In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

No. 08-4249

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

KEVIN TRUDEAU,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.

No. 03-C-3904—Robert W. Gettleman, Judge.

ARGUED MAY 14, 2009—DECIDED AUGUST 27, 2009

Before RIPPLE, MANION, and TINDER, Circuit Judges.

TINDER, Circuit Judge. If you have a problem, chances

are Kevin Trudeau has an answer. For over a decade,

Trudeau has promoted countless “cures” for a host of

human woes that he claims the government and corporations have kept hidden from the American public. Cancer,

AIDS, severe pain, hair loss, slow reading, poor memory,

debt, obesity—you name it, Trudeau has a “cure” for it. To

get his messages out, Trudeau has become a marketing
2 No. 08-4249

machine. And the infomercial is his medium of choice.

He has appeared in dozens of them, usually in the form

of a staged, scripted interview where Trudeau raves

about the astounding benefits of the miracle product

he’s pitching. But Trudeau’s tactics have long drawn the

ire of the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”). By promoting his cures, Trudeau claims he is merely exposing

corporate and government conspiracies to keep Americans

fat and unhealthy. But the FTC accuses Trudeau of being

nothing more than a huckster who preys on unwitting

consumers—a 21st-century snake-oil salesman. For

years Trudeau has dueled with the FTC in and out of court.

Trudeau’s latest run-in concerns his cure for weight

loss, which he explains in his book, The Weight Loss Cure

“They” Don’t Want You to Know About. By the time

Trudeau began promoting the book, courts had sharply

curbed his marketing activities. A consent decree

banned Trudeau from appearing in infomercials for any

products, except for books, provided that he did not

“misrepresent the content of the book.”

That proviso forms the basis for this latest lawsuit.

The FTC claimed that Trudeau’s Weight Loss Cure

infomercial misled consumers by describing a weight loss

program that was “easy,” “simple,” and able to be completed at home, when in fact it was anything but. The

program requires a diet of only 500 calories per day,

injections of a prescription hormone not approved for

weight loss, and dozens of dietary and lifestyle restrictions. The district court sided with the FTC, concluded

that Trudeau had misrepresented his book, and held
No. 08-4249 3

Trudeau in contempt. As sanctions, the court ordered

Trudeau to pay $37.6 million and banned Trudeau

from appearing in any infomercials, even for books, for

the next three years.

Trudeau appeals everything. He argues he should not

have been held in contempt because he merely quoted

his book and expressed his opinions. And he contends

that the court’s sanctions were not appropriate for civil

(as opposed to criminal) contempt proceedings. We

disagree with Trudeau about the contempt finding—he

clearly misrepresented the book’s content—but we are

troubled by the nature of both the $37.6 million fine

and the infomercial ban. So we must remand those

aspects of the court’s judgment.

I. Background

A. Trudeau and the FTC

Trudeau’s troubles with the FTC started over a decade

ago. In 1998, the FTC sued Trudeau for deceptive

practices and false advertising in connection with a

variety of products that Trudeau promoted through his

infomercials. For example, Trudeau participated in an

infomercial for the “Sable Hair Farming System,” which

was guaranteed to regrow hair and “actually end hair

loss in the human race.” An infomercial for “Howard

Berg’s Mega Reading” claimed to significantly increase

reading speed, up to as much as ten times, even for individuals with severe brain damage. And promoting his

very own “Kevin Trudeau’s Mega Memory System,”
4 No. 08-4249

Trudeau claimed that users would achieve a photographic memory.

Trudeau settled that case and paid $500,000 to compensate purchasers of these products. Trudeau also agreed

not to make any representations about the benefits or

performance of any product without “competent and

reliable evidence” of his claims, and he agreed not to

misrepresent the existence or contents of any research

study. He further agreed to be up front about the fact

that his infomercials were advertisements and not

actual interviews. Stipulated Order for Permanent Inj. &

Final J. Against Kevin Trudeau, FTC v. Trudeau, No. 98-CV168 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 14, 1998).

