Page 33 of 56 

115. Some dissatisfied Zurixx consumers seek refunds of the monies they paid to 

Zurixx. In many instances, persistent consumers may succeed in getting a partial refund, but 

often only if they sign Zurixx’s standard form agreement, which prohibits them from filing a 

complaint about Zurixx or its products with regulators, including the FTC and state Attorneys 

General, or communicating with others about Zurixx or their settlement. The form agreement 

also prohibits consumers from posting reviews regarding Zurixx or its products in written 

publications and on the internet. 

116. The agreement that Zurixx requires consumers to sign in exchange for a partial or 

full refund commonly includes the following language: 

Customer agrees that it shall not file or pursue any other claim or action pertaining to 

Customer’s interactions with [Zurixx brand name], its clients, officers, directors, 

affiliates, members, owners, employees, agents, spouses, partners, heirs, successors and 

assigns, including but not limited to administrative complaints with the Better Business 

Bureau, civil litigation, internet postings or blogs, magazine, newspaper or other such 

published articles, complaints with any state or federal government agency, including but 

not limited to Attorneys’ General or FTC, or credit card/merchant chargeback,/refund 

transactions.... 

117. The agreements contain standardized terms that are or were imposed on 

consumers without a meaningful opportunity for them to negotiate the standardized terms. 

118. Agreements executed by Zurixx and consumers that included the language quoted 

in Paragraph 111 have been in effect since December 14, 2017. 

119. Zurixx has taken steps to enforce the agreement provision quoted in Paragraph 

111. For example, it has sued consumers who have complained to the Better Business Bureau 

regarding its practices or have spoken to other consumers about their settlements. Some 

consumers have been reluctant to speak with regulators, including the FTC and the Division, 

about their experience with Zurixx because of the prohibition in their agreements. 

33 
 

 

 

 

 

Case 2:19-cv-00713-DAK-DAO Document 219 Filed 02/12/21 PageID.12009 Page 34 of 56 

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

the Division have reason to believe that Zurixx is violating or is about to violate laws enforced 

by the Commission and the Division. 

ZURIXX’S TIES TO UTAH 

121. Each of Zurixx's transactions with consumers has originated from or is 

inextricably intertwined with Utah. Few, if any, of Zurixx’s transactions with consumers 

occurred wholly outside of Utah. 

Zurixx is Headquartered in Utah 

122. Zurixx is headquartered in Utah, and its conduct has been controlled and directed 

from Utah. Although Zurixx has performed some functions in Puerto Rico through Dorado, it 

has operated primarily out of an office building in Cottonwood Heights, Utah. 

123. Zurixx’s inherently deceptive and misleading business model was developed at 

Zurixx’s Utah headquarters. Zurixx, including its principals, conceived of this scheme in Utah 

and has carried it out from Utah. The heart of the claim—Zurixx’s business model—has been 

developed, advertised, managed and directed from Utah by a Utah-based company. 

124. Zurixx has maintained significant financial ties to Utah. Zurixx had multiple 

accounts at Utah financial institutions. Zurixx has used a Utah address to obtain merchant 

accounts it used to charge consumers for its products and services. Zurixx’s payroll payments 

are directed from Utah. 

125. Defendant Spangler is a Utah resident and is in Zurixx’s Utah office on a daily 

basis. Defendants Cannon and Carlson routinely travel to Zurixx’s Utah office from Puerto 

Rico. 

34 
 

 

 

 

 

Case 2:19-cv-00713-DAK-DAO Document 219 Filed 02/12/21 PageID.12010 Page 35 of 56 

Zurixx’s Fulfillment is Provided From Utah 

126. The Marketing Camp, Find the Money Camp, and the Wealth Strategies Camp, 

which are part of Zurixx’s Diamond, Platinum, and Gold Advanced Education packages, were all 

offered in Utah. Some of Zurixx’s customers have traveled to Utah for this additional training. 

127. Residents from other states have relied on Utah-based coaches for guidance and 

training. Zurixx’s coaches worked from a "coaching curriculum" to instruct their consumers. 

That coaching curriculum was developed by Mark Sanderson, a Utah resident, from his Zurixx 

office in Utah. 

128. Zurixx also sold the services of mentors, who traveled to the home cities of 

Zurixx’s customers. Zurixx did not employ the mentors itself. Instead, it has contracted with 

R.G. Williams and the R.G. Williams Group. R.G. Williams fulfilled most of Zurixx’s 

mentoring. The mentors Zurixx used worked for R.G. Williams. R.G. Williams resides in Utah. 

