## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 08

- 4249 F EDERAL T RADE C OM MI S S I ON, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. K EV I N T RUDE AU, D ef endant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 03- C- 3904

—Robert W . G ettleman, Judg e.
A RG UE D M AY 14, 2009

— D ECI DE D A UGUS T 27, 2009

Befo re R IPPLE, M A NI ON, a nd T INDER, C ircu it Judges. T INDER, C ircu it Judge. I fyo u have a p ro b l em , chances ar e Kevin Trudeau has a n answer. Fo r ove r a decade, Trudeau has pro m ote d countl ess “cur es” fo r a ho st of h u m an woes that he cl ai m s the go ver nm ent a nd co rpor ations ha ve kep t hid d en from the A m erican p ub li c. C an cer, A I DS, se ver e pai n, hai r l oss , sl ow rea ding, poorm em or y, debt, o besi ty

— y o u na m e i t, Tr ude au ha s a “c ur e” f o ri t. To g ethi s m es sa g es o ut, Tr ude au ha s be co m e a m ar k et i ng2 N o. 08

- 4249

m achi ne. A nd the i nfo m er c ial i s hi s m edi um o fchoi ce. H e ha s appe ar ed i n do ze ns o f th em, us ua l l y i n the form ofa sta ged, scr i pted i nter vie w w here Trudeau r aves about the a sto und i ng be nefi ts ofthe m i ra cl e pr od u ct he ’ s pi tc hi ng . ButTr ude au ’ s ta ct i cs ha ve l o ngd r awn the i re o fthe Feder alTra de Com m i ssi on ( “FTC”). B y pr om o ting hi s cur es , Tr ude au cl ai m s he i s m er ely exp o sing co r po r at e an d g o ve r nm en t co ns pi r ac i es t o k ee p Am er i ca ns f ata nd unhe al thy. B ut the F TC a cc us es Tr ude au o fb eing no th i ngmor e tha n a huc k st erwho pr ey s o n un wi tt i ng con su m ers

— a 2 1st

- centur y s nake- oi lsal esm an. Fo r yea rs Trudeau has du el ed w i th the FTC i n and out o fco urt. Tr ude au ’ s l at es t r un- i n c o nc erns hi s cur e f o rwei g ht los s, w h ich h e e x p lain s in h is b oo k, The Weigh t Lo ss C ure
“ Th ey ”Do n ’ tWan tYo u t o K n o w Abou t
. B y th e t i me T ru d ea u be ga n p ro m ot in g t h e b oo k, co u r t s h ad sh ar p ly curb e d h i s ma r k e t i nga c t i v i t i e s . A c o ns e ntde cre e ba nne d Tr ude au fr o m a ppea r i ngi n inf o m er ci al s f o ra ny product s, exce pt f orbo ok s, pro vi ded thathe di d not “m isr ep re se n t t h e c on te n t o f th e b oo k.” That p ro vi so f or m s the bas i s forthi s l ate st l aw sui t. The FTC cl ai m ed that Trudeau’s Weigh t Lo ss C ure i nfo m er ci alm i sl ed consum er s by describi ng a w ei ght l oss p r o g r a m th a tw a s “ e a s y , ” “s i mp l e , ” a n d ab l e t o b e c o mpl et ed atho m e, wheni n f ac t i t was a ny th i ngb ut
. The prog ra m r equi res a di et ofo nl y 5 00 cal or i es per day, i nj ecti ons ofa presc ri pti on hor m one not approve d fo r w ei ght l oss , and dozens ofdi eta ryand l ifes ty l e r est ri cti ons. The di str i ct c ourtsi ded with the FTC, co ncl ud ed th at T ru d ea u h ad m isr ep re se n te d h is b oo k, an d h eldN o. 08

- 4249 3 Trudeau i n conte m pt. A s sa n cti ons, the cour t o rder ed Trudeau to pay $3 7. 6 m i l l i on a nd banned T ru deau fro m appeari n g in any i nfo m er ci al s, ev en f orbo oks , f or the ne xt thr ee yea rs . Trudeau appeal s e ver ythi ng. H e ar gu es he sho uld not have b een he l d i n conte m pt beca use he m er el y quot ed hi s b o o ka nd e xpres s e d h i s o pi ni o ns . And h e c o nt e nd s th at th e c ou rt ’s s an c tio n s w e r e n otap p ro p ria te for c ivil ( a s o p p o s e d t o c r i mi n a l ) c o n t e mp tp r o c e e di n g s . We di sa g r ee wi th T rude au abo utthe c o nt empt fi ndi ng

— he cl ea r l y misrepre se nt ed th e bo o k ’ s co nt en t

—bu t w e are tr o ubl ed by the na tu r e o fb o ththe $ 37
. 6 m i l l i o n fi ne and the infom er ci alban. S o w e m ust r em and those aspects o fthe cour t’ s j ud gm ent.

I . B a c kg r o und A. Trudea u a nd t he FTC Tr ud e a u’ s t r o ub l e s wi th the F TC s t a r t e d o v e ra de c a de ago . In 199 8, the FTC s u ed T rudeau f ordecepti ve pr ac ti ce s an d f al se a dve r ti singi n c o nne ct i o n wi tha va rie ty of p ro d u c ts th at T ru d ea u p ro m ot ed th ro u gh h is i nfo m er ci al s. Fo r exam ple , Trudeau part i ci pated i n an i nfo m er ci alf orthe “Sabl e HairFa rm i ng S yst em , ” which w as gu ar an te ed t o r e g ro w h air an d “a c tu ally en d h air loss in t he hu m an race.” A n infom ercial for “H ow ard Berg’ s M ega Reading ” cl ai m ed to si gni fi cantly increas e re adingspeed, up to as m uch as ten t i m es, ev en f ori nd ivid u als w ith se ve re br ain d am ag e. A n d p r om ot in g h is ve ry ow n“K ev inT r u d e au ’s M eg a M em or y Sy st em ,”4 N o. 08

- 4249 Trudeau cl ai m ed that user s would ach ieve a photogr aphic m em or y. Tr ude au s et tl ed th atc as e an d pai d $5 00 , 00 0 to c o m pen sat e purchas er s o fthes e pr oducts. Trudeau al so agr eed not to m ake any re prese ntati ons about the b enefi ts or per f o r m an ce o fa ny pr o ductwi th o ut“ co m pet enta nd re l i abl e e vi dence” o fhi s cl ai m s, and h e agr eed notto m i sr ep re se nt the exi ste nce o r conte nts o fany re sea rch study. H e furtherag re ed to b e u p fr ont about the f act that hi s info m er ci al s w er e a dvert i sem ents and not ac tu al in te rv iew s. St ip u lat ed O r d er for P er m an en t Inj . & Fin al J. A ga in st K ev inT ru d ea u , FTC v. Tr ude au , N o . 9 8- CV168 (N
. D
. I ll

. J an . 14, 1998 ). Butfi ve y ea r s l at er, T rudeau was a t i t ag ain. The F TC w en t a fte r h im for m ar ke tin g t w o p ro d u c ts : “ C or al C alc iu m S u p re m e,” a s a c u re fo r c an c er, he ar t d ise as e, m u ltiple scl er osi s, l up us, and m any ot h erse ri ous a i l m ents; and “ Bi o t a pe , ” a s a c ur e f o rs e v e r e p a i n. T r ud e a u e ven cl aim ed that hi s ca ncercure had bee n prov en byan ar t i c l e i n the J o urna lo fthe Amer i c a n M e di c a lAs s o ci ation. T he FTC again all eged de cep tion an d f alse ad verti si ng, and i t s ought to h old T rudeau i n conte m pt f or vi o l at i ngthe 1 99 8 i nj unc ti o n. In response , Tr ude au s ti pul at ed to a pr el i m i na r y i nj unc ti o n t o c ea se mar k et i ng th es e p ro d u c ts w ith ou t firs t s u b m itt in g t h e in fom er c ials to th e F T C . Stip u l a te d P re lim . Inj . Or d er , FTC v. Tr ude au , N o. 03 -C V -39 04 (N .D . I ll. Ju ly 1 , 200 3) (R . 26.) B u t t h at d id n ’t s to p h im

— he ke pt m ar ket i ng Cor al C alcium as a cu re for can cer. So in Jun e 2004 , th e c ou rt he ld T rud eau i n con tem p t for viol a t in g the prelim inaryN o. 08

- 4249 5 i nj uncti on a nd o rder ed hi m to c eas e m ar ket i ng tha t p ro d u c t a lto ge th er . C on te m p t O rd er , FTC v. Tr ude au , N o. 03 -C V -39 04 (N .D . I ll. Ju n e 2 9, 20 04 ) (R . 55.) B u t T ru d ea u st ill w an te d to p ro m ot e h is “ c u re s.” T h is ti m e, tho ugh, i nstead ofm ar ket i ng the cura ti ve substa nces them sel ves, he s ought to advert i se h is book, Nat ural C ures “They” D on’ tWantYou To Know Ab out, w hi ch r eve al s “ natura lcure s” f orev er ythi ng fro m herpes and A I DS t o M S and cancer

. S o Trudeau bega n ne g o t i a t i ngwi th the F TC ab o uta n e w s t i pu l a t e d a g r eem en t that w o ul d g o ve r n Tr ude au ’ s futur e m ar k et i ng acti vi ti es. I n Sep tem ber 2004 , the cou rt ent e red a Con sen t O rd er, w hi ch or dered Trudeau to pay $2 m i l lion f orco nsum er r e d r e s s a n d p r o h ib i t e d T r u d e a u fr o m a d v e r t i s i n ga ny products in i nfo m er ci al s. But the O rd erco ntai ned an ex c ep tio n : Tr u d ea u co u ld p ar tic ip at e in info m er c ials f o r publ i ca ti o ns , i nc l udi nghi s o wn publ i ca ti o ns , a s l o ng as the publica ti on di d not r eferto any othe r product Trudeau w as m ar ket i ng. In additi on, an d ofpart i cul ar i m port ance t o thi s ca se, the Or d er s peci fi cal l y pr ovi ded that “the i nfo m er ci alf orany su c h b oo k .

. . m ust no t m isrepre sent the c onte nt o fthe boo k. ” S ti pu l ate d Fi nal O rd er for P er m an en t Inj. & Set tle m en t, FTC v. Tr ude au , N o. 03 -C V -39 04 (N .D . I ll. Se p t. 2, 20 04 ) (R . 56.) I n connection with the 20 04 Consent Order, Trudeau subm i tte d to the FT C an i nfo m er ci alf orhi s Nat ural C ures bo ok . Tr u d ea u cla im s t h at th is in fom e r c ial m er ely quoted and paraphra sed hi s bo ok and ga ve hi s per sonal o pi ni o n abo utt o pi cs i n th e b ook. The F TC v i ewe d the6 N o. 08

- 4249

Trud eau’ s w ei ght l oss program cla im s to be m od el ed af ter 1 the “Sim eon s P ro tocol, ” a c ontrovers ial w ei ght l oss program d ev elop ed b y a B ritish p hy si c ian ov er fifty y ear s ag o. K ev in T ru d ea u , T HE W EI GHT L OSS C URE “T HEY ” D ON ’ T W ANT Y OU TO K NO W A BOUT 4 4

- 5 3 ( 2 0 0 7 )
. C o mbi n i n g h o r mon a l i nj e c t i o ns w ith s t ri c tdi et ar y a nd c al or i c - i nt ake r es t ri c t i ons , the Pr ot oc ol claim s to red istribu te on e’s b od y fat an d “re set” one ’ s hy p oth al- (co n tin u ed ...) infom ercial an d did n’t obj ect to it being p u t o n th e air. Ov e rthe n e xtt wo year s, T r ud e a u a i r e d tha ta nd a n u m b er of ot h er i n fom er c ials p ro m ot in g s ev er al of h is boo ks. Inm id -20 06 , T ru d ea u ’s c om p an y, T ru c om , L L C , sold al lo fi ts ass ets to I TV Global, Inc. , an enti ty al l ege dlynot
at- al laffi l i ate d w i th Trud ea u. I TV ag re ed to pay Trucom $1 21 m i l l i on. In exchange, Trudeau ag re ed that IT V m ay m ar ke t h is b oo ks an d p u b lica tio n s v ia i nfo m er ci al s an d that Tr ud eau would appeari n thos e i nfo m er ci al s for t he purpose o fpro m oting tho se boo ks. Trudeau att est s he w oul d not r ecei ve any a dd i ti onal com pensati on f ortho se appe ar ances beyo nd the $121 m i l l i on. But Trudeau cl ai m s that Tr u c om has re cei ved o nl y $ 2 m i l l i o n o ftha t $1 21 mil l i o n fr o m I TV.

B. Th e We igh t L os s C ure I nfo m er ci al Trudeau w as on g oo d ter m s with the FTC un ti l20 07, w hen he a pp ear ed i n i nfo m er ci al s pro m oting hi s We ight Lo ss C urebo ok. The Weigh t Lo ss C urebook to u t s a f ou rphase pro gr am to per m anentl y s hed pound s: 1N o. 08

- 4249 7

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 1 am us , anar ea ofthe b rain thatc ont ro l s am ong othe r thi ngs h u n g er , th er eb y re d u ci n g th e u rg e t o ea t. Id. at73

- 76
. The effec t i ven es s ofthe Si m eo ns Pr ot oc ol, an d par t i c ul ar l y the ho rm on e injectio ns, as a w e i g h t loss aid ha s long b een d isp u te d

. S ee Chor i oni c Gonadot ro pi n, 39 Fed

. Reg
. 42, 397- 01 ( D ec. 5 , 19 7 4 ) (d isc u ssi n g cli n ic a l st u d ie s). T ru dea u ar gue s thatPha s e One i s no tm anda t or y buton ly 2 “stro ng ly en cou rag ed .” H e is corre ct tha t the b oo k occa sion ally st ates thatPhase O ne i s “not re qu ired.” E.g. , W EI GHT L OSS C UR E , sup ra , at 74
. H oweve r, i n the book’ s fi nal c hapt er, “P ut t i ng I tAl l Toge the r: Su m m ar y a nd Con clu si ons , ” Tr udea u pr ovi des a “s um m ar y l i s tofc he ck sh ee t s thatc ont ai n the s t eps of each phase ofthe protocol

. ” Id
. at21 1. For al l f our pha s es , the check s heet s o u tline the thi ngs diet ers “M U ST” and “M U ST NOT” do

. Th e c he c k she e t s a l s o ou t l i ne wha ti s “ S TRONGLY RE C OMMENDE D” a n d “ S T RONG LY SUGG ES T ED y o u NOT do

. ” Id. a t 21 3

- 2 7
. G i v e n th a tth e c h e c k l i s tr e fe r s t o s o me it em s as “rec om m ended ” or “s ugg es te d,” we thi nk itreasonable that d ieter s w ould fi nd the i tem s they “m ust” do as m and atory parts of each phase. This bel ie s the st atem ent earl ie r in the book thatPhase O ne as “not r equ ir ed

. ” Ev en i fTrud eau sub jec t i v e ly b eliev es Ph ase O ne is op tion al, diete rs cou ld reas onab ly c onclude otherwise

. The sam e goes f or Phase Fou r, w hich T ru d eau also a rg u es is op tion al. • Pha s e One l ast s 3 0 days and consi sts o fa l i st of 60 dos and don’ ts, doz ens o fwh i ch the boo k cl ai m s di ete rs “M U ST” fol l ow. A m ong othe r 2 th in gs , d iet er s are ad vis ed to ea t an all-or ga n ic d iet ofsix m eals per d a y ; e at 100 gram s of organi c m eatj ust be f or e be d ; not e at any foo d8 N o. 08

- 4249

H C G i s a p rescrip tion d ru g often p rescrib ed to stim u late 3 o v u l a t i o n i n i n f e r t i l e wom e n . Se e h t t p : / / www. ferri ngfe rt il ity. com /m edicat ions /nov arel /( las t v is it ed A ug. 24, 20 09 )
. I ti s no tappr ove d f or wei ghtl os s i n the Uni t ed States. 39 Fed. R eg . 4 2, 397- 03. To ob tai n hCG , diet ers m ust ei ther l e a ve the Un i t e d S t a t e s o r fi nd a do c t orwho wi l l pr e s c r ibe h CG “of f

- label

. ” H C G sho u l d n o t b e con fused w ith h G H ( H u m an G ro w th H orm one) , w hich has been the s ub j ectofcountl es s en h anced sub stan ce inv estiga tion s in am ateu r an d p ro fessi on al sp or ts. A .J. P er e z , H G Hde t ec t i on f ace s new hurdl e: Em ergi ng compounds el u d e tests, s pur ho rmone pro duct i on , U SA T ODAY , M ay 28, 2008, a t C 1
. H C G h a s n o tb e e n w i th o u ti t s o w n c o n t r o v e r s y , h o wev er, a s m ajor -leagu e slug g er M an ny R am irez w as rece ntly susp en d ed f or 50 g a m es f or usin g the su b stan ce. Ph il R og ers, C o lu m n, M an n y R am i rez S u spend ed 50 G am es: Ju st A n other B as eb all C h ea t? , C HI CA GO T RI BU NE , M ay 8, 2009, at C1. cooked i n a m icrow ave; r e ceive 15 “colon ics” (a proce du re l i ke an enem a with w ate r p er for m ed onl y b y s peci al i sts ) ; w alk an hour a day; ta ke i nfr ar ed saunas; and avo i d al lsk i n cr eam s, l oti ons, and pres cri pti on a nd o ver - the- counter m edi cati ons. Instea d ofm edi cati ons, Trudeau ad voca tes u sing th e “all -natu ral non -dru g alternati ves” expl ai ned i n hi s Na tura l C ures bo ok.