But five years later, Trudeau was at it again. The FTC

went after him for marketing two products: “Coral Calcium Supreme,” as a cure for cancer, heart disease, multiple sclerosis, lupus, and many other serious ailments;

and “Biotape,” as a cure for severe pain. Trudeau even

claimed that his cancer cure had been proven by an

article in the Journal of the American Medical Association. The FTC again alleged deception and false advertising, and it sought to hold Trudeau in contempt for

violating the 1998 injunction. In response, Trudeau stipulated to a preliminary injunction to cease marketing

these products without first submitting the infomercials

to the FTC. Stipulated Prelim. Inj. Order, FTC v. Trudeau,

No. 03-CV-3904 (N.D. Ill. July 1, 2003) (R. 26.)

But that didn’t stop him—he kept marketing Coral

Calcium as a cure for cancer. So in June 2004, the court

held Trudeau in contempt for violating the preliminary
No. 08-4249 5

injunction and ordered him to cease marketing that

product altogether. Contempt Order, FTC v. Trudeau,

No. 03-CV-3904 (N.D. Ill. June 29, 2004) (R. 55.)

But Trudeau still wanted to promote his “cures.” This

time, though, instead of marketing the curative substances themselves, he sought to advertise his book,

Natural Cures “They” Don’t Want You To Know About,

which reveals “natural cures” for everything from

herpes and AIDS to MS and cancer. So Trudeau began

negotiating with the FTC about a new stipulated agreement that would govern Trudeau’s future marketing

activities.

In September 2004, the court entered a Consent Order,

which ordered Trudeau to pay $2 million for consumer

redress and prohibited Trudeau from advertising any

products in infomercials. But the Order contained an

exception: Trudeau could participate in infomercials

for publications, including his own publications, as long

as the publication did not refer to any other product

Trudeau was marketing. In addition, and of particular

importance to this case, the Order specifically provided

that “the infomercial for any such book . . . must not

misrepresent the content of the book.” Stipulated Final

Order for Permanent Inj. & Settlement, FTC v. Trudeau,

No. 03-CV-3904 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 2, 2004) (R. 56.)

In connection with the 2004 Consent Order, Trudeau

submitted to the FTC an infomercial for his Natural

Cures book. Trudeau claims that this infomercial merely

quoted and paraphrased his book and gave his personal

opinion about topics in the book. The FTC viewed the
6 No. 08-4249

Trudeau’s weight loss program claims to be modeled after 1

the “Simeons Protocol,” a controversial weight loss program

developed by a British physician over fifty years ago. Kevin

Trudeau, THE WEIGHT LOSS CURE “THEY” DON’T WANT YOU

TO KNOW ABOUT 44-53 (2007). Combining hormonal injections

with strict dietary and caloric-intake restrictions, the Protocol

claims to redistribute one’s body fat and “reset” one’s hypothal-

(continued...)

infomercial and didn’t object to it being put on the air.

Over the next two years, Trudeau aired that and a

number of other infomercials promoting several of his

books.

In mid-2006, Trudeau’s company, Trucom, LLC, sold

all of its assets to ITV Global, Inc., an entity allegedly notat-all affiliated with Trudeau. ITV agreed to pay

Trucom $121 million. In exchange, Trudeau agreed that

ITV may market his books and publications via

infomercials and that Trudeau would appear in those

infomercials for the purpose of promoting those books.

Trudeau attests he would not receive any additional

compensation for those appearances beyond the $121

million. But Trudeau claims that Trucom has received

only $2 million of that $121 million from ITV.

B. The Weight Loss Cure Infomercial

Trudeau was on good terms with the FTC until 2007,

when he appeared in infomercials promoting his Weight

Loss Cure book. The Weight Loss Cure book touts a fourphase program to permanently shed pounds:1
No. 08-4249 7

(...continued) 1

amus, an area of the brain that controls among other things

hunger, thereby reducing the urge to eat. Id. at 73-76. The

effectiveness of the Simeons Protocol, and particularly the

hormone injections, as a weight loss aid has long been disputed. See Chorionic Gonadotropin, 39 Fed. Reg. 42,397-01 (Dec.