Zurixx Conducts Telesales From Utah 

129. Zurixx has conducted telesales from its headquarters in Utah. Zurixx’s telesales 

representatives initiated telephone calls in Utah to consumers and tried to sell those consumers 

additional services and new products. In many instances, a consumer’s payment was sent to 

Utah if a Zurixx telesales representative successfully made a sale. The agreements Zurixx has 

used to finalize telesales included a reference to the right of rescission in Utah’s TFPA. Zurixx 

35 
 

 

 

 

Case 2:19-cv-00713-DAK-DAO Document 219 Filed 02/12/21 PageID.12011 Page 36 of 56 

instructed consumers to exercise this right of rescission by sending written notice to an address 

in Utah. 

130. Zurixx has maintained a registration to conduct telephone solicitations with the 

Division since at least 2017. In its applications for this registration, Zurixx represented to the 

Division that it conducted telephone solicitations from Utah. 

Zurixx’s Customer Service is Provided Primarily From Utah 

131. Zurixx has handled issues with aggrieved consumers primarily from Utah and 

partly from Puerto Rico. Shane Andrus, a Zurixx employee in Utah, has responded to most, if 

not all, consumer complaints the Division forwarded to Zurixx. 

Zurixx Sues Consumers in Utah 

132. Zurixx has required those to whom it provided a refund, even a partial refund, to 

sign a standard form agreement preventing them from filing a complaint with regulators or 

communicating with others about their settlement. Those agreements have been governed by 

Utah law and selected Utah courts as the appropriate forums for resolving disputes. 

133. Zurixx has sometimes sued consumers who allegedly violated those form 

agreements in Utah courts, using Utah lawyers. See, for example, Zurixx LLC v. Moore, Case 

No. 160904908, Zurixx LLC v. Green, et al., Case No. 160905595, Zurixx LLC v. Keller, Case 

No. 180904588, Zurixx LLC v. Keller, Case No. 190900238, Zurixx LLC v. Crayton, Case No. 

190902336, all filed in Utah’s Third District Court. 

Utah Has a Valid Interest in Regulating Zurixx’s Conduct 

134. Zurixx has used transactional resources within Utah to perpetrate its scheme, 

such as: mail boxes or mail drops; telephones; business offices; financial accounts; and city, 

36 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 2:19-cv-00713-DAK-DAO Document 219 Filed 02/12/21 PageID.12012 Page 37 of 56 

county, or state assets or facilities, including roads and highways. Zurixx has committed the 

violations alleged herein wholly or partly within Utah. Zurixx’s conduct is therefore subject to 

regulation by the Division. 

VIOLATIONS OF THE FTC ACT 

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

or practices in or affecting commerce.” 

136. Misrepresentations or deceptive omissions of material fact constitute deceptive 

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

137. As set forth below, Defendants have engaged in violations of Section 5(a) of the 

FTC Act in connection with the marketing and sale of their real estate investment products or 

services. 

COUNT I – MISREPRESENTATIONS REGARDING EARNINGS 

(By Plaintiff Federal Trade Commission) 

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

offering for sale, or sale of Zurixx’s real estate investing products or services, Defendants have 

represented, directly or indirectly, expressly or by implication, that consumers who purchase 

Zurixx’s products or services are likely to earn thousands of dollars in profit. 

139. The representations set forth in Paragraph 138 of this Complaint are false or were 

not substantiated at the time the representations were made. 

140. Therefore, Defendants’ representations as set forth in Paragraph 138 of this 

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

U.S.C. § 45(a). 

37 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 2:19-cv-00713-DAK-DAO Document 219 Filed 02/12/21 PageID.12013 Page 38 of 56 

COUNT II – OTHER MISREPRESENTATIONS REGARDING ZURIXX’S PRODUCTS 

OR SERVICES 

(By Plaintiff Federal Trade Commission) 

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

offering for sale, or sale of Zurixx’s real estate investing products or services, Defendants have 

represented, directly or indirectly, expressly or by implication, that by purchasing Zurixx’s 

products or services consumers will: 

(a) Receive 100% funding to do real estate deals regardless of their credit; 

(b) Spend little time and effort to make thousands of dollars in profit through 

real estate investing; and/or 

(c) Learn everything they need to know at the 3-day workshop to make 

thousands of dollars in profit through real estate investing. 

142. The representations set forth in Paragraph 141 are false or were not substantiated 

at the time the representations were made. 

143. Therefore, Defendants’ representations as set forth in Paragraph 141 of this 

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

U.S.C. § 45(a). 