• Ph a s e T wo , w h ich req u ire s p h ys icia n su p er visio n, in vo lve s a re st ric te d , all-org an ic d ietof on ly 50 0 ca l o r i es p er da y, a l o ngwi thda i l y i nj ec ti o ns of H um an C h orionic Gon ad otrop in (hC G ) horm one. In additi on, di eters m ust drink atl eas t

3 o ne - ha l ft o o ne g al l o n of w at erpe rda y, a l o ngN o. 08

- 4249 9

H ow t he dai l y hCG i nj ec t i ons s qua re with the pr ohibi t i on 4 on all pres cri ption drug s is uncle ar. H ow purchasi ng the Weigh t L oss C u re b oo k squ are s w ith th is 5 re qui rem enti s al s o un c l ea r. The FTC m ai nt ai ns that, fro m Dec em ber2 00 6 to Dec em ber20 07, Tr udea u’ s i nf om er c i al s f or the b oo k aired ap p ro xim ately 32,00 0 tim es. w ith at least four cu p s of various teas. A n d i t’s str ongl y s ugges ted that di ete rs do y oga, walkan hou r per d ay, an d d o res istanc e training. Dieters m ust a l so avo i d al lsk i n cr eam s an d l oti ons, M SG, ar ti fi ci al sw eet ener s, and any pre scr i pti on o ro v e r - th e - c o u n t e rmedi c a t i o n s . P h a s e T wo 4 l ast s be tw een 2 1 a nd 45 days.

• Ph ase Th r ee , wh i ch l ast s 2 1 days , i n vo lves m an y o fthe di et ary a nd l i fes ty l e r es tr i ct i o ns conta i ned i n the ea rlierphases. A m ong othe r th i ngs, di ete rs m ust drink atl eas t o ne- hal fto one gal l on o fwater per day, dri nk fo u r cups of tea per day, eat si x ti m es per day, eato nl y 1 00% orga n ic f oo d, w al k a n hour a day, and ge t col oni cs a s r eco m m ended by a c ol on thera pis t. Diet er s m ust r efra i n fro m ea ti ng sug ar s, st ar ches, f oo d cook ed i n a m i cro w ave, and foo d prepare d b y f a s t
- f o o d o rn a t i o n a lc h a i n r e s t a u r a n t s . No p rescrip tion or over-t he -coun ter d rugs either. Diet er s a re s tr ongl y e ncoura ged to avo i d expos ur e t o a i rc o nd i t i o ninga nd fl uo r e s c e ntl i g hts, a nd t o l d, “ Do n’ tb uyh e a v i l y ad v e r t i s e d p r o du c ts .” 510 N o. 08

- 4249

Trude au h as p ro v en to be qui t e an effec t i ve s al es m an ofthe 6 Weigh t L oss C u re book. Des pi t e the r i gor s ofthe pr ot oc ol, the FT C mai nt a i ns th a to ve r 1
. 6 m i l l i onc op i e s o fthe bo okh a ve be e n s ol d. • Pha s e Fourl as ts f o rthe r es t o fo ne ’ s l i fe an d con sists of a li st of 50 d o ’s a nd don ’ts. Dieters m us t e ato nl y 1 00 % o r g an i c f o o d, a l o ngwi tha hos t of vitam ins an d other su p p lem en ts. D ieters shoul d avoi d art i fi ci alsweetene rs , f oo d cook ed i n m i cro w aves , and foo d s ol d b y f ast
- f oo d resta u rants, nati on al re st au ra n t c h ain s, an d p u b licly tr ad ed co m p an ies . A n d a g ain , d iet er s s h ou ld n otta ke m ed ica tio n s of an y k in d . D iet er s s h ou ld al so c o nt i nue t o a vo i d a i rc o ndi ti o ni nga nd flu or esce nt l i ghts, and m ust co nti nue to r ecei ve co l o ni cs a nd l i ve r, pa r as i te , he avy met al, a nd c olo n cle an se s. Du ring al lf our phases, diet er s a re i nstr ucted thatthey

“ MUS T ” t a k e d a i l y d o s e s o fc o r a lc a l c i u m. 6 I n the in fom er ci al s, Trudeau expl ai ns wh at he be l i eve s ca us es o be si ty an d di sc us se s g en er al l y ho w hi s wei g ht loss “cu re” eli m inates th at root c au se by “resett ing” on e’s h y p o th a l a mu s a n d l e s s e n i n go n e ’ s u r g e t o e a t
. He cl ai m s that thi s m etho d has be en used f ordecades by c e l e b r i t i e s , r o y a l t y, a nd the u l t r a - r i c h, b uth a s b e e n s up pr es se d fr o m th e m ains tr ea m by f o o d and re st au r an t com panie s a nd go vernm ent a genci es. Trudeau ci tes a num bero fsucce ss sto ri es, gi vi ng exam ple s o fhow m uch w ei ght peo ple l osti n shor t a m ounts oft im e (e.g
. , 21 p ou nd s in 14 da ys).N o. 08

- 4249 11 Inth e in fom er c ials , Tr u d e a u als o c laim s re p ea te d ly that the Weigh t Lo ss C urepro toc oli s “ eas y, ” “ si m p le,” “v er y in ex p en s i v e ,” ca n be co m p let ed ath om e, an d is in f act “the eas i est[ w ei ght l oss ] m etho d kno w n on pl anet Ea r th. ” Ho we v e r, T r ud e a u ne v e rme nt i o ns the h CG i nj ecti ons ( though he does m enti on th e need to ta ke a “m ira c le, m ag ic a l , all-n at u ra l su b st an c e” ), th e 5 00 -c alo rie per day l i m i tat i on, the colon ics , o r any o fthe othe r die tary and l i festyl e r est ri cti ons outl i ned i n the boo k. T r u d e a u a l s o c l a i ms th a t, a ft e rc o mp l e t i n gth e p r o g r a m, die ter s ca n eat “e ver ythi ng the y want, any ti m e they w ant. ” As evi dence, i n one i nfo m er ci al, Tru d ea u boa sts th atthe n ightb efo r e th e i nf o m er ci alhe ha d a he aping help i ng o ff atty b ut del i ci ous foo ds: “Ihad .

. . r eal m ashed pota toe s with cre am and b utter, gr avy l oaded w i th fat

. . . a b ig p rim e rib m arb led w i t h f a t . . . [an d ] a b ig ho t fud g e s un da e wi th r e a l i c e c r e a m a nd r eal hot fud g e a nd r e a ln ut s a nd r e a lwh i pp e d c r e a m. ” Bu t, a c c o r di ng to Trudeau, on c e you’ ve com ple ted the Weigh t Lo ss C ure p ro gr am , “y ou ’ll ke ep th e w eig h t off for ev er . Y o u ’ ll n ev er h av e t o d ietag ain .”

C. Th e Cont em pt Pr ocee dings The FT C t o o ki ss ue wi thTr ude au ’ s i nf o m er ci al s an d to o khi m b ac kt o c o ur t. In S eptember2 00 7, the F TC so ug htt o ho l d Tr ude au in c o nt empt fo rv i o l at i ngthe 2004 Consent Ord er’ s co m m and that Tr ud eau “ m ust no t mi s r e p r e s e n tth e c o n t e n to fth e b o o k

. ” I n th e F T C ’ s v i e w, th e d i et w as anythi ng but “eas y. ” Goi ng phase-by- phase, th e F T C arg u e d t h a t T ru d ea u ’s d ietp ro gr am w as in f act i ncre dibl y a rduous but that, i n the i nfo m er ci al s,12 N o. 08

- 4249 Tr ud e a u ne v e re xp l a i ne d wh a tthe p r o g r a m e nt a i l e d. T o the F T C , Tru d eau w as sim p ly d eceiving con su m ers to se ll boo k s . T h e F T C als o a rg u ed th at T ru d ea u ’s c laim th at“ y o u c ane ata ny th i ngy o u wan t” a ft erc o m pl et i ng th e progra m w as bogu s. Ph ase Fou r, w hich l asts foreve r, r equi re s a f arst ri cterdi et. Trudeau counter ed that he w as m er el y quot i ng wh at h e w ro te in t h e b oo k. O n a n u m b er of p ag es , We ight Lo ss C urede sc r ibe s th e di etas “ easy to do

. ” And the boo k als o states that die ter s in Phase Fourcan eat“a nythi ng y ou want, as m uch as you w ant, as o ften as you w ant. ” Thi s a pp ro ach o fq u ot i ng phras es fro m th e b oo k, inT ru d ea u ’s v iew , w as n o d iffer en t t h an h is Na tura l C ures info m er c ia l , w h ich th e F T C ap p ar en tly a pp r o v e d. The dis tr i ct courtdi dn ’ t buyi t. Even tho ugh the boo k m i ght m enti on that the d i et i s “easy, ” the co urt concl ud ed th at T ru d ea u ’s “ c h er ry -p ick in g” a few c h oic e p h ra se s d id no t ac cur at ely po r tr aythe b o o k ’ s o ve r al lc o nt en t. And “co ntent” w as w hat the 20 04 Cons en t O rderpro hibi ted Trudeau f ro m m i sr epres enting. The di et w as not at all ea sy , th e c ou rtob se rv ed , an d n ow h er e in h is i nfo m er ci al s di d Tr ud eau m enti on a nythi ng l i ke co l o ni cs , o r g anc l ea nse s, e at i ngo nl y o r g an i c f o o d, a nd t h e 500-calorie- p er-da y d iet in P ha se T w o. Th e cou rt al so hom ed i n on Tr ud eau’ s cl ai m thatthe prog ra m coul d b e com ple ted at hom e, w hi ch the c ou rt vi ew ed as i mpo s s ib l e g i v e n th a tth e d i e tr e q u i r e s d a i l y i nj e c ti o ns of a p re scr i pti on s ubstance notapprov ed f oruse i n die t pr o g r ams. Tr ude au e ve n ad m itt ed ata he ar i ngtha t he re cei ved the fi rs t three weeks ofi nj ecti ons i n Germ any.N o. 08

- 4249 13

Trude au m ove d t o r ec ons i der the c ont em ptfi ndi ng, ar gui ng 7 am ong othe r thi ngs thatFTC pol i c y pr ohib it ed i tfro m i ni t i at i ng e nf or c em en tpr oc ee di ngs ag ai ns thi m . The FTC’ s s ocal l ed “M i rr or I m age Doct ri ne ” s t at es that the FTC, “a s a m att er ofpolic y, ordinari ly will not procee d a g a in stadv ertisi n g th at p ro m ote s the sale o f b oo k s and oth er p u b lication s: P rovided, T h e a dv e r t i s i n g o n l y p u r p o r t s t o e x p r e s s th e o p i n i on o f th e a u th o r o r t o qu o te th e c o n te n ts o f th e p u b lic a t io n . . . . ” A dv ert isi ng in Book s, 36 Fed. Reg
. 13414- 02 ( J uly 21, 1971) ( e m ph a s i s i n or i gi na l )
. Tr ude a u a r gu e d thath e mer e l y ga ve h is opini on and quoted his book i n the Weigh t L oss C u re i nf om er c i al

. The c our tdi s agr ee d f or s eve ra l r ea s ons . Fi rs t, the 2 0 0 4 Co ns e nt Or de r ne ve r c on t e m pl a t e d thi s Doc t r i ne . S e c on d, the D octr in e m erely s tat es a generalpolic y app roach

— “ o rd in a rily , ” the FTC wil l r efra i n fro m pr oc ee di ng a gai nst a ds f or boo ks. Ev en i f the D octr ine app li ed to this cas e, the court ob s e r ve d, i twou l d b e un surpri s i ngi fthe F TC m a de a n e x c e pti on f or Trud eau, “w ho h a s a l ong hist ory ofcons um er deception as w el l as findings ofconte m pt by this court. ” FT C v. Trudea u , 572 F. Supp
. 2d 9 1 9 , 9 2 2 ( N
. D
. Il l. 2008)
. The court the n r ei t er at ed i t s co nc l us i ons thatTr udea u’ s c l ai m s i n the (co n tin u ed ...) Fin ally , th e c ou rtto ok iss u e w ith T ru d ea u ’s c laim that die ter s w ho com ple ted the prog ra m coul d eat “a nythi ng y ou wan t,” like pr i m e r ib and hot fud ge sund aes ; “n o th i ngi s r es tr i ct ed, ” ac co r di ng t o the i nf o m er ci al

. But Phase F our, wh i ch l ast s ind efi ni tel y, has 50 rest ri cti ons, ra nging fro m ea ti ng o n ly or gani c f oo d to avo i ding f ast foo d an d food p re p ar ed by “n at ion a l c h ain res ta u ra n ts .” Because th e courtf ound that Tr ud eau’ s s tat em ents m isl ed cons um ers an d thu s viol ated the C ons en t O r d er, the c ourtf ound Trud eau in conte m pt. FTC v. Tr ude au , 714 N o. 08

- 4249

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 7 Weigh t L os s C u re inf om erc ial m is le d consum ers and v iol ated th e 2 0 0 4 C o n se n t O rd er . Id. at 922- 24. 567 F. Sup p . 2d 1016 (N
. D
. I ll

. 2007).

D. Th e Sa nc t i o ns Trudeau and the FTC then du ked i t out ove r re m edi es. T he FTC requ ested rei m bu rsem en t for allcons um ers w ho purchase d the bo ok, vi a the i nfo m er c ial or i n sto re s, to ta lin g ov er $4 6 m illion (o f th at, ap p ro x im at ely $3 7 m i l l i on cam e fr o m i nf o m er ci als al es a nd abo ut $9 m i l l i on fro m r eta il)

. A l ternati vel y, the FTC argued th at at l eas t Tr ud eau s houl d disg or ge hi s pro fi ts, wh i ch the F TC es ti m ate d to be a ro und $1 2 m i l l i on ( ove r $6 m il l i on fro m i nfo m er ci alsa l es, o ver$5 m i l l i on fro m re ta il sale s, an d aro u n d $2 50 ,00 0 in sa lar y). (R . 186 .) In addi ti on, the F TC m o ve d t o modi fy the 2 00 4 Con se nt Order to r atchetup the inj uncti on’ s dete rr ent e ffects
. Pri m ari l y, the FTC sought to re quir e Tr ud eau t o post a $ 1 0 m illion p er for m an c e b on d be for e p ar tic ip at in g in b oo k-r ela te d info m er c ials . (R. 18 7.) T rud eau disp ut ed allof th is. H e a rgue d that cons um ers suf f er e d n o h a r m f r o m hi s i nfo mer c i a l s , a nd e v e n i fthey ha d , he s ho ul d no t be puni sh ed be y o nd wha t m o ne y he re cei ved f orpart icip atingi n the i nfo m er ci al s. Conveni e nt l y, Tr ud e a u c l a i med he r e c e i v e d no thingf or ap p ea rin g in th e in f o m e rc ials ; he h ad alre ad y s old h is ri ghts to I TV and agr eed to seekno add i ti onalco m pensati on. H e o nl y r ecei ved r oya l ti es fro m the reta i lsa l es.N o. 08

- 4249 15

T he relev an t text of the thr ee-ye ar in fom ercia l ba n re ad s: 8 For a per i od of thr ee ( 3) ye ar s f ro m the dat e ofe nt ry of t hi s S u p p l e me n t a l Or de r a n d J u dg me n t, Ke v i n T r udeau , d ir ect ly or through any .