5, 1974) (discussing clinical studies).

Trudeau argues that Phase One is not mandatory but only 2

“strongly encouraged.” He is correct that the book occasionally

states that Phase One is “not required.” E.g., WEIGHT LOSS

CURE, supra, at 74. However, in the book’s final chapter, “Putting

It All Together: Summary and Conclusions,” Trudeau provides a “summary list of check sheets that contain the steps of

each phase of the protocol.” Id. at 211. For all four phases, the

check sheets outline the things dieters “MUST” and “MUST

NOT” do. The check sheets also outline what is “STRONGLY

RECOMMENDED” and “STRONGLY SUGGESTED you NOT

do.” Id. at 213-27. Given that the checklist refers to some

items as “recommended” or “suggested,” we think it reasonable that dieters would find the items they “must” do as

mandatory parts of each phase. This belies the statement earlier

in the book that Phase One as “not required.” Even if Trudeau

subjectively believes Phase One is optional, dieters could

reasonably conclude otherwise. The same goes for Phase Four,

which Trudeau also argues is optional.

• Phase One lasts 30 days and consists of a list of

60 dos and don’ts, dozens of which the book

claims dieters “MUST” follow. Among other

2

things, dieters are advised to eat an all-organic

diet of six meals per day; eat 100 grams of organic meat just before bed; not eat any food
8 No. 08-4249

HCG is a prescription drug often prescribed to stimulate 3

ovula tion in in f e rtil e wom e n. Se e http://www.

ferringfertility.com/medications/novarel/ (last visited Aug. 24,

2009). It is not approved for weight loss in the United States.

39 Fed. Reg. 42,397-03. To obtain hCG, dieters must either

leave the United States or find a doctor who will prescribe hCG

“off-label.” 

HCG should not be confused with hGH (Human Growth

Hormone), which has been the subject of countless enhanced

substance investigations in amateur and professional sports.

A.J. Perez, HGH detection faces new hurdle: Emerging compounds

elude tests, spur hormone production, USA TODAY, May 28, 2008,

at C1. HCG has not been without its own controversy, however, as major-league slugger Manny Ramirez was recently

suspended for 50 games for using the substance. Phil Rogers,

Column, Manny Ramirez Suspended 50 Games: Just Another

Baseball Cheat?, CHICAGO TRIBUNE, May 8, 2009, at C1.

cooked in a microwave; receive 15 “colonics” (a

procedure like an enema with water performed

only by specialists); walk an hour a day; take

infrared saunas; and avoid all skin creams,

lotions, and prescription and over-the-counter

medications. Instead of medications, Trudeau

advocates using the “all-natural non-drug alternatives” explained in his Natural Cures book.

• Phase Two, which requires physician supervision, involves a restricted, all-organic diet of only

500 calories per day, along with daily injections

of Human Chorionic Gonadotropin (hCG) hormone. In addition, dieters must drink at least

3

one-half to one gallon of water per day, along
No. 08-4249 9

How the daily hCG injections square with the prohibition 4

on all prescription drugs is unclear.

How purchasing the Weight Loss Cure book squares with this 5

requirement is also unclear. The FTC maintains that, from

December 2006 to December 2007, Trudeau’s infomercials for

the book aired approximately 32,000 times.

with at least four cups of various teas. And it’s

strongly suggested that dieters do yoga, walk an

hour per day, and do resistance training. Dieters

must also avoid all skin creams and lotions,

MSG, artificial sweeteners, and any prescription

or over-the-counter medications. Phase Two 4

lasts between 21 and 45 days.

• Phase Three, which lasts 21 days, involves

many of the dietary and lifestyle restrictions

contained in the earlier phases. Among other

things, dieters must drink at least one-half to

one gallon of water per day, drink four cups of

tea per day, eat six times per day, eat only 100%

organic food, walk an hour a day, and get

colonics as recommended by a colon therapist.