COUNT III – FAILURE TO DISCLOSE MATERIAL ASPECTS OF REFUND POLICY 

(By Plaintiff Federal Trade Commission) 

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

offering for sale, or sale of Zurixx’s real estate investing products or services, Defendants have 

represented, directly or indirectly, expressly or by implication, that Zurixx will provide refunds 

38 
 

 

 

 

 

Case 2:19-cv-00713-DAK-DAO Document 219 Filed 02/12/21 PageID.12014 Page 39 of 56 

to consumers who fail to make a minimum of three times the cost of the 3-day workshop within 

six months. 

145. In numerous instances in which Defendants have made the representation set forth 

in Paragraph 144, Zurixx has failed to disclose, or to disclose adequately, to consumers material 

aspects of Zurixx’s refund policy, including one or both of the following requirements: 

(a) To obtain a refund of the cost of the 3-day workshop, consumers who fail to 

make a minimum of three times the amount of the workshop must make more 

than 25 offers within the time period and make 15 offers under the “guidance 

of the resource line help desk associates” if, in the first ten offers, the 

consumer has not made three times the purchase price of the workshop; and 

(b) Consumers must sign a form settlement provision that prohibits them from 

filing a complaint, or posting reviews, about Zurixx or its products with 

regulators or other entities in order to obtain even a partial refund. 

146. In light of the representations set forth in Paragraph 145 above, Defendants’ 

failure to disclose or to disclose adequately the material information set forth in Paragraph 140 of 

this Complaint constitutes a deceptive act or practice in violation of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 

15 U.S.C. § 45(a). 

COUNT IV – MISREPRESENTATIONS REGARDING COACHING PACKAGES 

(By Plaintiff Federal Trade Commission) 

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

offering for sale, or sale of Zurixx’s coaching packages, Defendants have represented, directly or 

indirectly, expressly or by implication, that: 

39 
 

 

 

 

Case 2:19-cv-00713-DAK-DAO Document 219 Filed 02/12/21 PageID.12015 Page 40 of 56 

a. The coaching packages are necessary for consumers to generate a profit of 

thousands of dollars in real estate investing—substantially more than the 

consumers could earn after taking the 3-day workshop or purchasing the advanced 

packages; 

b. Purchasing the coaching packages will help consumers generate profit more 

quickly than if the consumers had purchased only the 3-day workshop and the 

advanced packages; 

c. The coaching packages are only offered to a select group of investors who have 

been vetted to ensure that they will be successful; or 

d. The coaching packages will pay for themselves. 

148. The representations set forth in Paragraph 147 of this Complaint are false or were 

not substantiated at the time the representations were made. 

149. Therefore, Defendants’ representations as set forth in Paragraph 147 of this 

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

U.S.C. § 45(a). 

VIOLATION OF THE CONSUMER REVIEW FAIRNESS ACT 

150. The Consumer Review Fairness Act of 2016 (“CRFA”) Pub. L. No. 114-258, 15 

U.S.C. § 45b, was enacted on December 14, 2016. As of March 14, 2017, Section 2(b) of the 

CRFA renders void, and Section 2(c) of the CRFA prohibits the offering of, provisions in form 

contracts that: prohibit or restrict individual consumers’ ability to communicate reviews, 

performance assessments, and similar analyses about a seller’s goods, services, or conduct; or 

40 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 2:19-cv-00713-DAK-DAO Document 219 Filed 02/12/21 PageID.12016 Page 41 of 56 

that impose a penalty or fee against individual consumers who engage in such communications. 

15 U.S.C. §§ 45b(a)(2), 45b(b)(1), and 45b(c). 

151. The CRFA defines a “form contract” as a contract, other than an employeremployee or independent contractor contract, with “standardized terms” – “used by a person in 

the course of selling or leasing the person’s goods or services” and “imposed on an individual 

without a meaningful opportunity for such individual to negotiate the standardized terms.” 15 

U.S.C. § 45b(a)(3). 

152. The Commission is authorized to enforce Section 2(c) of the CRFA in the same 

manner, by the same means, and with the same jurisdiction, powers, and duties as though all 

applicable terms and provisions of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 41-58, were incorporated into and 

made a part of the CRFA. 15 U.S.C. § 45b(2)(A). The Commission’s enforcement authority 

under the CRFA applies to contracts in effect on or after December 14, 2017. 15 U.S.C. § 

45b(i)(2). 