. . ent ity und er hi s direct or ind irect co ntr ol, and

. . . all pe rson s and entities in (co n tin u ed ...) B ut those , he argu ed , cou ld n o t be tied to th e infom erci al s ( des pi te th e bi g, g o l d st i ck er o n th e co ve r o f th e bo o kwhi chr ea ds, “ AS SEEN ON TV”)
. In the e nd, Tr udeau conte nd ed that he sho uld be hel d re sponsibl e for on l y a fr a c t i o n o f t o t a l r e v e nu e s , i f a ny a t a l l ; and that, shoul d the co urt i m pose a s ti ffersa ncti on, he was w i thout the fi nanci alm eans to sat i sfy i t. ( R. 11 7. ) Trudeau al so c ha l lenged the F TC’ s m o ti o n t o modi fy the Co ns en t Or der, ca l l i ngthe $ 10 mil l i o n b o nd r equi r ement ex cess ive and pu nitive. (R. 122). The di st r i ctco ur t was tr o ubl ed bythe F TC’ s ca l cul at i o ns an d f ou nd the $4 6 m il li on figu r e “ r a th er Dra con ian.” ( T r. 355, J uly 25, 2008.) Bu t the cou r t a ls o f ou nd Tru d eau ’s ar gum ents i ncre dibl e a nd the evi dence ofhi s fi nanci al c o nd i t i o n “ no t wo r th the pa pe r i t i s wr i t t e n on. ” FT C v. Tru de au , 57 2 F
. S up p. 2d 91 9, 925 ( N
. D. I l l

. 20 08)
. S o, with re spect to the m onet ar y s ancti on, the cour t r equi re d Trudeau to p ay the F TC a l i ttl e o ver$5

. 1 m i l l i on t o disg o r g e so m e o fthe r o y al ti es he rec ei ve d fr o m s al es o fthe Weigh t L o ss C ure b oo k. Id. at92 5- 26 & n. 8. A l so i n i ts or der o n c on tem pt r em edi es, the cour t co ncl ud ed that, given T rud eau ’s prior w ill in gn ess to fl ou t cou rt ord er s, o nl y a co m ple te ban o n i nfo m er ci al s forthr ee yea rs would achi eve co m p liance and prote ct c onsum er s. 816 N o. 08

- 4249

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 8 act ive c oncertor p art ic ipati ng w ith Trud eau . . . , are he re by enj oi ne d and re s t ra i ne d f ro m di s s em i nat i ng, or as s i s t i ng othe rs i n di s s em i nat i ng, an y i nf om er c i al f or publ i c at ion i n c onn ec t i on with the m anu f ac t ur i ng, label ing, adv ert is ing, prom oti o n , offeri ng f or s ale , sal e, or dis tr ib u tion ofany boo k, new sl ett er, or other i nf or m at i ona l pub l i c at i on i n a ny for m at, i n o r affecting com m erce , in w hich T ru d eau ha s any intere st. “In fo m ercia l” m ean s any w ritten or v erb al statem en t, il lus tr ati on or dep ic ti on that is 120 s econds or l onger in d u ratio n th at is d esign ed to eff e ct a sale o r crea te an intere st in the p u rch asin g of go od s or serv ices, w hich app ears i n radio, tele visi on ( incl ud ing net w ork a n d c a b l e t e l e v i s i o n ) , v i de o n e ws r e l e a s e , o r t he Inte rn et. “I nt er es t ” m ea ns an y di re c tor i ndi re c tm one t ar y, fi nanc i al, or othe r m at er i al be ne fi t, i nc l udi ng butno t lim ite d to ro y a lty p a y m en ts o n th e sa le o f an y . . . p u b lication

. . . end or se d b y T ru d eau , or an y b en efit re c ei ved i n e xc han ge f or par t i al or ful l owner s hi p of, or r i gh t s t o, a ny . . . pu bl i c a t i on. . . wr i t t e n orc r e a t e d b y him , b u t exclu d ing p ay m en ts m ad e to T ru d eau solely in e xcha n g e f or his app earance as a s pok es m an f or a boo k .

. . i n w hich he does not have an int eres t. Trud eau is p re su m ed t o h a v e an o n g o in g in te re st i n an y . . . publ i c at i on . . . wri tten or c re at ed by hi m unl es s c oncl usi ve evidence es tabli shes other w is e. Id. at92 5- 26. A few m o nths l at er, th e co ur t r ev i si te d th es e san cti o ns as a r esult ofthe FTC’s Rule 59( e) m oti on t o cor re ct aN o. 08

- 4249 17

m ath em atical error. Th e FTC argue d t ha t the cou rt sl i ghtl y underco unted the r oya l ti es Trudeau re ceive d an d r eque st ed ani nc r ea se o fa c o upl e hundr ed th o us an d dol l ar s. ( R. 16 5, 16 6. ) The co urt, howe ve r, upp ed i ts m onet ar y a w ard to $37. 6 m i l l i on, “r epres enti ng a re asonab l e a pp ro xi m ati on o fthe l oss co nsum er s s uffer ed as a r es ul t o fde fendan t’ s dec ept i ve i nf o m er ci al s. ” The co ur t al so r ei te r at ed i ts th re e- y ea ri nf o m er ci alb an . Su p p . O rd er & J., FTC v. Tr ude au , N o. 03 -C V -39 04 (N .D . I ll. N ov. 4, 2008 ) (R. 220.) A fter the cou rt de nied Tru d eau ’s m oti ons to am end and a l ternati vel y sta y the judgm ent, Tr ude au a ppea l ed, c ha l l en g i nge ve r y a spec t o fthe dist ri ct c ourt ’ s deci si on

— th e co nt empt fi ndi ng, the $ 3 7
. 6 mi l l i o n s a n c t i o n, an d th e i n f o me r c i a lb a n . We addr es s ea chi n tur n.

I I . T he C o nt e mptF i ndi ng T ru d ea u arg u es th at h e s h o u l d n oth av e b ee n h eld in co nt empt ofthe 2 00 4 Con se ntOr der

. W e r ev i ew the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s co ntem p t fi nd i ng f orabuse o fdi scr eti on and “w i l lnot re ver se ‘ unle ss the r esul t was cl ear l y e rr oneo us o runl es s we fi nd a n abus e o f d i sc r et i o n b y the dist ri ct c ou rt .’ ” Aut ot e ch Te ch s . LP v. Int egral Re s e ar ch & D e v. Corp. , 49 9 F
. 3d 737, 75 1 (7 th Ci r. 20 07) ( quoti ng D. Patr i ck, Inc . v. Fo r d M ot orCo. , 8 F. 3d 455, 4 60 ( 7th C ir. 19 93 )), cert. denied , 1 28 S. C t. 14 51 (20 08 ); see also U ni t e d S t at e s v. Si l va , 1 4 0 F .3 d 1 098, 1101 n
. 4 (7th C ir. 1998 ) ( “I t s uffi ces to ar ti cul ate the abu se ofdi scr eti on st an dard as the g ener alst andard ofr evi ew i n thi s a re a. The dis tr i ct c ou rt abuses i ts disc re ti on wh en i t m ake s a n18 N o. 08

- 4249

T ho u g h n ot a rg u ed b y eithe r p a rty , the re is som e au tho rity 9 thatthe app ropriat e s tandar d o frevi ew i n thi s cas e given the conse nt order i s de nov o. See Ba i l ey v . Roob , 567 F. 3d 930, 9 4 0 (7t h C ir . 20 0 9 ) (“A co u rt in te rp re t s t h e m ea n in g o f a co n se n t d ec re e i n th e sa m e w a y it in te rp re ts t h e m ea n in g o f a c ont ra c t, an d a r evi ewi ng cou rte xa m i ne s thati nt er pre t at i on d e n o v o .”); Scherin g C or p. v. Il l
. A nti bi ot i cs C o. , 62 F. 3d 903, 908- 09 ( 7th Cir

. 1995) (c o n se nt decre e i s a f orm ofcontr act o v er w h ic h a p p el la te co u rt h a s p le n a ry p o w er to re v ie w ); G o l uba v. Sch. D ist. of

R ipon , 45 F. 3d 1035, 1037- 38 ( 7th Cir

. 1995) (“B ec aus e a c ons en tdec re e i s a f or m ofc ont ra c t, we typ ically revie w the dist ri ctcourt’ s int er p retati on of the conse nt decre e a s w e w o u ld its i n t e rp re ta tio n o f a c o n tr a ct : de novo .”). B u t see A uto t ec h , 49 9 F
. 3d a t75 1 ( appl yi ng a n abus e ofdi s c re t i on st and ard f or dis tr ic t c ourt’ s int erpret ati on of an “A greed O rd er ” ). N one theless, w e have al s o h el d that, e veni n the c onse nt- de cr ee conte xt, dist ri ctcourt int erpret ati ons ar e ent it le d t o de fer en c e wher e the di s t ri c tc our tha s ove rs ee n the con sent d ec r e e for a sign ifi can t pe riod of tim e. In such cases, we ha ve he l d thatabus e ofdi s creti on or s om e s i m i l ar defer en tia l st a n d a rd ap p lie s. S e e S o u t h v . R o we, 75 9 F .2d 61 0 , 61 3 n .4 ( 7th Cir

. 1985) ( “The ap pell ate court m ust give s om e deferenc e, howeve r, t o the di s t ri c tj udge’ s vi ew s oni nt er pre t at i on wher e th e j u dg e o v e r s a w a n d a p p r o v e d th e d e c r e e . [ c i t a t i on om i t t ed. ] In d eed, wher e the di s t ri c tj udge has ove rs ee n the litiga tion ge ne rate d b y the d ecre e an d th e u nd erly ing d ispu te f or a n ext en s i ve per i od oft i m e, hi s i nt er pre t at i on ofthe d ec r ee w ill b e r ev er se d o n ly for an ab u se o f d isc re tio n .”); see (co n tin u ed ...) e r r o ro fl a w o rwh e n i tma k e s a c l e a r l y e r r o ne o us fi nd

ing.”)
. 9N o. 08

- 4249 19

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 9 al so G o l uba , 45 F. 3d a t10 38 & n. 5 ( “W he re , as i n the pr es en t c as e, the di s t ri ctc our tove rs aw and a ppro ved the c ons en t d e c r e e , w e w i l l n o n e th e l e ss g i v e so m e d e fe r e n c e t o t h e c o u r t ’s int erpret ati on. . . . [ A bu se of disc ret ion] is app li cable w h ere, as i n F er re ll [ v. Pi er ce, 74 3 F
. 2d 4 54 , 46 1 ( 7th Ci r. 19 84 ) ] , the j udge ove rs aw the c ons en tdec re e f or ane xt en ded per i od of t i m e and the dec re e i s par ticu l ar l y c om pl ex or i nt ri c at e. ”)
. The di s t r i c t c ou r t ha s ov e r s e e n the Co ns e nt Or de r f or ne arl y fi ve years and has overse en Trud eau’ s condu ctf or over t en. G iven thathis tory, the dist ri ctcourt’ s concl usi ons dese rve a degree ofdef erenc e. W hethers uch defe rence i s equivalentto an abu se of-di s c re t i on s t anda rd i s i m m at er i al, though, be c aus e our concl usi on w ould no t c hange even w ith a l es s defe rent ial sta n d a rd

. To succe ed on a co ntem pt peti ti on, the FTC m ust “de m o ns tr at e byc l ea ra nd c o nv i nc i nge vi den ce tha t th e re spondent has vi ol ate d the e x press and unequivo cal com m and ofa cour t o rder

. ” A utote ch , 4 9 9 F
. 3 d a t 7 51 ( e m p h a s i s o m itt ed ); s e ea l s o Ma n ez v . B r i dg e s t o n eF i r e s t o n eN. Am
. Tire, LLC, 533 F.3d 57 8, 59 1 (7 th C ir. 20 08 ); G oluba , 45 F. 3d at 1037
. Rest ate d i n t er m s ofel em ents, the FTC m ust show that ( 1 ) the Or de r s e t s f o r th a n un a mbi g uo us c o mm a nd ; ( 2) [ Tr ude au ] v i o l at ed th at co m m an d; ( 3) [ Tr ud ea u ’s] v iola tio n w as sign ific a n t, m ea n in g it d id no t su bs ta nt i al l y c o m p lywi ththe Or der ; a nd (4) [T ru d ea u ] faile d to ta ke st ep s t o re as on ab le [si c] and dili gen tly com p ly w ith th e O rd er.20 N o. 08

- 4249 Pr i ma Te k II

, L
. L
. C. v . Kl e rk’s Pl as t i cIn du s . , B. V. , 5 25 F. 3d 533, 542 (7th C ir . 2008); s eeals o G oluba , 45 F. 3d at 1037 ( “The dis tr i ct cou rt d oes not, however, o rdi nari l y hav e t o fi nd tha tthe v i o l a t i o n wa s ‘ wi l l ful’ a nd ma y fi nd a party i n c i v i lc o nt e mpti ftha tp a r t y h a s n o tb e e n r e asonab l y di l i gent and ener ge t i c i n a t t e mpt i ngto ac co m pli shwhatwas o r der ed. ” ( i nt erna lquo ta ti o ns om itted ))
. A t the hear t o f t h is case i s the co urt’ s co m m and i n i ts 2004 Consent Order t h at “the i nfo m er ci alf orany such b oo k . .

. m u st n otm isr ep re se n t t h e c on te n t o f th e b oo k.”

A. Tr ud eau r ai se s se ve r ala r g um en ts c ha l l en g i ngthe co urt’ s co nt empt fi ndi ng ; the y f o cus pr i nc i pal l y o n the seco nd and f ourth el em ents. Rega rdi ng the s econd el em ent, Trudeau ar gues that h is info m er ci al s di dn ’ t m i sr epr es en t an y th i ng an d thus di dn’ t vi o l at e th e Co ns en t Orde r. In T ru d ea u ’s v iew , d es c rib in g t h e p ro to c ol as “e asy ” and saying di ete rs wh o com p lete the pro toc olcan eat “anythi ng y ou want” m er el y quot ed orpara phrased the b oo k. W e a re n’tper suaded. Trudeau agr eed not to “m i sr epresent the co nt e nto fthe boo k.” W e concur w i th the di str i ct cour t that “ the word ‘ conte nt ’ does notr eferto a few cher ry - pick ed phrase s. ” Tru de au , 56 7 F
. Sup p. 2d at 1022
. The 20 04 Consen t O rderhad two purposes: to p r o t e c tc o n s u me r s fr o m d e c e p t i v e p r a c t i c e s a n d t o c o mpen sa te th ose a l r ea dy al l eg edly de ce i ve d. ( R. 5 6. ) TheN o. 08

- 4249 21 Order woul dn ’ t g o ver y f ar i n acco m pli shi ng tha t fi rs t go a l i f i t mer e l y pr o hib i t e d mi s qu o t i ng the b o o k, as Trudeau sugge sts. In the consum erpro tect i on co ntext, the word “c onte nt” r efer s t o th e s ubstance o fa pu bl i cati on, i ts “es senti alm eani ng” o r the “ topi cs” and “i deas” c on ta in ed w ith in
. See W EBST ER’ S T HI RD N EW I NT ERNA TI ONA L D ICTIO NA RY 49 2 ( 19 86 )
. W he n pe o pl e buy boo ks, theypurchase the au th or’ s i deas, as expre sse d thro ugh an am al gam ati on o fm any ind i vi du alst ate
m ents. They don’ t purchas e s el ect quo te s (unl ess i t’ s a boo ko fquo te s)
. S o i t’ s po ss ibl e to a cc ur at ely r ec o unt speci fi c st ate m ents i n isol ati on but sti l lco m ple tel y m i sr epr es en t th e “ con te nt ” o fthe b o o kb y a l l o wi ngc o nsu m er s to i nfer tha t th e quo ta ti o ns a r e i ndi ca ti ve o fthe conte nt, wh en i n f act they ar e no t. That’ s pre ci sel y what T ru d eau d i d w hen he descr ibed th e prot ocol as “ easy” a nd “ inex p en sive,” said that dieters can “ d o i t a t ho m e, ” a nd bo ast ed that afterco m ple ti on a di ete r can ea t “ anythin g you w ant” w i th “no r est ri ctio n s.” N o on e d isp u te s th at T ru d ea u ’s bo ok rep ea te d ly sta tes t h at the pr oto coli s “ eas y. ” But the pri nci pal co nt en t o fthe b o o ki s th e di etp r o to co li ts el f, a l o ng w i th how i t work s, wh y i t was supp re ssed, and how succes sful i t i s. Lik e the dist ri ct cour t, w e thi nk the pro tocoli s a nythi ng but eas y, si m ple , o r abl e t o b e d on e a t hom e. Phase One al one con ta in s 60 s epara te rul es f or die ter s t o f ol l ow, thre e doze n ofwh i ch the boo k s ays a di et er“ M UST” or“ M UST NOT” do

. Buti n the i nfo m er ci al s, Trudeau f ai l s t o m enti on a singl e a spect of hi s wei ght l oss pro toc ol

. H e n ev er ta l ks about the 5 00- cal or i e- per- day l i m i tat i on, the col oni cs ( orw at er ene-22 N o. 08

- 4249

T ru d eau d oe s say in his infom ercia ls that p hy sical ex ercise 10 i s r ec om m en ded. Buthe al s o re pea t edl y s ays that ex er c i s e i s no t req u ired an d tha t on e can ach iev e the w eig ht lo ss results w ithout exer ci se . H ow ever, acc or d in g to the Weigh t L oss C u re boo k, w alki ng outs ide f or an hour a day is som ethi n g that di et e r s “ MUS T ” d o d u r i n g P h a s e s On e , T h r e e , a n d F o u r , an d s o me th i n g th a t i s “ S T RONG LY S UG GE S T ED ” i n P h a s e Tw o. O ne m ight w ond er how a pers on can w alk f or an hour each d ay w he n co nsu m ing on ly 5 00 calo ries. T he lab el for N ov are l, a b ran d na m e for hC G , states, 11 I N D I C AT I O N S AN D USA G E: HCG HAS NOT BEEN DE MON S T R A T E D T O B E E F F E C T I VE A DJ U NC T I VE T HER AP Y I N T HE T RE AT MEN T O F O B E S I T Y
. T HER E I S NO S UBS TA NT I A L E VI DE NC E T HA T I T I NCREAS ES W EI GHT LOS S BEYOND THAT RES ULTIN G F R O M CA LO R IC R EST R ICTIO N , TH A T IT CAUS ES A M O RE AT TRACT I VE OR “NORM AL” DI S TRI BUTI ON OF FAT , O R THAT I T DEC REAS ES (co n tin u ed ...) m as) , the or gan c l eanse s, the 1 00% o rg ani c di et ( w hi ch the b oo k e ven a cknowle dges i s “ next to i m possible” ) , o r an y o fthe o th erdi et ary o rl i fes ty l e r es tr i ct i o ns tha t th e bo o ks ay s di et er s “must ” adh er e to
. The c l o sest he 10 c om es to let tin g v iew er s k n ow w h at is ac tu ally i nvol ved w i th the die t i s t o saythatdi ete rs m ust t ake a “ m ira c le, m ag ica l, all-n at u ra l su b st an c e” th at w ill r es etthe i rhy po th al amus an d re duce the i rhun g er . But Trudeau l eave s o ut the f act that the m agi calsubst ance i s a ctual l y a pre scr i pti on drug taken by i nj ecti on that cannot be pr escr ibed f orweight l oss i n the U ni ted S tat es an d can cau se seve ral serious ad verse reac tions. So 11N o. 08