Dieters must refrain from eating sugars, starches,

food cooked in a microwave, and food prepared

by fast-food or national chain restaurants. No

prescription or over-the-counter drugs either.

Dieters are strongly encouraged to avoid exposure to air conditioning and fluorescent lights,

and told, “Don’t buy heavily advertised products.”5
10 No. 08-4249

Trudeau has proven to be quite an effective salesman of the 6

Weight Loss Cure book. Despite the rigors of the protocol, the

FTC maintains that over 1.6 million copies of the book have

been sold.

• Phase Four lasts for the rest of one’s life and

consists of a list of 50 do’s and don’ts. Dieters

must eat only 100% organic food, along with a

host of vitamins and other supplements. Dieters

should avoid artificial sweeteners, food cooked

in microwaves, and food sold by fast-food restaurants, national restaurant chains, and publicly

traded companies. And again, dieters should

not take medications of any kind. Dieters should

also continue to avoid air conditioning and

fluorescent lights, and must continue to receive

colonics and liver, parasite, heavy metal, and

colon cleanses. 

During all four phases, dieters are instructed that they

“MUST” take daily doses of coral calcium.6

In the infomercials, Trudeau explains what he believes

causes obesity and discusses generally how his weight

loss “cure” eliminates that root cause by “resetting” one’s

hypothalamus and lessening one’s urge to eat. He

claims that this method has been used for decades by

celebrities, royalty, and the ultra-rich, but has been suppressed from the mainstream by food and restaurant

companies and government agencies. Trudeau cites a

number of success stories, giving examples of how much

weight people lost in short amounts of time (e.g., 21

pounds in 14 days).
No. 08-4249 11

In the infomercials, Trudeau also claims repeatedly

that the Weight Loss Cure protocol is “easy,” “simple,”

“very inexpensive,” can be completed at home, and is in

fact “the easiest [weight loss] method known on planet

Earth.” However, Trudeau never mentions the hCG

injections (though he does mention the need to take a

“miracle, magical, all-natural substance”), the 500-calorie

per day limitation, the colonics, or any of the other

dietary and lifestyle restrictions outlined in the book.

Trudeau also claims that, after completing the program,

dieters can eat “everything they want, any time they

want.” As evidence, in one infomercial, Trudeau boasts

that the night before the infomercial he had a heaping

helping of fatty but delicious foods: “I had . . . real

mashed potatoes with cream and butter, gravy loaded with

fat . . . a big prime rib marbled with fat . . . [and] a big

hot fudge sundae with real ice cream and real hot

fudge and real nuts and real whipped cream.” But, according to Trudeau, once you’ve completed the Weight Loss

Cure program, “you’ll keep the weight off forever. You’ll

never have to diet again.”

C. The Contempt Proceedings

The FTC took issue with Trudeau’s infomercials and

took him back to court. In September 2007, the FTC

sought to hold Trudeau in contempt for violating the

2004 Consent Order’s command that Trudeau “must not

misrepresent the content of the book.” In the FTC’s view,

the diet was anything but “easy.” Going phase-by-phase,

the FTC argued that Trudeau’s diet program was in

fact incredibly arduous but that, in the infomercials,
12 No. 08-4249

Trudeau never explained what the program entailed.

To the FTC, Trudeau was simply deceiving consumers

to sell books. The FTC also argued that Trudeau’s claim

that “you can eat anything you want” after completing

the program was bogus. Phase Four, which lasts forever, requires a far stricter diet.

Trudeau countered that he was merely quoting what

he wrote in the book. On a number of pages, Weight Loss

Cure describes the diet as “easy to do.” And the

book also states that dieters in Phase Four can eat “anything you want, as much as you want, as often as

you want.” This approach of quoting phrases from

the book, in Trudeau’s view, was no different than his

Natural Cures infomercial, which the FTC apparently

approved.