153. Pursuant to Section 2(d)(1) of the CRFA, 15 U.S.C. § 45b(d)(1), a violation of 

Section 2(c) of the CRFA constitutes a violation of a rule promulgated under Section 18(a)(1)(B) 

of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 57a(1)(B), and therefore constitutes an unfair or deceptive act or 

practice in or affecting commerce in violation of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a). 

COUNT V – CRFA VIOLATION 

(By Plaintiff Federal Trade Commission) 

154. In numerous instances, since March 14, 2017, Defendants have offered, in the 

course of selling Zurixx’s real estate investing products or services, form contracts that contain 

provisions that prohibit or restrict the ability of consumers purchasing Zurixx’s products or 

41 
 

 

 

 

Case 2:19-cv-00713-DAK-DAO Document 219 Filed 02/12/21 PageID.12017 Page 42 of 56 

services from engaging in reviews, performance assessments, and similar analyses of Zurixx’s 

goods, services, or conduct. 

155. Therefore, the acts and practices set forth in Paragraph 154 of this Complaint, 

violate the CRFA. 

VIOLATIONS OF THE TELEMARKETING SALES RULE 

156. In 1994, Congress directed the FTC to prescribe rules prohibiting abusive and 

deceptive telemarketing acts or practices pursuant to the Telemarketing Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 6101-

6108. The FTC adopted the TSR in 1995, extensively amended it in 2003, and amended certain 

sections thereafter. 

157. Defendants are “sellers” or “telemarketers” engaged in “telemarketing” as defined 

by the TSR, 16 C.F.R. §§ 310.2(dd), (ff), and (gg). 

158. The TSR prohibits sellers and telemarketers from “[m]isrepresenting, directly or 

by implication, in the sale of goods and services . . . [a]ny material aspect of the performance, 

efficacy, nature, or central characteristics of goods or services that are the subject of a sales 

offer.” 16 C.F.R. § 310.3(a)(2)(iii). 

159. The TSR prohibits sellers and telemarketers from “[m]aking a false or misleading 

statement to induce any person to pay for goods or services. . . .” 16 C.F.R. § 310.3(a)(4). 

160. Pursuant to Section 3(c) of the Telemarketing Act, 15 U.S.C. § 6102(c), and 

Section 18(d)(3) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 57a(d)(3), a violation of the TSR constitutes an 

unfair or deceptive act or practice in or affecting commerce, in violation of Section 5(a) of the 

FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a). Pursuant to Section 4 of the Telemarketing Act, 15 U.S.C. § 

6103(f)(2), the Division is authorized to bring civil actions to enforce the TSR. 

42 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 2:19-cv-00713-DAK-DAO Document 219 Filed 02/12/21 PageID.12018 Page 43 of 56 

COUNT VI – DECEPTIVE TELEMARKETING 

(By Plaintiffs Federal Trade Commission and Utah Division of Consumer Protection) 

161. In numerous instances, in connection with telemarketing offers to sell coaching 

packages, Defendants have misrepresented, directly or indirectly, expressly or by implication, 

material aspects of the performance, efficacy, nature, or central characteristics of the coaching 

packages, including, but not limited to, that: 

a. The coaching packages are necessary for consumers to generate a profit of 

thousands of dollars in real estate investing—substantially more than they could 

earn after taking the 3-day workshop or purchasing the advanced packages; 

b. Purchasing the coaching packages will help consumers generate profit more 

quickly than if the consumers had purchased only the 3-day workshop and the 

advanced packages; 

c. The coaching packages are only offered to a select group of investors who have 

been vetted to ensure that they will be successful; or 

d. The coaching packages will pay for themselves. 

162. Defendants’ acts or practices, as set forth in Paragraph 161, are deceptive 

telemarketing acts or practices that violate the TSR, 16 C.F.R. § 310.3(a)(2)(iii) and (a)(4). 

VIOLATIONS OF THE UCSPA 

163. The UCSPA prohibits suppliers from committing deceptive and unconscionable 

acts or practices in connection with a consumer transaction, whether the act occurs before, 

during, or after the transaction. Utah Code §§ 13-11-4(1); 13-11-5(1). 

164. Defendants engage in “consumer transaction[s]” by marketing and selling to 

43 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 2:19-cv-00713-DAK-DAO Document 219 Filed 02/12/21 PageID.12019 Page 44 of 56 

“person[s]” products and services that are primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, 

or for purposes that relate to a business opportunity. Utah Code §§ 13-11-3(2), (5). 

165. Defendants are “suppliers” because they regularly solicit, engage in, or enforce 

consumer transactions, whether or not they deal directly with consumers. Utah Code § 13-11-

3(6). 