- 4249 23

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 11 THE HUNGE R AND DI S COM FORT AS S OCI ATED W ITH CA LO R IE-RE STR ICTE D D IET S. S ee http ://ww w.ferring fertility.com /m ed icatio ns/no v are l/ n o v a re lp i.p d f (las t v isi te d A u g . 24 , 20 0 9 ). The p ri ncipal s eri ous adv ers e re act ions are ovarian enl argem en t, e n l a r g em en t or ru p tu re o f p reex isting ov aria n cy sts, m u lti p le b ir th s, an d ar te ri a l th ro m b o em b o lis m . Id. die ter s a re l eft with ei therc onvi nci ng the i r doctorto presc rib e hCG o ff

- l abelo r tr avel i ng to a f or ei gn co untry, as Tr ude au di d, t o g etthe drug

. Buto nl y a fte rthe i nfom er c ialvi ew erspends the m oneyto buy the b oo k does he o r she l earn any ofthi s. Trudeau counter s that hi s ca llin g the pro toc ol“e asy ” m er ely de sc ribes h i s su bj ec ti ve o pi ni o n; i n h i s vi ew, the FT C sh ou l d n ’ t b e a b le t o c all h im a liar for s im p ly speaking hi s m i nd

. In m any c i rcum sta nces, usi ng such subj ecti ve, co m parat i ve ter m s a s “ eas y” const i tutes m er e “ pu ffin g,” an e xagge ra ted o pini on e xpresse d fo r th e in te n t t o s ell so m et h in g. B LA CK ’ S L AW D ICTIO NA RY 12 69 (8t h ed . 200 4); se e also Corley v. R osewoo d C are C tr
. , Inc. , 388 F.3 d 990, 10 08- 09 ( 7th Ci r. 20 04) ( cl ai m thatse rv i ce was “ hi g h qua l i ty ” was mer e puffery )
. In Ca r l a yCo
. v . F TC, 15 3 F
. 2d 49 3 ( 7th Ci r . 1 94 6) , f o re xa m pl e, the F TC s o ug ht to st op a com pany fro m adver ti si ng i ts w ei ght- l oss pl an as “eas y” and w i thout die tar y r estricti ons. The pl an involve d e a t ing a few pieces of caram el cand y before m ea ls t o d ec re as e h u n ge r. Id. a t 49 4. A ftere xa m i ni ng w hat the di e tr e qu i r e d, we s e ta s i de the F TC ’ s c e a s e - a nd

-24 N o. 08

- 4249 desi st or der b ecause we c oncl ud ed the advert i sem ents w er e h ar m les s p u ffer y a n d n otd ec ep tiv e. Id. at49 6 ( “This , com parat i vel y s peaki ng wh en o n e thi nks o fr educti on of obe si ty, anyo ne m u st d ec lar e c om p ar at ive ly sim p le, co m p ar at ive ly ea sy .”). T ru d ea u arg u es th at h is in fom er c ials are n o d iffer en t fro m t h e a d ve rt isin g in Carl ay, es pousi ng subj ecti ve opi ni ons in capabl e o fm i sl eadi ng co nsum er s. Trudeau m i sr eads Carl ay . Carl aydoe s no t st an d f o rthe pr o po si ti o n, a s Tr udeau sugg es ts , tha t br ag g i ngabo ut the re l ati ve eas e of a product i s al w ays p u ffer y per se . Puffer y i s o rdi nari l y d efined as “e m pty s up er l ati ves on whi c h no r e a s o nab l e pe r s o n wo ul d r e l y . . . . ” A ll -Tech Tel e co m , Inc . v. A m w a y C orp. , 174 F.3d 862 , 868 (7th C ir. 19 99 ); se e also Spe akers of Sport, Inc. v. ProServ, Inc. , 17 8 F. 3d 862, 86 6 ( 7th Ci r. 19 99)
. Giv en the l ar ge num ber o f we i g ht l o s s pr o g r a ms o n the mar k e t, we thinka re aso nabl e per so n wo ul d r ely o n s ta te m en ts aboutthe re l ati ve eas e o fthe prog ra m being m ar ket ed. Theref or e, i n C a rlay, we exam i ned w hat the di et actual l y r equi re d and then deter m i ned, under those ci rcum sta nces, that the a dvertise d cl ai m thatthe die t was ea sy w as not m i slea d in g. Carl ay , 1 5 3 F .2d at49 6 (“ [W ]e t h in k t h e o n ly i nfe re nce poss ibl e t o draw fro m the und i sp uted f acts l ead nece ssa ri ly to the concl usi on that the pl an i s no t a co m pl i ca te d o ne , but r athe r a r el at i ve l y ea sy o ne involving no d rugs , no restricted or rigorous d iet .
. . . ”). B u t s u b j ec tiv e, co m p ar at ive te rm s a re n otalw ay s p u re ly i nnocuous; co urts , i ncl ud i ng the S up re m e Cour t, have f o u n d th a ts u c h t e r ms a r e c a p ab l e o fd e c e i v i n gc o n s u mer s. Se eRe i l l y v . Pin kus , 3 38 U. S
. 26 9, 27 1- 75 ( 19 49 ) ( fi ndi ngN o. 08

- 4249 25 th at w eight loss program ad ve r t is ing cou ld su p p ort f i nd i ng o f fr a ud whe n i t c l a i med tha t di e t e r s c o ul d “ eat pl en ty ” an d re duce the i rw ei g ht“ su r ely a nd e as i l y, ‘ wi th

out tor tuous di et, ’ ” when in f act ther e was little evi dence th at d ieth ad an y w eig h t-lo ss be n efit s a n d th e d ietco u ld not be “pu rsu ed in ease a n d c om fort”); G o o d man v . F TC, 24 4 F
. 2d 58 4, 6 03 ( 9th Ci r . 1 95 7) ( fi ndi ngtha t, unde rthe ci rcum sta nces, se l l er ’ s r epres entat i ons about the “ eas e” of l e a r ningho w to wea v e f r o m s e l l e r ’ s p r o du c t s we r e de c e pti ve)
. S uch is t he cas e her e. The Weigh t Lo ss C ure prot ocol

— wh ich do es i nv o l ve dr ug s an d a r es tr i ct ed an d ri gor ous di et

— i s hardl y “eas y” w hen com pared to the die t ex ami ne d i n Carl ayo ra n y n u mb e ro fo th e rd i e tp r o g r a ms that do not i nvol ve the c om bi nati on o f d ail y inj ecti ons, h ea vily res tr ict ed d iet s, c olo n ics , or ga n c lea n se s, an d d aily exer ci se, am ong dozens ofo therr est ri cti ons. F ur th e r mo r e , T r u d e a u ’ s p u ffe r y a r g u me n tmi s s e s the poi nt o fthe cour t’ s do- not- decei ve or der. The o rder appl i es t o mor e th ans i ng ul ars ta tem en ts i n the in fom e r c ials

— th e o r d e rr e g u l a t e s th e i n f o me r c i a l s th e mse l ve s. To de te r m i ne whether Trude au v i o l at ed th e Or der, we l o o kno t to i so l at ed cl aim s o f r el at i ve e as e but to w h at th e in fom er c ial a s a w h ole co n ve ye d

. Cf. Al pi ne B ankv. H ubbe ll, 55 5 F
. 3d 1097, 1106 ( 10th Cir
. 20 09) ( “In de te r m i ni ngwhethe ra s ta te m en t i s puffery, the con tex t m atters.”). Through a r epeti ti ve m osa i c o fvague, gl owing sta tem en ts , Tr ude au cr ea te s a n i m ag e o fa sa fe, si m pl e, i ne xpe nsive w ay to she d pou nd s w it h o u t exe rcise or d ietary r es tr ic ti o ns . But, a s we di sc us se d, tha t’ s ha r dl y the26 N o. 08

- 4249

re gi m en the bo ok describes. In the in fom er ci al s, Trudeau n ev er m enti ons the hCG inj ecti ons but i nstea d tal ks about a “ m i rac le all

- natura lsubst ance” that i s “ eas y t o g et ” ( i n f ac t, he c l ai m s “y o u can g eti t an y wher e” ) , a nd w hi ch he c l ai m s i s the “[ s] afest, m osteffecti ve w ay to l o s e we i g hto n Pl a ne tE ar th

. ” Be y o nd the f a c ttha th CG i s a pre scr i pti on m edi cation unabl e t o be pr escr ibed f or w ei ght l oss ( so die ter s c an har dlypi ck i t up at any c or ner sto r e, as view ers are l ed to beli eve), w e find Tru d eau ’s cl ai m abo utthe s afety o fthe “ m i r ac l e su bs ta nc e” pa r ti cul a r l y t r o ub l i ngg i ven t he p o t e nt i a l l y de v a s t a t i ngs i de effe c ts as so c iat ed w ith ta kin g h C G , see n ot e 1 1, sup ra . Furtherm or e, Trudeau r ei nfo rce s hi s “ ea sy to do” with com m en ts l i k e, “[ T] hi s su bs ta nc e, co m bine d wi tha few o therl i ttl e thi ngs in the prot oco l, tr igg er s the hypothal am us gl and.” The 50 0- cal or i e- a- day di et i n Phase Two a nd the do ze ns o fdi eta nd l i fes ty l e r es tr i ct i o ns ar e hard ly “a few o therl i ttl e thi ngs. ” These kind s o f s t a t e me n t s , c o mb i n e d w i th T r u d e a u ’ s r e p e a t e d c l a i ms th atthe di eti s “e as y, ” m i sr epr es en t th e co nt en t o fthe boo k. M oreover, even ifw e assu m e tha t pa rt of T rud eau ’s pit ch w as m er e puffer y, the i nfo m er ci al s a re st i l ll oaded w i th o therst ate m ents that ar e pate ntl y f al se. Trudeau re peatedl y cl ai m ed i n the i nfo m er ci al s that the p roto col can be co m ple ted “a t ho m e” and that “ yo u don’ t hav e to go t o a c l i n i c to d o it.” B u t t h e b oo k in st ru c ts th at all hC G i njections m us t be ad m inistered un d er a ph ysician’s sup er vi si on a nd thattr i ps to a l i censed co l on thera pis t forco l oni cs a re r equi re d. Even i fdi ete rs adm i ni ste r thei r own hCG i nj ecti ons, atl ea st s om e v i si ts to the doc-N o. 08

- 4249 27 t o r ’ s o ffi c e a r e n e c e s s a r y . As the d i str i c tc o ur tn o t e d, h ou se ca lls ar e e x c ee d in gly rar e t h es e d ay s a n d w ou ld l i k ely b e cost-pro hibi ti ve , whi chwoul d c o nt r adi ctTr ud ea u ’s c laim th at th e d ietis “in ex p en siv e.” Trudeau’s cl ai m th at upon com ple ti on o fthe prot oco l di et er s c an e ata ny th i ngthe ywant

— th at “n ot h in g is r e s t r i c t e d”

— i s e qually e rr oneo us and d ecei vi ng. Trudeau i s co rr ect that the b oo k e c h oe s thi s s tat em ent: “e at anythi ng y ou wan t, as m uch as you w ant, as o ften a s y ou w ant. ” But in th e v er y nextse ntence, wh i ch Trudeau ne ve rment i o ns i n the i nf o m er ci als, the b o o kr ea ds: “ The onl y c avea t is o nl y e at 100% o rg ani c f oo d.” W EI GHT L O SS C URE , sup ra , a t 10 6. The b o o kthe n g o es o n t o l ist do ze ns of“dos and don’ts ” that pr escr ibe pr eci sel y what to eat, wh at not to ea t, w hen to ea t, and how m uch to eat
. No f o o d p r o d u c e d b y p u b l i c l y t r a d e d c o mpa n i e s . No fas t fo od or foo d se rv ed in re gio n al or n at ion al c h ain r e s t a u r a n t s . No c o r n s y r u p . No a r t i fi c i als we e t e n e r s . No tr ans fa ts. N o M SG. N o f oo d prepare d i n a m i cro w ave. N o f ar m - ra i sed fi sh. These ar e d i eta ryr est ri cti ons; die ter s ca nnot e at anythi ng the y want. Ins u m , Tr u d ea u m isr ep re se n te d th e c on te n t o f h is We ig ht L o ss C urebo ok. Trudeau m ay have quoted part s ofhi s bo ok, but he d id s o decepti vel y. These sel ecti ve qu otations m isl ead becau se th ey p resen t con su m ers w i th an i ncom ple te picture ofwh at the pr oto colr equi re s, ther eby i nd uci ng co nsum er s t o pu rchas e the bo ok on f al se hopes a nd as sum pti ons. True, Trudeau’ s be l i ef th a tth e p r o t o c o li s “ e a s y ” i s h i s s u bj e c t i v e o p i n i o n . B ut wi th o u tg i v i n gc o n s u me r s a fu l l e rp i c t u r e o fwh a tthe28 N o. 08

- 4249

Gi v e n T r u de a u ’ s b l a t a n tmi s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s , we c ann ot 12 ac c eptTr udea u’ s a rgum en tthatthe FTC’ s e nf or c em en tpr oc ee di ngs vi ol at e the FTC’ s own pol i c y, the M i rr or I m age Doct ri ne , whi c h s ays thatthe FTC wil l or di nar i l y s t ay i t s ha nd i fanad f or a b oo k m er el y quot es the bookor e xpr es s es the a u th o r’s opini on. Ad verti si ng in Book s, 36 Fed. Reg
. 13414- 02 ( J ul y 2 1, 19 71 )
. Tr udea u di d notm erely quo t e hi s bookor exp ress his op inio ns . H e m ad e factu al assertio ns th at d irectly c ont ra di c twhathe wrot e i n the boo k . The M i rr or I m age Doct ri ne was adopt ed t o h el p the FTC a voi d r u nn ing af oul of th e Fi rs tAm en dm en twhenr eg ul at i ng a dver t i s i ng for p u b lication s. B u t, u nd e r th e F irst A m en d m en t, “false or m isle a d in g co m m er ci a l sp ee ch re ce iv es n o p ro te ct io n at al l.” Uni t e d S t a t e s v . Be nson , 56 1 F
. 3d 7 18 , 72 5 ( 7th Ci r. 20 09 ) ( c i t i ng (co n tin u ed ...) pr o to co le nt ai l s whi l e cl ai m i ngtha t th e prot o co li s “the easiest m eth od kn ow n on p lanet Earth , ” con su m ers a re l ed to bel i eve t h at Trudeau’s sta tem ents ar e m or e than j us t his beli efs; they ap p ear as obj ect iv e f acts
. M oreover, T rud eau di d m o r e th anj us t quo te hi s bo o k ; he o ut r i g ht l i ed. In one i nfo m er ci al, Trudeau cl ai m ed the prot oco l w as “not a di et, notan e xerci se prog ra m , notpor ti on contr ol, not cal or i e co unti ng, . . . no cra zy poti ons, pow der orpi l l s . . . . ” N one ofthati s t rue. D iet er s “M U ST” e at on ly 1 00 % org an ic fo od , w alk an h ou r a d ay , eatsix m eal s perday, ea t o n ly 50 0 cal or i es per day f orup to 45 days , dr i nko r g a ni c r a w a pp l e v i ne g a rc i de r, a nd t ake pr o bi o ti cs , k r il l oi l, Vi ta m i n E, di g es ti ve e nz y m es , a nd A cety l

- L C ar ni ti ne. Consequentl y, we concl ud e Tr ud eau vi o l at ed th e 20 04 Con se nt Or der bym i sr epr es en ting the c onte nt o fhi s bo ok. 12N o. 08