The district court didn’t buy it. Even though the book

might mention that the diet is “easy,” the court concluded

that Trudeau’s “cherry-picking” a few choice phrases did

not accurately portray the book’s overall content. And

“content” was what the 2004 Consent Order prohibited

Trudeau from misrepresenting. The diet was not at

all easy, the court observed, and nowhere in his

infomercials did Trudeau mention anything like

colonics, organ cleanses, eating only organic food, and

the 500-calorie-per-day diet in Phase Two. The court

also homed in on Trudeau’s claim that the program

could be completed at home, which the court viewed

as impossible given that the diet requires daily injections

of a prescription substance not approved for use in diet

programs. Trudeau even admitted at a hearing that he

received the first three weeks of injections in Germany.
No. 08-4249 13

Trudeau moved to reconsider the contempt finding, arguing 7

among other things that FTC policy prohibited it from

initiating enforcement proceedings against him. The FTC’s socalled “Mirror Image Doctrine” states that the FTC, “as a

matter of policy, ordinarily will not proceed against advertising that promotes the sale of books and other publications:

Provided, The advertising only purports to express the opinion

of the author or to quote the contents of the publication . . . .”

Advertising in Books, 36 Fed. Reg. 13414-02 (July 21, 1971)

(emphasis in original). Trudeau argued that he merely gave

his opinion and quoted his book in the Weight Loss Cure

infomercial. The court disagreed for several reasons. First, the

2004 Consent Order never contemplated this Doctrine. Second,

the Doctrine merely states a general policy approach—“ordinarily,” the FTC will refrain from proceeding against ads for

books. Even if the Doctrine applied to this case, the court

observed, it would be unsurprising if the FTC made an exception for Trudeau, “who has a long history of consumer

deception as well as findings of contempt by this court.” FTC

v. Trudeau, 572 F. Supp. 2d 919, 922 (N.D. Ill. 2008). The court

then reiterated its conclusions that Trudeau’s claims in the

(continued...)

Finally, the court took issue with Trudeau’s claim

that dieters who completed the program could eat “anything you want,” like prime rib and hot fudge sundaes;

“nothing is restricted,” according to the infomercial. But

Phase Four, which lasts indefinitely, has 50 restrictions,

ranging from eating only organic food to avoiding fast

food and food prepared by “national chain restaurants.”

Because the court found that Trudeau’s statements

misled consumers and thus violated the Consent Order,

the court found Trudeau in contempt. FTC v. Trudeau,

7
14 No. 08-4249

(...continued) 7

Weight Loss Cure infomercial misled consumers and violated

the 2004 Consent Order. Id. at 922-24.

567 F. Supp. 2d 1016 (N.D. Ill. 2007).

D. The Sanctions

Trudeau and the FTC then duked it out over remedies.

The FTC requested reimbursement for all consumers

who purchased the book, via the infomercial or in stores,

totaling over $46 million (of that, approximately

$37 million came from infomercial sales and about

$9 million from retail). Alternatively, the FTC argued

that at least Trudeau should disgorge his profits, which

the FTC estimated to be around $12 million (over

$6 million from infomercial sales, over $5 million from

retail sales, and around $250,000 in salary). (R. 186.) In

addition, the FTC moved to modify the 2004 Consent

Order to ratchet up the injunction’s deterrent effects.

Primarily, the FTC sought to require Trudeau to post a

$10 million performance bond before participating in

book-related infomercials. (R. 187.)

Trudeau disputed all of this. He argued that consumers

suffered no harm from his infomercials, and even if they

had, he should not be punished beyond what money he

received for participating in the infomercials. Conveniently, Trudeau claimed he received nothing for appearing in the infomercials; he had already sold his

rights to ITV and agreed to seek no additional compensation. He only received royalties from the retail sales.
No. 08-4249 15

The relevant text of the three-year infomercial ban reads: 8

For a period of three (3) years from the date of entry of

this Supplemental Order and Judgment, Kevin Trudeau, directly or through any . . . entity under his direct

or indirect control, and . . . all persons and entities in

(continued...)