166. As set forth below, Defendants have violated the UCSPA by engaging in 

deceptive and unconscionable acts and practices in connection with the marketing and sale of 

their real estate investment related products and services. 

COUNT VII – DECEPTIVE ACTS OR PRACTICES (EARNINGS CLAIMS) 

(By Plaintiff Utah Division of Consumer Protection) 

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

offering for sale, or sale of Zurixx’s real estate investment products or services, Defendants have 

represented, directly or indirectly, expressly or by implication, that consumers who purchase 

Zurixx’s products or services are likely to earn thousands of dollars in profit. 

168. The representations as set forth in Paragraph 167 are false or were not 

substantiated at the time the representations were made. 

169. Therefore, Defendants’ representations as set forth in Paragraph 162 of this 

Complaint constitute a deceptive act or practice in violation of the UCSPA, Utah Code § 13-11-

4(1). 

44 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 2:19-cv-00713-DAK-DAO Document 219 Filed 02/12/21 PageID.12020 Page 45 of 56 

COUNT VIII – DECEPTIVE ACTS OR PRACTICES (PRODUCTS AND SERVICES 

PROVIDED) 

(By Plaintiff Utah Division of Consumer Protection) 

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

offering for sale, or sale of Zurixx’s real estate investing products or services, Defendants have 

represented, directly or indirectly, expressly or by implication, that by purchasing Zurixx’s 

products or services, consumers will: 

(a) Receive 100% funding to do real estate deals regardless of their credit; 

(b) Spend little time and effort to make thousands of dollars in profit through real 

estate investing; and/or 

(c) Learn everything they need to know at the 3-day workshop to make thousands 

of dollars in profit through real estate investing. 

171. The representations set forth in Paragraph 170 are false or were not substantiated 

at the time the representations were made. 

172. Therefore, Defendants’ representations as set forth in Paragraph 170 of this 

Complaint constitute a deceptive act or practice in violation of the UCSPA § 13-11-4(1). 

COUNT IX – FAILURE TO DISCLOSE MATERIAL ASPECTS OF REFUND POLICY 

(By Plaintiff Utah Division of Consumer Protection) 

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

offering for sale, or sale of its real estate investing products or services, Defendants have 

represented, directly or indirectly, expressly or by implication, that it will provide refunds to 

consumers who fail to make a minimum of three times the cost of the 3-day workshop within six 

45 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 2:19-cv-00713-DAK-DAO Document 219 Filed 02/12/21 PageID.12021 Page 46 of 56 

months. 

174. In numerous instances in which Defendants have made the representations set 

forth in Paragraph 173, Defendants have failed to disclose, or to disclose adequately, to 

consumers material aspects of Zurixx’s refund policy, including one or both of the following 

requirements: 

(a) To obtain a refund of the cost of the 3-day workshop, consumers who fail to 

make a minimum of three times the amount of the workshop must make more 

than 25 offers within the time period and make 15 offers under the “guidance 

of the resource line help desk associates” if, in the first ten offers, the 

consumer has not made three times the purchase price of the workshop; and 

(b) Consumers must sign a form settlement provision that prohibits them from 

filing a complaint, or posting reviews, about Zurixx or its products with 

regulators or other entities in order to obtain even a partial refund. 

175. In light of the representations set forth in Paragraph 174 above, Defendants’ 

failure to disclose or to disclose adequately the material information set forth in Paragraph 168 of 

this Complaint constitutes a deceptive act or practice in violation of the UCSPA § 13-11-4(1). 

COUNT X – MISREPRESENTATIONS REGARDING COACHING PACKAGES 

(By Plaintiff Utah Division of Consumer Protection) 

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

offering for sale, or sale of Zurixx’s coaching packages, Defendants have represented, directly or 

indirectly, expressly or by implication, that: 

46 
 

Case 2:19-cv-00713-DAK-DAO Document 219 Filed 02/12/21 PageID.12022 Page 47 of 56 

a. The coaching packages are necessary for consumers to generate a profit of 

thousands of dollars in real estate investing—substantially more than the 

consumers could earn after taking the 3-day workshop or purchasing the 

advanced packages; 

b. Purchasing the coaching packages will help consumers generate profit more 

quickly than if the consumers had purchased only the 3-day workshop and the 

advanced packages; 

c. The coaching packages are only offered to a select group of investors who 

have been vetted to ensure that they will be successful; or 

d. The coaching packages will pay for themselves. 