- 4249 29

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 12 C ent
. H u d so n G as & E l ec. C orp. v. P u b. Serv. C om m ’ n of New Y ork, 4 4 7 U
. S. 557, 562- 63 ( 1980) )
. So w e s ee no c onst itutional prob le m w ith the finding ofconte m pt i n thi s cas e. B. Tur ni ngt o the f o ur the l emento fthe s ta nd ar d f o rc o ntem pt, Trudeau co ntends that he di l i gently t ri ed to adh er e to the c ou r t’ s co m m an d. He s ubmi ts tha t th e Weigh t Lo ss C ure in fom er c ial w as n o d iffer en t fro m h is previ ous Na tura l C ures i nf o m ercia l s, whi chthe F TC im p li citly blessed by not obj ectin g to th em . M oreover, Trudeau cl ai m s he had b een i n f ai rl y re gul ar co n tact wi ththe F TC a fter the c o ur t i ss ue d the 2 00 4 Con se nt Order. H e com pla i ns that the FTC neverga ve hi m a headsup thathi s Weigh t Lo ss C u r e i nfo m er ci alwas problem ati c unti l i t fi l ed i ts conte m pt com pla i nt, though i t had fi rs t s een the i nfo m er ci alei ght m onths bef or e fi l i ng. N one ofthi s co nvi nces us thatwe shoul d rev er se. Fi rs t, thatthe FT C d i d not obj ect to the Na tura l C ures i nf o m er ci ali s l ar g ely i r r el ev an t. Es to ppela g ains t th e gov er nm ent i s avai l abl e o nl y under narr ow ci rcum sta nces. Se e U ni t e d S t at e s v. Li ndb e rg Corp. , 88 2 F
. 2d 1158 , 11 64 ( 7th Ci r . 1 98 9)
. Tr ude au ’ s ar e no t amongthe m . Nothi ngabo ut the F TC ’ s pri orapprov alsho uld have l ed Trudeau to bel i eve thathe c oul d sele cti vel y quot e hi s wei ght l oss bo o ka s be i ng“ ea sy ” an d “ si m pl e, ” w hi l e l ea vingo ut near l y e ver y r el evantdetail a b ou t the weight l oss pro toc ol. M or eo ve r, a s w e j u st d isc u ss ed , T ru d ea u d id n ’t m er ely “quo te ” th e wei g htl o ss b o o k

. He f al se l y de scribe d the30 N o. 08

- 4249

For thes e reas ons, Trud eau’ s one- se ntence att em pt at a l aches 13 argum ent in the rem edy porti on of his brie fal so f ail s. Trud eau can no t sho w “ a n u nr easo na b le lack of dilig en ce b y the p arty aga i ns twhom th e defen s e i s as s er t ed” or “pr ej udi c e ar i s i ng ther efrom . ” H otWax, Inc. v. Tu rt l e Wax, Inc. , 191 F. 3d 813, 8 2 0 (7t h C ir . 19 9 9 ). w ei ght l oss pro toc olto m ak e i t s ound saferand l ess ar du o us tha n i ta c t ua l l y i s . T he e xt e ntt o wh i c h Tr ud eau coul d re aso nabl y rely on the FTC’s approvalo fthe Nat ural C ures i nf o m er ci ale nde d whenTr ude au b eg anut te r i ng f al se s ta te m en ts a nd qu o te s th atmis ch ar ac te r i ze d the conte nt o fthe Weigh t Lo ss C ures boo k. Tr ude au ’ s foc us o n the 8

- m o nth de l ayb etwee n the ti m e the i nfo m er ci al s fi rs t hi t th e airw aves and the date the F TC fi l ed i ts conte m pt peti ti on i s e q u all y unava i l i ng. T h ou gh th e F T C kn ew th e in fom er c ials w er e o n t h e a ir by J anuary20 07, theydi dn ’ t r ecei ve a co py ofthe We ight Lo ss C urebo ok unti lM ar ch. Thi s cou l d have be en be ca us e th e bo o k w as no t y etpub l i sh ed when th e i nf o m er ci al s fi r sts ta r te d r unning . By J ul y o f th at y ea r, the FTC’s divi si on o fenf or cem ent c onclu d ed i ts re vi ew o f the m att erand re com m ended that co ntem pt proceedings w er e nec ess ar y. That r eco m m endati on m ove d thro ugh the FTC’s burea ucracyo verthe next tw o m onths, an d o n S eptem be r1 0, the Co m m i ss i o n a utho r i ze d the Divi si on of E n f or cem ent t o fi l e a ci vi lco ntem pt act i on aga i nst Tr ud eau. W e ca nnot s ay that any del ay ass oci ate d w i th thi s s eem i ngl y o rdi naryr evi ew p ro cess was “pro

longed and i ne xc us able” su c h t h at it w ou ld su p p ort Trudeau’s l aches- l i ke ar gum ent. See i d. at11 64 ( “Re- 13N o. 08

- 4249 31 g ar di ngthe a ppl i ca ti o n o fl ac he s ag ains t th e g o ve r nm en t, thi s co ur t ha s st at ed th at‘ [ l ] ac he s ba r s th e ass er ti on o fa cl ai m wh er e defer m ent o fact i on t o en fo r c e cla im ed righ ts is p ro lon ge d an d ine x c u sa b le and opera tes to .
. . [ a par ty’ s] m ate ri alprej ud i ce. ’ ” ( quoti ng Wo o dst o c k/Keno sha Heal th C tr. v. Schw eik er, 71 3 F
. 2d 285, 291 (7th C ir. 1983))). W e se e no th i ngtha t woul d j us ti fy o ve r tu r ni ngthe d ist ri ct c ourt ’ s co ncl usi ons. Trudeau di d not di l i gentl y com plywith the C on se nt Orderatal l

. Beyo nd the f act th atTr ude au re pea te dl y di st o r te d the c o nt en t o fthe We igh t Lo ss C ure b o o ki n mu l t i p l e i n f o me r c i a l s , we ha ve i ns uffi cienti ndi ca ti o n in the r ec o r d, de spi te Tr udea u’ s assert i o ns t o the c o nt r ary, tha t Tr ude au was r egul ar l y in conta ct with t h e FT C reg ar ding the Weigh t Lo ss Cu re i nfo m er ci al

. Trudeau co m pla i ns abo ut the FTC not st a r t i ngi t s r e v i e w o fthe i nfo mer c i a ls o o ne r . Bu twe s ee no e vi dence thatTrudeau pro vi de d the FTC w i th an unp ubl i sh ed m anuscri pt orso m e o therm eans to speed up the re vi ew pro cess . A nd we have no thi ng to i nd icate that ei therTrudeau orI TV cea sed ai ring t he i nfo m er ci al upo n the F TC’ s fi l i ngf o rc o nt empt. In s ho r t, w e se e no re aso n to co nc lu de that Trudeau dil i gently c om pli ed wi ththe Co ns en t Or der ’ s co m m an d no t to mis r epr es en t th e c o n t e n t of his books. A ccord ingly, the d istri ct cou rt did noter r i n fi nd i ng Trudeau i n conte m pt.

I I I . The M onet ary Sanct i on Though the d istri ct c ourtwas ri ght in fi nd i ng Trudeau i n conte m pt, the m onet ar y sa n c tio n im p ose d to32 N o. 08

- 4249

r emedy tha t co nt empt i s a di ffer en t s tory . W e r ev i ew the sa n c tio n am ou n t for c lea r er ro r, b u t w e rev iew t h e c alcul ati on m etho d used to re ach tha t a m ou nt de nov o. FT Cv. Kuy kendall , 37 1 F
. 3d 745, 7 63 ( 10th Cir
. 20 04) ( en ba nc )
. Ul ti m ate l y, the fi na l$ 37
. 6 m i l l i o n fi g ur e th e d istr ic t c o urtsettled on m ight be correc t. B ut the cou rt’s ord er, as i t stan d s now , doe s not g iv e u s e nou gh i nform at i o n to affi r m th at co nc l us i o n. The o r dertell s us l i tt l e ab o uts uchthi ng s as ho w the c o ur t ar r i ve d a t th e fi gure it did, wh etherthe aw ar d w i l lbe used to reim bu rse con su m ers, an d w ha t ha p p en s ifth ere’s m o ne y l e fto v e ra ft e ra l lr e i mb u r s e me n t s a r e p a i d

. S o we m u st rem an d to al l ow th e c ou rtto p ro vid e g re at er d et ail on th ese q ue stions. Bey ond m ore de tail i n th e orde r, Trudeau see ks gr eat erpro cedu ra l pro tect i ons, such a s a j ur y t r i al a nd a pr o o f

-be y o nd- a- r ea so nabl e- do ubts ta nda r d, o n r e man d. We de c l i ne t o fi nd s uc h s a fe g ua r ds re quir ed i n thi s ca se.

A. C o n t e mp ts a n c t i o n s c o me i n t wo f o r ms

— cr i m i na la nd ci vi l

. In a g i ven ca se, wh i ch fo rm a sancti on t ake s d ep en d s o n the “char acte r ofthe re l i efi tse l f, ” a nd not on the “s ubj ecti ve in te n t of .

. . co urts
. ” Int ’ l U ni on, U nite d M ineWorkers of Am
. v. Ba gw el l , 5 12 U
. S. 82 1, 82 8 (19 94 ); see also Sh illita ni v . U nited Sta tes , 38 4 U .S. 3 64, 36 9 ( 1966 ) ( “ ‘ I t i s no t t h e f act ofpunishm ent, but ra ther i ts c ha r ac te ra nd pur po se , tha t o fte n s er ve t o disti ng ui sh ’ ci vi lfro m cr i m i nalco n te m pt. ”) ( quoti ng Gom pe rs v. Buck St ove& RangeCo. , 2 21 U. S
. 4 18 , 4 41 (1911) )
. TheN o. 08

- 4249 33 f o r m o fthe s an ct i o n mat te r s be ca us e cr i m i na ls an ct i o ns requ ire certain cons titution al safeguard s before they are im p os ed (e.g., righ t to co u n se l, n ot ice of ch ar ge s, d ou b le j eo p ar d y, p ro of b ey on d a re as on a b le d ou b t). B agw el l , 51 2 U .S. at 8 26 -27, 831 ; In re Troutt, 460 F.3d 887, 893 (7th C ir. 20 06 ); see also F ED . R. C RIM . P. 42( a)
. Ci vi lsa ncti ons, by contr ast, m ay be i m posed witho ut as m any s afeguar ds, B agw el l , 5 12 U. S
. a t 83 1, tho ug h s o m e l ev elo fdue pr o ce ss i s al way s r equir ed, a nd mi g htv ary de pen di ng on th e c irc u m st an c es , i d. a t 83 3- 34 ( “Co nt empts i nv o l ving out- of

- cour t di sob edi ence to com ple x i nj uncti ons often re q u ire el a b o ra te an d relia b le fa c tfin d in g.” ); se e generally 11A C HA RLES A LA N W R I GHT, A RTHU R R. M I LLER & M ARY K AY K ANE, F E DE RAL P RACT I CE AN D P ROCEDURE § 2960 (2d ed

. 2009). I t’ s undis pu ted th at Trudeau’s conte m pt proceedi ngs h ad n on e o ft h e b ells an d w h ist les of a c rim in al t ria l. See F ED . R. C RIM . P. 42( a) ( re quir i ng, i n m ostci rcum sta nces, elaborate n otice, ap p ointm en t of a p r o secu tor, an d a j ury trial). A nd the gov er nm ent has notye t s ought cri m i nal pu ni s hme nt
. S o f o rthe $ 3 7
. 6 mi l l i onj ud g men tt o s t a nd , w e m ust co ncl ud e that the sa ncti on was a “ci vi l ” o ne. Th e di ffe r e nc e s b e tw e e n c r i mi na la nd c i v i lc o nt e mpt sa n c t i o n s a re n otalw ay s e as y t o d isc er n . SeeBa gw el l , 51 2 U. S
. a t 82 7. Ge ne r al l y, c i vi lc o nt empt “ i s r emedi al, a nd f o rthe b en efi t of the c o m pl aina nt, ” whi l e cr i m i na lc o nte mpt “ i s p u n i t i v e , t o v i n d i c a t e th e a u th o r i t y o ft he cour t. ” Id. at82 7-2 8; M a nez , 5 3 3 F
. 3 d a t5 9 0
. In t e r ms ofm onet ar y san cti ons, ci vi lsa ncti ons f al li n two cate
g o r i es . The y c an co m pen sate the com pla i nant f or hi s l oss es34 N o. 08

- 4249

c au se d by th e c on te m p tu ou s c on d u c t. B a gw el l , 51 2 U.S
. at 82 9; Un i t e d St at e s v . Un i t e d Mi n eWo rk e rs o f A m. , 330 U
. S. 25 8, 3 03

- 04 ( 19 47 )
. O r the y c an co erce th e con tem nor’s com pli ance with a c ourt o rd er . A co er ci ve sancti on m u st affo rd th e c o n te m n or th e o p p or tu n ity to “p u rg e,” B agw el l , 51 2 U.S. at82 9, m eani ng the co ntem norcan avoid pu nish m en t by com p lyi ng w ith th e cou rt order, Pe n f i e l d C o . v . S EC, 33 0 U.S
. 58 5, 590 ( 1947 )
. On the o ther h an d , a cr im i n a l c o n te m p t s an c tio n is “a ‘flat, un c on d iti onalfi ne ’ t o t a l i nge v e n a s l i t t l e a s $ 5 0 a nn o un c e d a f ter a fi ndi ngo fc o nt empt .
. . [ wher e] the c o nt emn or ha s no su bs equent o ppo r tu ni tyt o r edu ce o ra vo i d the fi ne thro ugh com pli ance. ” B agw el l , 51 2 U.S
. at82 9. Trudeau ar gues that the s ancti on i m posed was n eithe r c o e r c i v e n o rc o mp e n s a t o r y a n d th u s n o tc i v i l

. We th i nkTr ude au i s c l ea r l y r i g hto n the c o er ci ve pa r t. The di st r i ct co ur t des cr ibe d i ts s an ct i o n a s “c o er ci ve , ” i n the se n se th atit w ou ld “c on vin c e s om eb o d y like K ev in Tr ude au t o no t d iso be y the o r der s o fthe Co ur t. ” But that’ s no t qu ite w hat the S up re m e Cour t intended coe rci ve conte m pt sanct i ons to be. “W here a fi ne i s no t com p en sa tory, i t i s ci vi lo nl y i fthe conte m nori s a ff or ded an o pp or tuni ty to pu rg e. ” Id. Trudeau m ust be abl e t o av o i d the pe na l ty, o rs o m e par t o fi t, b y c o m ply i ng w ith th e o r d e r . If T ru d ea u w er e in c ar c er at ed for h is conte m pt, we w oul d sayh e “car ri es the key s o fhi s pri son i n hi s o w n pocke t. ” G o m pers , 22 1 U.S
. at44 2 ( quotati on om i tte d). Thi s i s be c au se coer ci ve sancti ons ar e “ not in te n d ed as a d et e r r e n t t o offe n se s a ga in st th e p u b lic.” P enf ie ld, 330 U .S. at 5 90 ; s e ealso In r eGr and Jury Pr oce e di ngs , 2 8 0 F
. 3 d 1 1 0 3 , 1 1 0 7( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 0 2 ) ( “ A c o nt e mptN o. 08

- 4249 35

or der i s co nsi dered .