But those, he argued, could not be tied to the infomercials (despite the big, gold sticker on the cover of the

book which reads, “AS SEEN ON TV”). In the end, Trudeau contended that he should be held responsible for

only a fraction of total revenues, if any at all; and that,

should the court impose a stiffer sanction, he was

without the financial means to satisfy it. (R. 117.) Trudeau

also challenged the FTC’s motion to modify the Consent

Order, calling the $10 million bond requirement

excessive and punitive. (R. 122).

The district court was troubled by the FTC’s calculations

and found the $46 million figure “rather Draconian.” (Tr.

355, July 25, 2008.) But the court also found Trudeau’s

arguments incredible and the evidence of his financial

condition “not worth the paper it is written on.” FTC v.

Trudeau, 572 F. Supp. 2d 919, 925 (N.D. Ill. 2008). So, with

respect to the monetary sanction, the court required

Trudeau to pay the FTC a little over $5.1 million to disgorge some of the royalties he received from sales of the

Weight Loss Cure book. Id. at 925-26 & n.8. Also in its

order on contempt remedies, the court concluded that,

given Trudeau’s prior willingness to flout court

orders, only a complete ban on infomercials for three

years would achieve compliance and protect consumers.8
16 No. 08-4249

(...continued) 8

active concert or participating with Trudeau . . . , are

hereby enjoined and restrained from disseminating, or

assisting others in disseminating, any infomercial for

publication in connection with the manufacturing,

labeling, advertising, promotion, offering for sale,

sale, or distribution of any book, newsletter, or other

informational publication in any format, in or

affecting commerce, in which Trudeau has any interest.

“Infomercial” means any written or verbal statement,

illustration or depiction that is 120 seconds or longer

in duration that is designed to effect a sale or create

an interest in the purchasing of goods or services,

which appears in radio, television (including network

and cable television), video news release, or the

Internet.

“Interest” means any direct or indirect monetary,

financial, or other material benefit, including but not

limited to royalty payments on the sale of any . . .

publication . . . endorsed by Trudeau, or any benefit

received in exchange for partial or full ownership of, or

rights to, any . . . publication . . . written or created by

him, but excluding payments made to Trudeau solely

in exchange for his appearance as a spokesman for a

book . . . in which he does not have an interest. Trudeau

is presumed to have an ongoing interest in any . . .

publication . . . written or created by him unless conclusive evidence establishes otherwise.

Id. at 925-26.

A few months later, the court revisited these sanctions

as a result of the FTC’s Rule 59(e) motion to correct a
No. 08-4249 17

mathematical error. The FTC argued that the court

slightly undercounted the royalties Trudeau received

and requested an increase of a couple hundred thousand

dollars. (R. 165, 166.) The court, however, upped its

monetary award to $37.6 million, “representing a reasonable approximation of the loss consumers suffered as

a result of defendant’s deceptive infomercials.” The

court also reiterated its three-year infomercial ban.

Supp. Order & J., FTC v. Trudeau, No. 03-CV-3904 (N.D. Ill.

Nov. 4, 2008) (R. 220.) After the court denied Trudeau’s

motions to amend and alternatively stay the judgment,

Trudeau appealed, challenging every aspect of the

district court’s decision—the contempt finding, the

$37.6 million sanction, and the infomercial ban. We

address each in turn.

II. The Contempt Finding

Trudeau argues that he should not have been held in

contempt of the 2004 Consent Order. We review the

district court’s contempt finding for abuse of discretion

and “will not reverse ‘unless the result was clearly erroneous or unless we find an abuse of discretion by the

district court.’ ” Autotech Techs. LP v. Integral Research &

Dev. Corp., 499 F.3d 737, 751 (7th Cir. 2007) (quoting D.

Patrick, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 8 F.3d 455, 460 (7th

Cir. 1993)), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 1451 (2008); see also

United States v. Silva, 140 F.3d 1098, 1101 n.4 (7th Cir.