177. The representations set forth in Paragraph 176 of this Complaint are false or were 

not substantiated at the time the representations were made. 

178. Therefore, Defendants’ representations as set forth in Paragraph 176 of this 

Complaint constitute deceptive acts or practices in violation of the UCSPA § 13-11-4(1). 

VIOLATIONS OF THE BODA 

179. The BODA requires sellers of “assisted marketing plans” to annually file certain 

information with the Division. Utah Code § 13-15-4. 

180. The BODA also requires sellers of assisted marketing plans to provide to prospective 

purchasers of the assisted marketing plans written disclosures in a single disclosure statement 

or prospectus at least ten days prior to execution of a purchase agreement or payment by the 

purchaser. Utah Code §§ 13-15-4; 13-15-5. 

181. The BODA defines a “seller” as “a person who sells or offers to sell an assisted 

47 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 2:19-cv-00713-DAK-DAO Document 219 Filed 02/12/21 PageID.12023 Page 48 of 56 

marketing plan.” Utah Code § 13-15-2(8). 

182. The BODA defines “assisted marketing plans” as “any products, equipment, supplies, or 

services that are sold to the purchaser upon payment of an initial consideration of $500 or 

more for the purpose of enabling the purchaser to start a business,” in which the seller 

represents, among other things, that “the seller will provide the purchaser with a guarantee 

that the purchaser will receive income from the assisted marketing plan that exceeds the price 

paid for the assisted marketing plan.” Utah Code § 13-15-2(1)(a)(iv). 

183. As set forth below, Defendants have violated the BODA by failing to file required 

information with the Division, and by failing to provide required disclosures to prospective 

purchasers of Defendants’ assisted marketing plans. 

COUNT XI – FAILURE TO FILE REQUIRED INFORMATION WITH THE DIVISION 

(By Plaintiff Utah Division of Consumer Protection) 

184. In numerous instances, since at least July 2013, Defendants have offered and sold 

assisted marketing plans under a variety of fictitious names. 

185. Since at least July 2013, Defendants have failed to file with the Division the information 

required by Utah Code § 13-15-4 with respect to any of the assisted marketing plans 

Defendants offered and sold. 

186. Therefore, the acts and practices set forth in Paragraphs 184-185 violate the BODA. 

COUNT XII – FAILURE TO PROVIDE REQUIRED DISCLOSURES TO 

PROSPECTIVE PURCHASERS 

(By Plaintiff Utah Division of Consumer Protection) 

187. In numerous instances, since at least July 2013, Defendants have offered and sold 

assisted marketing plans to consumers. 

48 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 2:19-cv-00713-DAK-DAO Document 219 Filed 02/12/21 PageID.12024 Page 49 of 56 

188. Since at least July 2013, Defendants have not provided any of the required disclosures to 

prospective purchasers of its assisted marketing plans in a single disclosure statement or 

prospectus at least ten business days prior to the execution of a consumer’s agreement to 

purchase one of Defendants’ plans, or ten business days prior to payment by the consumer of 

any consideration in exchange for the assisted marketing plan. Utah Code §§ 13-15-4; 13-

15-5. 

189. Therefore, the acts and practices set forth in Paragraphs 187-188 violate the BODA. 

VIOLATIONS OF THE TFPA 

190. A telephone solicitation is defined by the TFPA as a sale or solicitation of goods or 

services in which the seller solicits the sale over the telephone, the purchaser’s agreement to 

purchase is made over the telephone, and the purchaser, over the telephone, pays for or 

agrees to commit to payment for goods or services prior to or upon receipt by the purchaser 

of the goods or services. 

191. Zurixx offered for sale and sold its coaching packages to consumers through telephone 

solicitations. 

192. A telephone soliciting business is a sole proprietorship, partnership, limited 

liability company, corporation, or other association of individuals engaged in a 

common effort to conduct telephone solicitations. 

193. Zurixx meets the definition of a telephone soliciting business. 

194. A telephone solicitor or solicitor is a person, partnership, limited liability 

company, corporation, or other entity that makes a telephone solicitation; or causes a 

telephone solicitation to be made. 

49 
 

 

 

Case 2:19-cv-00713-DAK-DAO Document 219 Filed 02/12/21 PageID.12025 Page 50 of 56 

195. Zurixx meets the definition of a telephone solicitor or solicitor. 

196. An individual representative of Zurixx, to the extent he or she engages in telephone 

solicitations, also meets the definition of a telephone solicitor or solicitor. 

197. The Individual Defendants each caused telephone solicitations to be made. Each meets 

the definition of a solicitor. 