. . cr im in al ifi ts pu rpos e i s t o p u n ish the co ntem nor, vind i cate the cour t’ s a uthor i ty, o r d e t e rfu t u r e mi s c o n d uct
. ”)
. As th e o r d e rs t a n d s n o w, Tr ude au ha s no o ppo r tu ni tyt o pur g e any o fthe $3 7. 6 m i l l i o n j udg m en t byr epr es en tinghi s bo o k s tru th

ful l y fr o m he r e o n o ut. W itho uta pur g e pr o vi si o n, the or der i s no t co er ci ve. S o f o rthe s an ct i o n t o s ta nd, i t m us t “c o m pen sa te the com pla i nant for l oss es susta i ned. ” U nited M ine Wo rkers , 330 U
. S. at30 3- 04. The FTC exp l i ci tl y sought a co m pensat o r y r e med y . ( R. 1 8 6
. ) And the di s t r i c t c o ur t s t a t ed at the he ar i ngs o n re m edi es and, to som e e x tent, i n i ts o r dertha t i t i nt en ded to c o m pen sate tho se who b o ug ht the Weig h t L o ss C ure b oo k a s a res u lt of t h e in fom er c ial. B u t, as w e m en tio n ed , th e c ou rt ’s s u bj ec tiv e in te n t is l ar gel y i rr elev ant; wh at counts ar e the char acte ri sti cs o f th e s an c tio n ac tu ally im p os ed

. B agw el l , 51 2 U.S
. at82 8; Shi l l i t ani, 38 4 U.S
. at36 9. F o rthe mos t part, we a g r ee wi thTr ude au tha t th e cha ra c teri sti cs that m ake a conte m pt sanct i on co m pensato r y a r e m i ss i ngfrom the $ 37
. 6 m i l l i o n o r der

. The co ur t’ s o r derl ac k s two k eyi ngre di en ts ne ede d i n a ny c om p en sat or y c onte m pt sanct i on: ( 1) the or der f ai l s t o expla i n how the cour t a rr i ved atthe $37. 6 m i l l i on fi gu re ; and (2 ) the or der l acks any m enti on o fhow th e s ancti on sh ou ld b e a d m in ist er ed

. See K uykenda ll, 371 F. 3d at 763- 67. T h o u g h w e c a n ’ t p r o mi s e a “ c u r e ” fr o m r e v e r s a l , we e n d e a v o ri n th e f o l l o win gd i s c us s i o n t o p r o v i d e s o me g en er alg ui del i ne s f o ri m p osi nga c o m pen sa to r y c o nte m p t s an c tio n in t h is c as e.36 N o. 08

- 4249 1. The di st r i ctc o ur t m us t ex pl ain h o w i t ar r ive d a t th e sp ec ific a m o u n t o f th e s an c tio n im p os ed

. M id-Am
. Waste Sys
. , Inc . v. City of

Gary, Ind. , 49 F. 3d 286, 29 3 ( 7th Ci r. 19 95) ( “A j ud g e r e c k o ninga c o mpe ns a t o r y a wa r d mus tma ke su bs i di ary fi ndi ng s th atpe r m i t th e par ti es ( and the c ou rtof a p p ea ls) t o kn ow th e b as is of t h e d ec isio n .”); see also Autotech , 4 99 F
. 3d at7 52 ( “T he a m ounto fthe sa nc ti o n mustb e sup p orted i n the r ec o r d. ”)
. Thi s m ea ns no t o nl y e xpl aini ngwher e th e number s ca m e fr om , b ut al so outl i ni ng the m etho dol ogythe cour t use d to crunch th o se numbe r s an d a r r i ve a t whati t be l i ev ed to b e th e ap p ro p ria te am ou n t. See M id-A m . Wa ste Sy s. , 49 F. 3d at 29 3; SE Cv. M cN a m ee, 481 F.3d 451 , 457 (7th C ir. 2007); K uykenda ll, 37 1 F
. 3d at 763- 64. Thi s info rm ati on is cr uci al to ensuring that the aw ar d i s not gr eat er than ne c essary . I fany part ofi t winds up bei ng pu n itive i nstea d ofr em ed ial, th en cr im in al p ro c ee d in gs a re req u ire d to su st ain it. Nye v . U nited Sta tes , 313 U
. S. 33, 43-4 4 ( 1941 ); see a lso B agw el l , 51 2 U.S
. at83 1. W e ag r ee wi thTr ud eau tha t th e di st r i ctc o ur t’ s co ntem p t s a n c tion w as d efi cienti n th is r egard

. Th e cou rt’s or der g i ves l i ttl e ind i cati on o fhow t h e cour t a rr i ved at th e aw ard i t d id. Perha p s m ore im p ortan tly, w e’re l eft c l ue l e s s a s t o ho w o r why the a wa r d b a l l o o ned fr om ar ound $5 m i l l i on in the or i gi nalo rderto o ver$3 7 m i l l i on i n re sponse to the FTC’s Rule 59 m oti on, wh i ch neve r re q u e s t e d su c h an inc re as e (t h e F T C ’s m ot ionm er ely en dea vo r ed to c o r r ec t a “mathe m at i ca le r r o r ” an d increas e the aw ard b y a c ou p le hun d red thou san d dollars).N o. 08

- 4249 37 A llw e hav e is a state m en t t ha t the $37,616,161 fi gu re “r epres ent[ s] a re aso nabl e approxi m ati on of the l oss consum er s s u ffer ed as a re sul t o fdefendant’s decepti ve in fom er c ials .” Su p p . Or d er & J., FTC v. Tr ude au , No. 0 3- CV3904 ( N
. D. I l l

. N ov. 4, 2008 ) ( R. 220)
. W hat k i nd s o f“l oss ” does that fi gure approxim ate ? Does i t incl ud e a l lbo ok sales, oro nl y s al es m ade thr ough the 80 0- num ber p rovide d i n th e infom ercials ( an d no t retailbook sales)? W ha taboutInt e r ne ts a l e s ? Do e s the fi g ur e i nc l ud e s hi pp ing an d ha ndl i ngfee s? W ha t ab o utr etur ns

— does i t net th os e ou t aga i nst the bo oksa l es? SeeAutotech , 49 9 F
. 3d at 7 5 2 ( “ W he n the p ur po s e o fs a nc t i o ns i n a c i v i lc o nt e mpt p r o c e e d i n gi s c o mp e n s a t o r y, a fi n e , p a y ab l e t o th e c o mp lain an t, m u st be ba se d on ev id en c e o f a c t u al los s.” ( quoti ng S. Su burba n Ho usin g C t r . v . B erry, 18 6 F
. 3d 851, 854 ( 7th Ci r. 19 99) ) )
. A nd wh y di d the co urt sw itc h i ts bas is for the aw ard from d isgorgi ng a portion of T rud eau ’s ro ya ltie s (t h e o rig in al $ 5.1 m illion j u d gm en t) t o fu lly com pensati n g c onsum erl oss es? Though w e ca n guess wher e th e $3 7, 61 6, 16 1 fi g ur e co m es fr o m ( th at ’ s th e am ount the FTC i n i ts or i gi nalr em edi es bri ef a rg u ed w as att rib utabl e t o boo k s al es fro m i nfo m er ci al s l ess re turned bo oks) , the or der c ontains har dlyany fi nd i ngs to substa nti ate i t. In o therwords, the dist ri ct c ourtf ai l ed to suffi ci entl y “ cal ibra te the fi nes t o dam age s ca used by [ Trudeau’s] co ntum aci ous a cti vi ti es. ” B a g w el l , 51 2 U.S
. at 834. On re m and, the di st ri ct c ourtsho uld m ake su ffici en t factu al find ings to su bsta nt iate i ts aw ard am ou n t. M id- A m . Wa ste Sy s. , 4 9 F
. 3d at2 93
. Thi s m ea ns the co ur t m us t ex pl ain the meth o d i t us ed to c al cul at e th e awar d, why th e co ur t ch o se tha t m eth o d, a nd ho w the38 N o. 08

- 4249 evi dence ofr eco rd supp or ts the fi gure s pl ugged into tha tme tho d. T rud eau a s k s us to go furt he r and tellthe d istri ct cou rt whi chc al cul at i o n metho d i t should us e. Re l y i ngo n the S ec o nd Ci r cui t’ s o pi ni o n in FTC v
. Ver i ty In t’l Lt d. , 44 3 F
. 3d 48, 66-7 0 ( 2d Ci r . 2 00 6) , Tr ude au c o nt en ds th atthe dist ri ct cour t shoul d b ase i ts aw ar d no t on co n sum er s’ l oss es but r athero n Trudeau’s ga i n, a sum h e a rgues i s o nl y a fra cti on, i f anythi ng, of w hat bo ok pu rchas er s l ost
. W e decl i ne Trudeau’ s invi tat i on t o be s o exacting at th i s s t a g e i n the pr o c e e di ng s . Co ur t s ha v e br oad d iscretion to fashion con tem p t rem ed ies and the p arti cul arr em edy chos en sho uld be “ba sed o n the nature o f th e har m and the probabl e e ffect ofal ternati ve sancti ons. ” C o nn o llyv. J.T. Ven tures , 851 F .2 d 930, 933 (7th Cir. 19 88 ). C on su m er lo s s i s a co m m on m ea su re for c ivil sancti ons i n conte m pt p ro ceedi ngs and d i re ct F TC act i ons. Se e, e . g. , F TC v. Febre, 12 8 F
. 3d 5 30 , 5 36 ( 7th Ci r. 19 97) (direct FT C a ction un d er FT C A ct § 13(b)); Kuy kendall , 37 1 F. 3d at 764- 66 (c on te m p t p ro c ee d in g); M cGregor v. C hier ico , 206 F. 3d 1378 , 138 8-8 9 ( 11th Cir
. 20 00) ( dir ect FTC acti on u n d e r FT C A c t § 13 (b )); FT Cv. FiggieInt’l, Inc. , 9 9 4 F
. 2d 59 5, 6 06

- 07( 9th C ir. 1 993 ) ( di r ec t F TC a ct i o n un derF TC A c t § 19 ). In d ee d , som e c ou rt s, in c lu d in g ou r s , h av e h eld th at i n cer tain case s co nsum erl oss i s a m or e a pp ro pri ate m ea su re th an ill-got te n g ain s. SeeFT Cv. Ste fanchik, 559 F.3d 924, 932 (9th Cir. 2009); Febre, 12 8 F.3 d at 536 ; F igg ie, 994 F. 2d at 606- 07. N onethel ess , w e have hel d , i n both conte m pt proc eedi ngs a nd d ire ct F TC act i ons, that the defen d an t’ s pro fi ts can be a properm eas ure f orN o. 08

- 4249 39

sa n c tio n s. SeeCo nnolly, 85 1 F
. 3d at 933- 34 (hol ding that U nited M ine Wo rkers , 33 0 U.S
. at30 4, wh i ch st ate d “such [ com pensato ry ] fi ne[ s] m ust o fco u rs e be bas ed upon ev id en c e o f co m p lain an t’s ac tu al los s,” d id n otlim it con tem p t san ctions to only con su m er l oss); FT Cv. Q T , Inc. , 51 2 F .3d 8 58 , 863 (7t h C ir. 20 08 ) (“D isg or gin g p ro fits is an ap p ro p ria te rem ed y” in d ire c t F T C ac tio n ); cf
. Le m an v. Kre nt l e r -Arn ol d Hing eLa s tCo. , 284 U .S. 4 48, 45 6- 57 ( 1932 ) ( “Profits are thus al l owed as an e quit abl e m eas ure of com pensati on” i n patent i nfringe m ent c ase s)
. In f act, s o me c o u r t s h a v e i mp o s e d h yb r i d a wa r d s th a ti n c l u de som e co m bi nati on o fi l l

- got ten g ai ns and con su m er los se s. S e eQT

, 512 F.3d at86 4; Figgie, 99 4 F
. 2d at 601, 60 7- 08. So , i n the abst ra ct, m or e than one m eas ure could be r eas onabl e; the ci rcum sta nces ofthe c ase w i l ldi ctat e w hi ch i s m ostappropr i ate
. Fo r exam ple , as a pre re quis i te to basingsa ncti ons on co nsum erl oss , co urts o ften r equi r e a fi ndi ngtha t th e defen dan ts wer e “e ng ag ed i n a pattern orprac ti ce o fco ntem ptuous cond uct” a s o pp ose d to “i sol ate d i nstance s ofco ntum acy. ” K uykenda ll, 37 1 F
. 3d at 76 4; see a ls o Figgie, 99 4 F
. 2d at 606 ( al l owing consum er l oss as m easure ofsa ncti on wh er e defendant’s m i sr epresenta ti ons w er e “ w i del y di sse m i nated”); F T Cv. Sec. R a re Coin & Bul lion Corp. , 93 1 F
. 2d 1312 , 13 16 ( 8th Ci r. 19 91) ( sam e)
. H er e, however, the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s o rdergi ves no ind i cati on wh y c onsum erl oss i s the be tte r re m edy. Lik ew i se, the cour t’ s or der conta i ns no f actua l fi nd i ngs tha two ul d j us t i fy o urma nda t i ngtha tthe c o ur ta do pt th e S ec o nd Ci r cui t’ s appr o ac h in Ve r i ty on r emand. The co ur t i n Verity, w h ich d ea lt w ith a d ire c t F T C a c t ion, he ld that cer tain circ u m stances r equi re co urts to l i m i t di s-40 N o. 08

- 4249 gor gem ent t o the defendant’s p ro fi ts. T he court expla i ned that, at bot tom , the equi tabl e re m edy avai l able u n d er § 1 3(b ) of th e FT C A c t is res tit u tio n, w h ich is p ro p er ly m ea su r ed as “ th e be ne fi t unj ustly r ec ei ve d b y the de fen d ants. ” Verity, 4 4 3 F
. 3 d a t 6 7
. T h e c o u r t o b s e r v e d th att he amoun t o f th at be ne fi t woul d o fte n e qua lthe a m o unt consum er s l ost
. S o consum erl oss would often b e a n a p p r o p r i a t e me a s u r e f o rr e s t i t u t i o n . H o we v e r, i n s o me si tu ati o ns

— “f orexam ple , wh en so m e m i dd l em an not p arty to the l aw su it takes som e of th e con su m er’s m oneybefor e i t r eache s th e defendant’s hands”

— th e am ount the defenda n ts unj ustl y r ecei ved m i ght e qual o nl y a fr ac ti o n o ft o tal c o ns um erl o ss ; i n tho se c as es , the Se c on d C irc uithel d that r est i tuti on m ust be l i m i ted to th at frac tio n, as o p p os ed to to ta l loss

. Id. at 68. Trudeau l i kens hi s ca se to Verity, c l aim ing tha t I TV o per a t e d a s a “ mi d d l e ma n ” wh o s k i mme d th e r e v e n ue fro m the boo k s al es bef or e Tr ud eau co uld pock et any o f it. Bu t w e lack any fact u a l fi nd ing from the d istri ct cou rt to that effect. In an e ar l i ero rder, the d istr i ct c ourtnot ed th ato ne o fTr ud ea u’ s co m pan i es s o l d i ts a ss et s to I TV i n e xc ha ng e f o r mon thly pa y men t s o f $ 1 mi l l i on f or 121 m onths. But the cour t a l so note d that Tr ud eau had t a k e n n o s t e p s t o e n f o r c e h i s co nt r ac t u a lr i g h t s . As su c h, w e a re so m ew h at d u b iou s a s t o w h et h er ITV is com ple tel y unaffi l i ate d w i th Trudeau, as Trudeau cl ai m s, a nd thus w he th er i t co ul d b e ani nde pen den t “m idd lem an ” at all

. Bu t t ha t is besid e t he p oint. C ons iderin g w he th er Verity ’ s r eas oni ng appl i es here would be prem atur e absent a fi nd i ng tha t I TV i nd eed op erate d as a m i dd l em an. W e wil ll eave the fi rs t crack a t the f actualN o. 08

- 4249 41

W e no te tha t a m on ey -ba ck g u ara nte e is n ot a g en era l d efense 14 to a co n te m p t a c t i o n . FT C v. Thi nk A chi eve m entC orp. , 312 F .3d 25 9 , 26 1 (7t h C ir . 20 0 2 ). and l ega lquesti ons posed by Trudeau’ s Ver i ty ar g um en t to the di str i ct c ourt
. So i n sum , we re i ter ate thatt h e di str i ct c ourthas br o ad di sc r et i o n t o f as hi o n a n appr o pr i at e r emedy i n a c ivil c on te m p t a c t i o n . C onno lly, 85 1 F
. 2d at 933. U l ti m ate l y, the cour t’ s $ 37. 6 m i l l i on a w ar d m ight be re aso nabl e. But so m i ght a l ess erfi gure based onl y o n Trudeau’s profi ts. W hether t h e courtchoo ses co nsum er los se s o r ill-got te n ga in s, th ou gh , t h e c ou rtm u st ex p lain why i tc h o s e th e c a l c u l a t i o n me th o d i td i d a n d h o w t he r ec o r d s uppo r ts i ts c al cul at i o ns . The F TC bears th e i ni ti alburden o fe stabl i shi ng the bas el i ne fi gure : a re asonab l e a pp ro xi m ati on o fl oss es, gain s, orso m e o ther m ea su re th e c ou rtfind s a p p ro p ri at e. SeeKuy kendall , 37 1 F.3 d at76 4; Febre, 12 8 F.3 d a t 5 35. “[ T]hen the bur den sh ifts to the de fe n d a n t [ ] to show that those figures w ere i naccurat e. ” Febre, 128 F.3d at 53 5; s e ea l s o QT , 51 2 F
. 3d at 864; Kuy k en dall , 37 1 F
. 3d at 766 ( “[ T]he defe nd ants m ust be al l ow ed to put f or th ev i dence showingthat cer tain am ounts shoul d off setthe sancti on s asse sse d aga i nst them

. ”)
. Fo r ex am ple , Trudeau m i ght b e abl e t o sh ow th at he alr ead y com p en sated som e cu stom ers w i th full re fund s f or their p urchase s. SeeKuy kendall , 14 37 1 F .3d at76 6. B u t se e Verity, 443 F.3d at69 (p lac in g t h is bur deno n the F TC)
. Al so , i fthe c o ur t ch o o se s co nsu m er lo ss as i ts base l i ne, Trudeau m i ght s how that so m e cu st om er s w er e w h olly sa tis fied w ith t h eir42 N o. 08

- 4249

Th i s s ho ul d a l l a y Tr ude a u’ s c on c e r n tha th e s ho ul d n oth a ve 15 to pay f or purchase rs w h o “spurn the opp ortunity” f or a r e fun d. W e di s a gr e e wi th Trud ea u, h owe ve r , tha tthe F TC sho u ld b ear the b u rd en of pr ov ing tha t custo m ers w ere d issatisfi ed w ith th eir p u rch ases. J u st as the F T C is n ot req u ired to prov e i nd ividual cus tom er r el iance on the defe nd a nt’ s m i sr eprese n ta tio n s, se e M cG regor, 2 0 6 F .3d at 13 8 8 ; F igg ie, 994 F. 2d at 605; S ec . R a re C o in , 93 1 F .2d at 13 16 , the FT C is no t requ i r e d to p ro v e i n d iv id u a l cu sto m er d iss a tis fa ct io n, se e K u y k e n d a ll, 371 F .3d at 76 5. “[I]t w o u l d b e v irtu ally im p ossib le for the F T C to offer such p ro of, an d to req u ire it w ou l d t h w art a nd fru strate the pu bl i c pu r po s e s o fF TC a c t i on . ” M cG regor, 206 F. 3d at 1388 ( quo t i ng S ec u rity R a re C o in , 931 F
. 2d a t13 16 )
. “To the e xt en t the larg e nu m b er o f con sum ers a ffe c ted b y the d efend an t[’ s] dec ept i ve t ra de pr ac t i c es c re at es a ri s k of u nc ert ai nty, the defe nd ants m ust bear thatri sk. ” K u y k en d a ll, 371 F. 3d at 765. Furtherm ore, i fcons um er l oss i s th e m eas ure, w e agree 16 wi th ou r s is ter ci r c ui t s tha tthe a war d a m ou ntn e e d n otbe (co n tin u ed ...) pu rchas e. SeeKuy kendall , 371 F. 3d at 766. Though

15 Trudeau ar gues that the F TC sho uld be arthes e bur d ens,
“ ‘ the r i sk of u n c er tainty s houl d fa l lo n the w ro ngdoer w hose i l l ega lco nd uct cr eat ed the uncert ai nty. ’ ” Febre, 12 8 F.3 d a t 5 35 ( quoti ng SEC v. Fi rs tCi ty F i n. Corp. , Lt d. , 89 0 F.2d 121 5 , 1232 (D
. C
. Cir. 1989)). In its orde r, the cou rt m ust m ake suffi ci ent f ac tualfi nd i ngs t o supp or t i ts u ltim at e a w ar d

. M i d

- A m . Wa ste Sy s. , 49 F .3d at29 3. If c on su m er loss is th e m e a s u re , th e c ou rtm u st ex p lain w hat that fi gure r epres ents: f orinst ance, w hi ch co nsum er pu rchas es ar e incl ud ed ( e. g., inf om er ci al s, r eta i l, o r I nter net s al es) and w hethershi pp i ng and handlin g fe es ar e i nc l ude d. I fi l l

- g o tt eng ains i s th e m easur e, the 16N o. 08

- 4249 43

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 16 re d u ce d b y th e “ v a lu e” o f th e b o o k s. S ee K u y k en d a ll, 371 F. 3d at 7 6 6 ; M cG regor, 20 6 F .3d 13 8 8 -8 9 ; F igg ie, 99 4 F .2d at 60 6. In u nfair and d ece ptive t rade practi ces cas es , the differenc e between the p rice p aid an d th e m ark et v alu e of the g oo d b ou g ht is ir rel evant, “because if the cust om ers had know n the tr uth, the y m ight not hav e b oug ht any [good s] at all

. ” K u y k en d a ll, 371 F. 3d at76 6 ( c i t i ng F igg ie , 99 4 F
. 2d a t60 6)
. “Th e f ra ud i n the s el l i ng, not i n the v a lu e o f the thing s old, i s w hat e nti tl es cons um ers in this cas e t o full refund s. ” F igg ie, 99 4 F. 2d at606. Our de c i s i on i n S E C v. M cN am ee, 481 F. 3d 451 ( 7th Cir . 2 0 07) , a s ecuri ti es ca se , in w h ic h th e o r d i n a ry civ il r em ed y w a s re sc iss io n, i d. at 4 5 7, no t r es tit u tio n an d d isg o rg em en t, seeFeb re, 128 F. 3d at 536- 3 7 ; FT C v. G em M er ch. , 87 F. 3d 466, 469- 70 ( 11th Cir

. 1996) , does no t com p el a d ifferen t resu lt. cour t m ust e xplain such thi ngs a s the so urce oftho se ga i ns a nd wh y tho s e g a i ns a r e l e s s tha n g r o s s r eve nues. A n d if th e c ou rtch oo se s a h yb rid ap p ro ac h, s e eQT , 51 2 F.3 d at86 4; Figgie, 994 F.2d at 60 1 , 6 0 7-08, th e cou rt shoul d a ddr e s s b o th s e t s o fi s s ue s . ( W e n o t e tha tthe se ar e j us t so m e ex ampl es , nota n e xha us ti ve l i st, o fthe types ofvar i abl es the c ourtm i ght incl ud e in i ts cal cul ati ons. ) Final l y, the cour t m ay i ncl ud e i n i ts cal cul ati on the c ost s a sso ci ate d w i th l oca ti ng and r ei m bursing defra u d ed p u rc h as er s. See K uykenda ll, 37 1 F
. 3d at 76 7; Figgie, 994 F.2d at60 7. A c c or d i n g l y , w e re m an d for a d d iti o na lfi ndi ng s wi th r es pec t to th e amoun t o fthe s an ct i o n.44 N o. 08

- 4249 2. Beyond expla i ni ng i ts cal cul ati ons, the cour t m u st al so ou tlin e h ow th e s an c t i o n s h ou ld be ad m in ist er ed

. See K uykenda ll, 37 1 F
. 3d at76 7. As i t st an ds no w, the c ourt ’ s or der i s si l ent on thi s poi nt. The or der m er ely c o mma n d s T r u d e a u t o p a y $ 3 7
. 6 mi l l i o n t o th e F T C. Sim p ly o r d ering m one y to be pa id to th e U
. S. Treas ury r a the rtha n t o r e i mbu r s e c o ns ume r s l o o k s mo re li ke a c ri m in al fin e t h an a c om p en sa to ry sa n c tio n . See B agw el l , 512 U
. S. at83 4 ( “A t no poi nt di d the t ri alco urt
. . . i nd i cate that the fi nes were to co m pensate the c om plain ant for l o ss es s us ta i ne d. ”)
. Tho ug h we do no t que st i o n the FTC’s i ntegr i ty in that i t wil lduti fully di spers e the pro

c ee d s t o d efr au d ed bo ok p u rc h as er s, w e s till th in k it n e c e s s a r y i n a c o n t e mpt s a n c t i o n o f th i s k i n d th a tt he cour t’ s o rd er s p ecify that the FTC m ust use the fund s t o re im b u rs e b oo k p u rc h as er s. SeeKuy kendall , 371 F. 3d at 767; s e eals o M cDow e l l v. P hi l a. Hous . Auth. , 423 F. 3d 233, 24 1 ( 3d Cir
. 20 05) ( “ ‘W h etheran a w ar d i n ci vi lco ntem pt be m easu red i n term s of a p lai n t if f’s loss or a d efend an t’s profi t, such a n award, byve rydefi ni ti on, m ust be an at te m p t t o c om p en sa te p lain tiff for t h e am ou n t h e is out- of

- pocketo r f orwh at defe nd ant byhi s wrong m ay be s ai d to have dive rt ed fro m the pla in ti ffo r gained at pla i nti ff’ s expense. ’ ” (quoting Nat ’ l D ryi ng M ac h. Co. v. A ckoff, 245 F.2d 192 , 194 (3d Cir. 1957))). A l ong these l i nes, the cour t shoul d “ set f or th pro ced ure s by w hich the FT C m ay . . . r e im b u rse con su m ers w h o h a ve es ta b lish ed th eir righ t t o c om p en sa tio n .” K uykenda ll, 371 F.3d at7 67 . Pr efe ra b ly, th e c ou rtsh ou ldN o. 08

- 4249 45

or der Tr ud eau t o deposi t the m oneyi n an e scr ow ac c ou n t, see Figgie, 994 F.2d at 605 , or into th e registry of th e c ou rtin a c c or d an c e w ith 28 U .S.C . § 20 41 , see K uykenda ll, 3 71 F
. 3d at7 67, wi thi nstructi o ns o n h o w the FTC can acce ss thos e fund s a nd di spers e them to defra u d ed co n su m er s. Fu r t h er m or e, th e c ou rtsh ou ld provi de that the F TC m ay use s om e par t o fthe sancti on aw ar d to cove r the c ost s o fr ei m burse m en t, su c h as l oca tin g p u rc h as er s a n d m ailin g c h ec ks

. Se ei d. ; Figgie, 99 4 F. 2d at 607. Fin ally , Tr u d ea u co n te n d s t h at ou r d ec isio n in M cN a m ee, 48 1 F
. 3d at 457 , c om pel s the di str i ct c ourtto i ncl ud e a pro vi sion r eq u iring exce ss m oneynot re i m burse d to co nsum er s t o be r etur ned back to Tr ud eau , to a vo i d a ny po r ti o n o fthe a war d b ec o m i ng pu ni ti ve ra therthan c om p ensat or y. W e di sag re e. Court s ca n fashi o n c o nt empt s an ct i o ns b as ed o n the de fen dan t’ s unj us t en r i ch m en t, e ve n i fth at amoun t m i g ht ex c ee d th e pla in tiff’s loss

. SeeCo nnolly, 85 1 F
. 2d at 932- 34. As we ha ve he l d i n di r ec t F TC a ct i o ns , “ [ d] i sg o r g ement to the U ni te d St at es Tre as ur y do es no t tr an sfo r m c o m pen sat or y dam age s into pu ni ti ve dam age s. . . . [ D]i sgo rg em ent i s desi gned to be re m edi al

. ” Fe b re, 12 8 F
. 3d at 537; se e also Gem M er ch , 87F. 3d at 469-7 0 ( “[ B]eca use i t i s no t a l wa y s p o s s ib l e t o d i s t r ib u t e th e mo n e y t o th e v i c t i ms o fde fen dan t’ s wro ng doing, a c o ur t m ayo r derthe fu n d s p aid to th e U n ite d Sta te s T re as u ry .”). M cN a m ee do e s n o th o l d o the r wi s e . T ha tc a s e i nv o l v e d a c o nt e mpt sancti on f ora vi olati on o fan inj uncti on that pr ohibi ted se llin g u n re gis te re d st oc k, for w h ic h th e o rd in ar y c ivil46 N o. 08

- 4249

re m edy was r esci ssi on. 481 F
. 3d at 457. W e r eve rs ed l ar gel y because the dist ri ct cour t’ s sancti on f aile d to r es embl e r es ci ss i o n i n way s th atundu l y puni sh ed th e c on te m n or . Id. M cN a m eeneve r deal t with d isg or gem ent, nordi d i t for ecl ose o ur be l i efthatfra ud ste rs sh ou l d not b e “ u nj u st ly en ric h ed by ret ain in g s om e o f th eir unlawfulpro ceeds by vi rtue o f the f act that they cannot i denti fy a l lthe consum er s en ti tl ed to r est i tuti on, ” Febre, 128 F. 3d a t5 3 7
. As s uc h, t o the e xt e ntthe a g g r e g a te am ou nt rei m bu rsed to c ons um ers is less than Tru d eau ’s ill-got te n ga in s, th e d ist ric t c ou rtn ee d n otn ec es sa rily r equi r e th atthe e xc es s be r etur ne d t o Tr ude au . W e ex pr es s no o pi ni o n, ho wev er, o n whe th erthe dist ri ct c ourtm ust incl ud e a r etur n-t o- conte m norpro vi si o n s ho ul d the c o ur t fi nd tha t Tr ude au ’ s unj ust e nri chm ent r epres ents onl y s om e, o r non e, of the t ota l sa n c tio n a m o u n t. T h e re m ain d er of th e s an c tio n co u ld be dedi cate d to re dres sin g consum erl oss es, and i n such a si tu at i o n, th e lo g i c i n M cN a m eem ight ha ve m ore for c e. See K u y kendall , 37 1 F
. 3d at 756 n. 6 ( “[ A ] ny dam age s th e F TC re ce i ve s m us t be di st r ibut ed to i nj ur ed co nsu m er s an d c anno t be r et aine d. ”)
. But wi th o utkno wi ng whethe rs o m e par t o fthe s an ct i o n wi l lno t co r r es po nd to Trudeau’s i l l

- got ten g ai ns, i t wo u ld b e pr em atur e for us to deci de that i ssue today. S o w e won’t
. W e r em and fo r the dist ri ct c ourtto co nsi der ho w bes t to adm i ni ste r a co m pensatory sa ncti on, sho uld i t cho ose to i m pose one.N o. 08

- 4249 47 B. B ey ond at tack i ng the sa ncti on i tse l f, Trudeau w ants gr ea te r p ro c ed u ra l sa feg u ar d s w h en th at sa n c tio n is i m posed. Trudeau sugg est s t h at on r em and he i s e nti tl ed to a “ neutra lf actfi nd er ” ( presum abl y a ju ry o r at l eas t a differ ent di str i ct j ud ge) and a pro of

-beyo nd

- a- re aso nabl edoubt st andard, even i fthe dist ri ct c ourti m poses a v a l i d civi l conte m pt sanct i on. W e di sag re e. T rud eau ’s argu m en t stem s from th e Sup rem e C ou rt’s dec i si o n in B agw el l , wh er e the Courtco ncl ud ed the sancti on i m posed w as p unit i ve and thus r equi re d cri m i nal proce ss. 51 2 U
. S. at83 8. In dict a, the Court com m ented on p r o c e d u re s t h at m igh t b e n ec es sa ry in c er ta inciv il conte m pt cas es: Contem pts i nvol vi ng o ut- of

- cour t disobedi ence to co m pl ex inj unc ti o ns o fte n r equi r e el ab o r at e an d r el i ab l e f ac tfind ing.
. . . [ T] he r i sko fe r r o ne o us de p ri vati on fro m the l ack ofa neutra lf actfi nd er m ay be s ubstanti al

. U nd erthes e ci rcum stan c es, cri m i nalpro ceduralp ro tect i ons such as the r i ghts to counseland proo fbeyo nd a re aso nabl e doubt ar e bo thne ce ss ary a nd a ppr op riate t o pr o te ctthe due pr o c e s s r i g h t s o fp a r t i e s a n d p r e v e n tthe arbitrary exe rcise of j ud ici al pow er. Id. at 833-34. Tru d ea u a r g u e s th at his is a case of “ou t-ofco ur t di sobe di en ce to [ a] c o m pl ex i nj unc ti o n[ ] ” r equi r i ng near l y a l lthe tr i m m i ngs o fcr i m i nalpro ceedi ngs. W e fi nd m or e than a few fl aw s w i th Trudeau’ s r eas oni ng. Fir st, eve n T ru d ea u ad m its th at c ivil c on te m p t is48 N o. 08

- 4249

an eq u ita b le a c tio n, s e eIn reGr and Jury Pr oc e e di ngs Em pane l l e d M ay 1 988 , 89 4 F
. 2d 88 5, 8 84 ( 7th Ci r . 1 98 9) , a nd l i ti gants have neve r been enti tl ed to a j u ry t ria lf orsui ts i n equi ty, Veri ty, 44 3 F
. 3d at 67 ( citing G ran fia na nc iera S.A . v. No rdberg, 49 2 U .S. 3 3 , 4 1 (19 89 )). Se eal s o S hi l l i t ani, 384 U
. S. at 365 (“W e hold that the con d iti ona l na tu re of th ese se ntences r enders each o fthe acti ons a ci vil con tem p t proc eed ing, for w hich i nd ictm en t and j ury tr ial a re n otco n st itu tio n ally req u ire d .”); D ani e l s v. Pip e Fitters A ss’n , 11 3 F
. 3d 685, 68 8 ( 7th Ci r. 19 97) ( “A ccused conte m nor s ar e not enti tl ed to j ury tr i al s bef or e jud ges m ay enterr em edi alci vil or d er s. ”)
. M or eov er, we have no ind ication on th is r e cord that the d istri ct j ud ge’s neut ra lityi s co m prom i sed. S eco nd , we have ne ver ado pte d the di ct a i n B agw el l and requ ire d a m ore ex ac tin g b u rd en of p ro of on th e co m p lain an t in a c ivil c o n t e mptc a s e . In s t e a d , we h a v e h e l d i n c o u n t l e s s c o ntem pt ca se s i nv o l vingv i o l at i o ns o fi nj unc ti o ns tha t th e co m pl aina nt ’ s bur den is one o f“ cl ea ra nd c o nv i nc i ng evi dence. ” E.g
. , P ri m a Tek II , 52 5 F
. 3d at 542; Autotech , 49 9 F .3 d at75 1; G oluba , 45 F. 3d at 1037
. Thi rd, Trudeau has n ev er be en d en ied co u n se l in a n y p ro c ee d in gs , a n d in fac t h as be en ab ly re p re s e n t e d b y m or e t h an on e p re st igi ous Chi cago l aw fi rm . A bsent som e l i ve cont ro versy on thi s poi nt, w e see no need to deter m i ne w h et h er Tr ude au ha s a due pr o ce ss r i g ht to co uns eli n c i vi lc o ntem pt proc eedi ngs. Furtherm or e, we share the Tenth Cir cuit’s sk epti ci sm o fthe fea sabi l i tya nd fairnes s o fv ary i ngthe pr o ce ss due i n ci vi lco ntem pt cas es on the “c om p lex ity” o fthe i nj uncti o n a t i ss ue . In K uykenda ll, 37 1 F
. 3d at 754, the TenthN o. 08

- 4249 49 Cir cui t s i tting en banc r ej ecte d th e p an el ’ s deci si on t o ad op t t h e fle x ible d u e p ro c e s s m o d el ou tlin ed in B agw el l

. The en banc cou rtco ncl ud ed that “the panel deci si on w oul d .