198. As set forth below, Defendants have violated the TFPA by causing or permitting Zurixx 

representatives and leadership to make or cause to be made untrue material statements in 

connection with telephone solicitations. 

COUNT XIII—MISREPRESENTATIONS REGARDING COACHING PACKAGES 

(By Plaintiff Division of Consumer Protection) 

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

for sale, or sale of Zurixx’s coaching packages, Defendants have represented, directly or 

indirectly, expressly or by implication, that: 

a. The coaching packages are necessary for consumers to generate a profit of 

thousands of dollars in real estate investing—substantially more than the 

consumers could earn after taking the 3-day workshop or purchasing the advanced 

packages; 

b. Purchasing the coaching packages will help consumers generate profit more 

quickly than if the consumers had purchased only the 3-day workshop and the 

advanced packages; 

c. The coaching packages are only offered to a select group of investors who have 

been vetted to ensure that they will be successful; and/or 

50 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 2:19-cv-00713-DAK-DAO Document 219 Filed 02/12/21 PageID.12026 Page 51 of 56 

d. The coaching packages will pay for themselves. 

200. The representations set forth in Paragraph 199 of this Complaint are false or were not 

substantiated at the time the representations were made. 

201. The representations set forth in Paragraph 199 of this Complaint are material statements 

because they contain information that a person of ordinary intelligence or prudence would 

consider important in deciding whether or not to accept an offer extended through a 

telephone solicitation. 

202. Therefore, Defendants’ representations as set forth in Paragraph 199 of this Complaint 

constitute untrue material statements in violation of the TFPA, Utah Code §§ 13-26-11(1)(c) 

and 13-26-11(2)(a). 

RELIEF DEFENDANT 

COUNT XIV—RELIEF DEFENDANT STEPHENIE J. SPANGLER 

(By Plaintiffs Federal Trade Commission and Utah Division of Consumer Protection) 

203. Relief Defendant, Stephenie J. Spangler, has received, directly or indirectly, funds or 

other assets from Defendants that are traceable to funds obtained from Defendants’ 

customers through the deceptive and unlawful acts or practices described herein. 

204. Relief Defendant is not a bona fide purchaser with legal and equitable title to 

Defendants’ customers’ funds or other assets, and Relief Defendant will be unjustly enriched 

if she is not required to disgorge the funds or the value of the benefit she received as a result 

of Defendants’ deceptive and unlawful acts or practices. 

205. By reason of the foregoing, Relief Defendant holds funds and assets in constructive trust 

for the benefit of Defendants’ customers. 

51 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 2:19-cv-00713-DAK-DAO Document 219 Filed 02/12/21 PageID.12027 Page 52 of 56 

CONSUMER INJURY 

206. Consumers have suffered and will continue to suffer substantial injury as a result of 

Defendants’ violations of the FTC Act, the CRFA, the TSR, the UCSPA, the BODA, and the 

TFPA. In addition, Defendants have been unjustly enriched as a result of their unlawful acts 

or practices. Absent injunctive relief by this Court, Defendants are likely to continue to 

injure consumers, reap unjust enrichment, and harm the public interest. 

COURT’S POWER TO GRANT RELIEF 

207. Section 13(b) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 53(b), empowers this Court to grant injunctive 

and such other relief as the Court may deem appropriate to halt and redress violations of any 

provision of law enforced by the FTC. The Court, in the exercise of its equitable jurisdiction, 

may award ancillary relief, including rescission or reformation of contracts, restitution, the 

refund of monies paid, and the disgorgement of ill-gotten monies, to prevent and remedy any 

violation of any provision of law enforced by the FTC. 

208. Section 19 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 57b, authorizes this Court to grant such relief as 

the Court finds necessary to redress injury to consumers resulting from Defendants’ 

violations of the CRFA, including the rescission or reformation of contracts, and the refund 

of monies paid, the disgorgement of ill-gotten monies, and prejudgment interest. 

209. Section 19 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 57b, and Section 6(b) of the Telemarketing Act, 

15 U.S.C. § 6105(b) authorize this Court to grant such relief as the Court finds necessary to 

redress injury to consumers resulting from Defendants’ violations of the TSR, including 

damages, the rescission or reformation of contracts, and the refund of money. 

52 
 

 

 

 

 

Case 2:19-cv-00713-DAK-DAO Document 219 Filed 02/12/21 PageID.12028 Page 53 of 56 

210. The UCSPA authorizes this Court to enter a declaratory judgment that Defendants’ acts 

or practices violate the UCSPA, to enjoin, in accordance with the principles of equity, any 

person who has violated, is violating, or is otherwise likely to violate the UCSPA, to award 

damages or relief on behalf of consumers for Defendants’ violations of the UCSPA, to award 

a fine against Defendants for violations of the UCSPA in an amount determined by the Court, 

and to award the Division reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, and costs of investigation. 

Utah Code §§ 13-11-17(1)(a)-(d); 13-11-17.5. 

211. The BODA authorizes this Court, in addition to any other relief granted by the Court, to 

grant judgment and injunctive relief in favor of the Division, and to award the Division 

reasonable attorney’s fees, costs of court, and investigative fees for Defendants’ violations of 

the BODA. Utah Code § 13-15-6(3). 

212. The TFPA authorizes this Court to impose a civil penalty not exceeding $2,500 against 

the Defendants for each of Defendants’ transactions that violated the TFPA. Utah Code § 

13-26-8(2). 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

Wherefore, Plaintiff FTC, pursuant to Sections 13(b) and 19 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 

§§ 53(b) and 57b, Section 2(d) of the CRFA, 15 U.S.C. §§ 45b(d), and Section 6(b) of the 

Telemarketing Act, 15 U.S.C. § 6105(b), and Plaintiff Division, pursuant to the UCSPA, the 

BODA, and the TFPA, and as authorized by the Court’s own equitable powers, request that the 

Court: 

A. Award Plaintiffs such preliminary injunctive and ancillary relief as may be 

necessary to avert the likelihood of consumer injury during the pendency of this action and to 

53 
 

 

 

 

 

Case 2:19-cv-00713-DAK-DAO Document 219 Filed 02/12/21 PageID.12029 Page 54 of 56 

preserve the possibility of effective final relief, including but not limited to, temporary and 

preliminary injunctions against all Defendants and appointment of a monitor over Corporate 

Defendants; 

B. Enter a permanent injunction against all Defendants to prevent future violations of 

the FTC Act, the CRFA, the TSR, the UCSPA, the BODA, and the TFPA by Defendants; 

C. Award against Defendants such relief as the Court finds necessary to redress 

injury to consumers resulting from Defendants’ violations of the FTC Act, the CRFA, the TSR, 

the UCSPA, the BODA, and the TFPA including but not limited to, rescission or reformation of 

contracts, restitution, the refund of monies paid, the disgorgement of ill-gotten monies, and 

damages; 

D. Award civil penalties for each violation of the UCSPA, the BODA, and the 

TFPA; 

E. Enter an order requiring Relief Defendant to disgorge all funds and assets, or the 

value of the benefit she received from the funds and assets, which are traceable to Defendants’ 

deceptive and unlawful acts or practices; and 

F. Award Plaintiffs the cost of bringing this action, as well as such other and 

additional relief as the Court may determine to be just and proper. 

Respectfully submitted, 

J. REILLY DOLAN 

Acting General Counsel 

54 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 2:19-cv-00713-DAK-DAO Document 219 Filed 02/12/21 PageID.12030 Page 55 of 56 

Dated: February 12, 2021 /s/ Joshua A. Doan 

COLLOT GUERARD 

JOSHUA DOAN 

AMANDA GRIER 

THOMAS HARRIS 

Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, CC-8528 

Washington, DC 20580 

Telephone: (202) 326-3338 

cguerard@ftc.gov; jdoan@ftc.gov 

agrier@ftc.gov; tharris1@ftc.gov 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

Dated: February 12, 2021 /s/ Robert G. Wing (by JAD w/ perm.) 

ROBERT G. WING (4445) 

THOMAS MELTON (4999) 

JONI OSTLER (9607) 

KEVIN MCLEAN (16101) 

Assistant Attorney General 

Utah Attorney General’s Office 

160 East 300 South, Fifth Floor 

Salt Lake City, Utah 84114 

Telephone: 801-366-0310 

rwing@agutah.gov; tmelton@agutah.gov 

joniostler@agutah.gov; kmclean@agutah.gov 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

UTAH DIVISION OF CONSUMER 

PROTECTION 

55 
 

 

Case 2:19-cv-00713-DAK-DAO Document 219 Filed 02/12/21 PageID.12031 Page 56 of 56 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on February 12, 2021, I electronically filed the foregoing Second 

Amended Complaint with the Clerk of Court using CM/ECF, which will send a notice of 

electronic filing to counsel of record. 

/s/ Joshua A. Doan 

Joshua Doan 

56