. . cre ate an excepti on the dist ric t court s woul d ha ve di ffi cul ty apply i ng o n m an y l ev el s, i ncl ud i ng duri ng the determ inati on o fwh etheran inj unct i o n i s c o mpl e x , wh e n a j u r y i s r e q u i r e d , a n d whatt he j ury’ s bur den ofpro ofsho uld be

. ” Id. W e e cho these c on c er n s a n d th u s re fra in from w h ol e h ea rt ed ly ado ptingthe Co ur t’ s di ct a i n B agw el l atthi s t i m e. Even i fwe did, tho ugh, we don’t thi nk the i nj uncti on at iss u e w oul d tri gge r the he i ghtene d prote cti ons. Tr ude au c al l s hi s i nj unc ti o n “ co m pl ex ” be ca us e th e Consent Orderwas 29 pag es l ong. But the port i on a t i ss ue h e r e wa s j u s t 1 4 wo r d s : “ th e i n f o me r c i a l f o ra ny su chb o o k

. . . m us t no t m i sr epr es en t th e co nt en t o fthe boo k. ” A d o-n ot -decei ve or der i s no t o ver l y o nero us. That Trudeau cont i nues to fl out such o rd er s a nd f ace i nc r e a s i n g l y s t i ffe r p e n a l t i e s i s n o t a r e a s o n t o c a l l t he i nj u n c t i o n “ c o mp l e x . ” Mo r e o v e r, th e s p e c i fi c c i r c u mst an ce s o fthi s ca se a l l evi at e so m e o fthe c o nc erns the Cou r t ex pr es se d i n B agw el l

. Though Trud eau’ s v i ol ati on o cc urr ed o uto fc o ur t, the i nf o m er ci alr ec o r di ng s an d tr an sc r i pts e nabl ed th e j ud ge to r ev i ew the o ffen di ng c o nd uc tfi r s t
- ha nd

. S o we ar e co nfi den t i n c o nc l ud i ng that Trudeau is n ot enti tl ed to any speci alpro cess o n re m and. To be sur e, Trudeau i s e nti tl ed to n ot i ce, di sco ver y, an d an op p or tu n ity to p re se n t e vid en c e. Se eM anez , 533 F. 3d at 592; Autotech , 499 F.3d at74 6-4 7; Tran z a ct Tech s., In c. v. 1SourceWorlds it e, 4 06 F
. 3d 85 1, 8 55 ( 7th Ci r . 2 005). A nd Trudeau i s e nti tl ed to the detai l ed j ustific ati on f or50 N o. 08

- 4249 the c ourt ’ s deci si on that we outl i n ed a bove

. But the l aw does n o tr e qu i r e mo r e tha n tha tf o rc i v i lc o nt e mptsa ncti ons. S hould t h e gov er nm ent o r the di str i ct c ourtse ek to i m p ose cr i m i na ls an ct i o ns o n r emand, a di ffer en t m ea su re of du e p ro c es s is req u ire d

. See F ED . R. C RIM . P. 42; B agw el l , 51 2 U.S
. at82 6- 27.

I V. Th e I nfo m er ci al Ban Fi nal l y, Tru de a u c ha l l e ng e s the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s three

- yea r ba n o n Tr ude au a p p ear i ngi n inf o m er ci al s f o ra ny p r o d u c t, i n c l u d i n gb o o k s a n d o th e rp u b l i ca ti o n s . He a ss a i l s th e i n f o me r c i a lb a n o n t wo g r o u n d s , b u twe need onl y a dd re ss the fi rst. W e a gr ee w i th Trudeau that the cour te r r e d in i mpo s i ngthe b a n a s a s a nc t i o n f or civilco n t e m p t beca us e it fai ls to give Tru d eau an op p ortuni t y t o p ur g e . T he b a n r un s f o rthr e e y e a r s r e g a r dle ss ofTrudeau’ s com pli ance w i th the underl yi ng o rdernot to m i sr epres ent hi s bo oks

. Courts have b ro ad di scr eti on t o f ashi on a n appropri ate re m edy f orci vi lco nt em p t. S eeCo nnolly, 85 1 F
. 2d at 933; s e e al s o 11A W R I GHT, M ILLER & K ANE, s upra § 2 960 ( “A federa lco urt’ s di scr eti on incl ud es the pow erto fra m e a san ction to fi t the viol ation.”). Buta s ex pl aine d i n o ur disc ussi on o fthe m on et ary penal ty, ci vi lco ntem pt sancti ons com e in two br eeds, and tw o bre eds onl y. They ei ther co m pen sate thos e har m ed by th e contem nor ’ s v i ol ati ve con d uc t or co erce th e c on te m n or to c u t i t o u t. B agw el l , 51 2 U .S. at 8 28 -29 ; B a iley, 56 7 F
. 3d at 933. Ot h er w ise they ar e c ri m i nalsa ncti ons and requi re cr i m i nalpro cess . B agw el l , 512 U
. S. at 826- 27, 83 1- 33, 83 8.N o. 08

- 4249 51 The i nfo m er ci alban i s cl ear l y no t co m pensa to ry . W h et h er it’s co er c ive is a s om ew h at clo se r q u e s t ion . A coercive san c tion seeks to bri ng the con tem nor’s c on d u c t in to co m p lian c e w ith th e c ou rt ’s o rd er . Id. at 829; In r eGr and Jury Pr oc e e di ngs , 28 0 F
. 3d at 1107
. In this bro ad sense , the i nfo m er ci alban appears to “co er ce” co m pl i an ce wi ththe 2 00 4 Con se ntOr derpr o hibi ting Trudeau f ro m m isr epres enti ng the co ntent ofhi s bo oks

. Trudeau can’ t pr oduce orparti ci pate in de c epti ve i nfom er ci al s i fhe c an ’ t pr o duce o rpa r ti ci pat e i n a ny i nfo m er ci al s at al l

. H owever, the Suprem e Co u rt h as m ade cl earthatan e ssenti ali ngre die nt to any coe rci ve c on te m p t s an c tio n is th e o p p or tu n ity to p u rg e. B agw el l , 512 U
. S. at 82 9 (c iting P enf ie ld, 330 U .S. at 5 90 ). A “purgeabl e” sancti on i s o ne thatal l ows the c onte m nor to fre e hi m sel fo fthe sancti on “ by com m i tting an affi rm ativ e a c t,” n a m e l y c om p lyin g w ith th e c ou rt ’s o rd er . Id. at 828. “[ A ] perdi em fi ne i m posed fo r each day a con tem nor fa ils to com p ly w ith an affirm ative cou rt or d er ” is a p u rg ea b le s an c tio n . Id. at 82 9. S o i s a fi xe d fi ne if “im p os ed an d su s p e n d ed p en d in g fu tu re co m p lian c e.” Id. ( ci ti ng U nited M ine Wo rkers , 33 0 U.S
. at30 7)
. Even i m pri sonm ent can be consi dered co er ci ve, and thus not cri m in al, i fthe conte m norcan obt ai n hi s r el eas e thro ugh c om p lia n c e. See G o m pers , 2 21 U. S
. a t 44 2. But“ [ t] o the extent that ‘ a s ancti on op er at es w hethero r not a par ty re m ain s in vi ol ati on o fthe cour t o rder, i t obvi ousl y doe s n ot co er ce a ny co m pli ance. ’ ” Har r i s v . Ci ty of Ph i l ad e l phi a , 47 F. 3d 1311 , 13 29 ( 3d Cir . 1 99 5) (quoting In reM agwood, 78 5 F .2d 10 77, 108 2 (D .C . C ir. 19 86 )); s e eal so La ncev. P lum m er, 35 3 F
. 2d 585, 59 2 ( 5th Ci r. 19 65) ( “[ T]he sancti on52 N o. 08

- 4249

ca nno t be o ne tha t do es no t come t o a n e nd whe n h e rep en ts his p ast con d uc t and pu rges him self. ”). The tr oubl e w i th the i nfo m er ci alban i s that i t l ast s f or thre e yea rs no m att er w hat Trudeau does. T ru d eau co ul d t ake al lthe s te ps i n the wor l d t o c o nv i nc e th e FT C an d th e d ist ric t c ou rtth at h e w ill be t ru th fu l in h is n ex t in fom er c ial, bu t e v e n i fh e o ffer s t o re ad h is boo k word- f or - w or d and say nothing el se, he c annot fre e hi m sel fo fthe cour t’ s s ancti on. Rather, the thre e- yea r ban i s l i ke a “ pri son ter m [ ] o fa defini te, pre - deter m i ned l ength w i thout the conte m nor ’ s abi l i ty to pu rg e, ” w h i ch we h a v e h e l d i s “ g e n e r a l l y c o n s i d e r e d p u n i t i v e a nd ther ef or e cr i m i nalco ntem pt. ” In r eGr and Jury Pr oc e e di ngs , 280 F. 3d at 1108
. S i m plyput , t h e inf om er ci alban i s no t pu r g e ab l e a nd the r e f o r e n o ta p r o pe rc o e r c i v e co nt e mpt sa n c tio n . See H a rris , 4 7 F
. 3d at1 32 9 ( di smi ss alo fde fen dant’s m oti on t o m odify d ecree w as not ci vi lsa ncti on becau se i t f ai l ed to per m i t defendant to r efi l e m oti on sh ou ld d efe n d an t c om p ly); Lance, 35 3 F
. 2d at 592 ( or der unc o ndi ti o na l l y pr o hibi tingde puty s he r i fffr o m s er ving as law enforcem en t o r p eace offi cer not coercive san ction). B u t se e G regory v. D epte, 89 6 F
. 2d 31, 34 ( 3d Cir

. 19 90) (up ho lding inj un ction li m iti ng qu an tity ofde fend an t’s future sal es as ci vi lbec ause i t co erced com pli ance with pr ev i o us o r der, o fwhi chc o ur t had found de fen dan t in con tem p t). The FTC a tte m pts to sol ve thi s probl em byar gui ng tha t th e infom ercial ban need not be coe rcive or com p en satory b ec au se it ’ s n o t a co n te m p t s an c tio n atall. Ra th er , in the F TC ’ s v i ew , i t’ s s i m plya m odi fi catio n ofthe 2004N o. 08

- 4249 53 Con se ntOr derb r o ug htabo utby t he c o ur t’ s g r an tingthe FT C ’s R u le 6 0(b ) m ot ion to m od ify th e O rd er . (R . 187 .) W e s ee a co up le of probl em s with thi s a rgum ent. Fi rs t, the c ourtneve r expli ci tl y g ra nted t h e F TC ’ s m oti on t o m odi fy. The co urt c ra fted the i nfo m er ci alban i n i ts or der o n conte m pt re m edi es. I n f act, the cour t intro du ced th e ba n in the v ery s ame s en te nc e as it i m po se d the or igin al $ 5.1 m illion fine

. FTC v. Tr ude au , 57 2 F
. S up p. 2d at 92 5. T h e c ou rtn ev e r d i s c u ss ed th e F T C ’s m ot ion or R u le 60(b)

. Instea d, the c ourtci ted som e cl ass i c co ntem pt cas es, i d. at92 5- 26 ( ci ti ng Shi l l i t ani, 3 8 4 U. S. at3 7 0 , a nd Spal l one v. U nited Sta tes , 48 7 U .S. 12 51 , 125 5, 12 60 (19 88 ) (M ar sh all, J., co n c urr i ng i n denia lo fst ay) ) , and fra m ed the ban as a vind ica ti on o fthe cour t’ s “ i nherentpow erto enf or ce i ts or ders, ” i d. at 925. M odi fyi ng a cour t or der a nd enf or ci ng one ar e tw o differen t thi ngs

— en forcing a court or d er is ac h iev ed th ro u gh co n te m p t. See 11A W R I GHT, M ILLER & K ANE, sup ra , § 2960
. Furth erm ore, th e cou rt’s st at ement s i n s ubs eque ntpro ce eding s co nfi r m tha t th e co urt intende d t o i m po se the i nf o m er ci alb ana s a co ntem pt sanct i on: “Thi s i s no t a pri orr est ra i nt the way w e n or m ally look atp rior res tr ain ts
. Th i s i s a r e m e dy f orc ont e m pt
. ” (H r’g Tr. 4, Sept
. 2, 2008) (em p ha sis add ed ). Se cond, there w asn’t a peep in the FTC’s m oti on t o m odi fy about anythi ng l i ke the three

- yea r i nfo m er ci al b a n th e c o u r ti mpo s ed

. T h e F T C ’ s mo t i o n s o u g h tt wo changes to t h e 20 04 Order: ( 1) to r equi re Trudeau to obt ain a $1 0 m i l l i on per f or m ance b ond i n connect i on wi thpr o ducinga ny i nf o m er ci al ; a nd ( 2) mor e st r i ng en t co m pl i an ce r epo r tingr equi r ement s. ( R. 1 87
. ) S o we fi nd it ha r d t o h o ld th at th e cou rt sim p ly gran ted the FT C ’s54 N o. 08

- 4249 mot i o n, wh e n the mo t i o n ne v e r m enti o ne d the r e med y the c o ur tu l t i mat e l y i mpo s e d. Fi nal l y, e ve n if w e co nstr ued the co urt’ s o rderas a s ua sponte m o di fi ca ti o n o f th e Con se nt Or der ( th o ug h the di st r i ctco ur t di dn’ t co ns true i ts o r derthi s way a nd tho ugh the F TC f a i l e d t o me nt i o n thi s o pt i o n i n i t s a ppel l ate br i efi ng) , we sti l lm ust r eve rs e. I t’ s tr ue that cour ts can o n their ow n m oti on m odi fy o r vacat e thei r decree s p u rs u an t t o R u le 6 0 (b )(5)
. Se eO ’ Sul l i van v. Ci ty of Chic ago , 396 F. 3d 843, 866 n. 6 ( 7th Cir
. 2005) (“A di str i ct cour t nee d not wai t for t h e p arti es expli ci tl y t o re quest such changes ; ‘ the c ourtcan on it s ow n m oti on va cate ’

— or m od ify

— ‘ th e dec r ee pur su an t to Rul e 60 ( b) ( 5)
. ’ ” ( quo ting U n it ed S ta te s v. B d. of Ed uc. of Chi. , 79 9 F
. 2d 281, 29 7 ( 7th C i r . 1 9 8 6 ) ) )
. Ho we v e r, we s e e n o i n d i c a t i o n i n t he re cord thatTrudeau had any noti ce that the co urt w as consi deri ng such a br oad sa ncti on a s a n outr i ght b an on info m erc ials; the FTC’s m oti on di dn ’ t g i ve any s uch no ti ce . Butno ti ce t o the defend an t i s i m per at i ve , pa r ti cul ar l y when the co urt i s consi deri ng a sti fferi nj uncti on th anthe o ne c ur r en tly i n fo r ce o rthe o ne p rop osed i n a p ar ty ’s m ot ion to m od ify. Se eW
. Wat e r M gm t
. , Inc . v. Br own , 40 F. 3d 105, 10 9 (5th C i r. 19 94) ( noti ce r equi re d f o rmo di fi c ati ono fi nj un c t i o n i mpo s e d sua s ponte, despi te d efe nd ants’ m oti on f orr el i effro m i nj uncti on, bec ause m odi fi cati on was m or e s tr i ngent than r el i efdefendants re ques t e d)

. S o i n s ho r t we c a nn o t c o ns t r ue the b a n as ar i singfr o m s o m e m o di fi ca ti on of the 2 00 4 Con se nt Or der ; r athe rthe co ur t i m po se d i t as a s an ct i o n fo rTr udeau’s co ntem pt.N o. 08

- 4249 55 Though w e m i ght be abl e to m odi fy th e inf om er ci al b a n o n o uro wn t o f a s hi o n a p r o pe rc o e r c i v e c o nt em pt re m ed y, s e eL ance, 3 53 F. 2d at 592 ( m odi fyi ng o rderto incorp orate p urge prov isi on allow ing ex-d ep ut y she riff to be r ei nstat ed as l aw enf or cem ent o r peace offi cer upo n di st rict co ur t’ s sa ti sf ac ti o n tha t ex - depu tywas no l onge r i n vi ol ati on o fo ri ginalo rd er and w oul d i n go od f ai thc o m pl y wi tho r der ) , we dec l i ne t o do s o he r e. The dist ri ct c ourti s in a b ett erposi ti on to f ashi on a n appropri ate co er ci ve re m edy, sho uld i t cho ose to d o so on re m and. The cour t coul d a l so, o fco urse , choo se to i m pose a c rim in al s an c tio n ins te ad . Or th e d ist ric t c ou rtco u ld m odi fy the Consent Order, o n m oti on fro m the FTC or on i ts o wn m o ti o n, pr o vi d ed i t g i ve Tr ude au s uffi ci en t no ti ce an d an o ppo r tu ni ty to be he ar d o n th e m at te r. But i t ca nnot i m pose a no n-purg eabl e, thr ee- ye ar p enal ty as a ci vi lc o nt empt s an cti on. Acco r di ng l y, we va ca te the i nfo mer c i a lb a n a nd r e man d.

V . Concl usio n W e A F F I RM th e d ist ric t c ou rt ’s fin d in g T ru d ea u in co n t e mpto fth e 2 0 0 4 C o n s e n tO r d e r . Ho we v e r, we V ACATE the m onet ar y s ancti on a nd the i nfo m er ci alban a nd R EMA ND f orfurtherpro ceedi ngs c onsi ste nt with th is op in ion
.

8- 27- 09