1998) (“It suffices to articulate the abuse of discretion

standard as the general standard of review in this area.

The district court abuses its discretion when it makes an
18 No. 08-4249

Though not argued by either party, there is some authority 9

that the appropriate standard of review in this case given

the consent order is de novo. See Bailey v. Roob, 567 F.3d 930,

940 (7th Cir. 2009) (“A court interprets the meaning of a

consent decree in the same way it interprets the meaning of a

contract, and a reviewing court examines that interpretation

de novo.”); Schering Corp. v. Ill. Antibiotics Co., 62 F.3d 903,

908-09 (7th Cir. 1995) (consent decree is a form of contract

over which appellate court has plenary power to review); Goluba

v. Sch. Dist. of Ripon, 45 F.3d 1035, 1037-38 (7th Cir. 1995)

(“Because a consent decree is a form of contract, we typically

review the district court’s interpretation of the consent decree

as we would its interpretation of a contract: de novo.”). But see

Autotech, 499 F.3d at 751 (applying an abuse of discretion

standard for district court’s interpretation of an “Agreed

Order”). 

Nonetheless, we have also held that, even in the consent-decree context, district court interpretations are entitled

to deference where the district court has overseen the

consent decree for a significant period of time. In such cases,

we have held that abuse of discretion or some similar deferential standard applies. See South v. Rowe, 759 F.2d 610, 613 n.4

(7th Cir. 1985) (“The appellate court must give some deference,

however, to the district judge’s views on interpretation

where the judge oversaw and approved the decree. [citation

omitted.] Indeed, where the district judge has overseen the

litigation generated by the decree and the underlying dispute

for an extensive period of time, his interpretation of the

decree will be reversed only for an abuse of discretion.”); see

(continued...)

error of law or when it makes a clearly erroneous finding.”).

9
No. 08-4249 19

(...continued) 9

also Goluba, 45 F.3d at 1038 & n.5 (“Where, as in the present

case, the district court oversaw and approved the consent

decree, we will nonetheless give some deference to the court’s

interpretation. . . . [Abuse of discretion] is applicable where,

as in Ferrell [v. Pierce, 743 F.2d 454, 461 (7th Cir. 1984)], the

judge oversaw the consent decree for an extended period of

time and the decree is particularly complex or intricate.”). The

district court has overseen the Consent Order for nearly five

years and has overseen Trudeau’s conduct for over ten. Given

that history, the district court’s conclusions deserve a degree

of deference. Whether such deference is equivalent to an abuseof-discretion standard is immaterial, though, because our

conclusion would not change even with a less deferential

standard. 

To succeed on a contempt petition, the FTC must

“demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the

respondent has violated the express and unequivocal

command of a court order.” Autotech, 499 F.3d at 751

(emphasis omitted); see also Manez v. Bridgestone Firestone N.

Am. Tire, LLC, 533 F.3d 578, 591 (7th Cir. 2008); Goluba, 45

F.3d at 1037. Restated in terms of elements, the FTC must

show that

(1) the Order sets forth an unambiguous command;

(2) [Trudeau] violated that command; (3) [Trudeau’s] violation was significant, meaning it did

not substantially comply with the Order; and

(4) [Trudeau] failed to take steps to reasonable

[sic] and diligently comply with the Order.
20 No. 08-4249

Prima Tek II, L.L.C. v. Klerk’s Plastic Indus., B.V., 525 F.3d

533, 542 (7th Cir. 2008); see also Goluba, 45 F.3d at 1037

(“The district court does not, however, ordinarily have

to find that the violation was ‘willful’ and may find a

party in civil contempt if that party has not been reasonably diligent and energetic in attempting to

accomplish what was ordered.” (internal quotations

omitted)).

At the heart of this case is the court’s command in its

2004 Consent Order that “the infomercial for any such

book . . . must not misrepresent the content of the book.”

A.

Trudeau raises several arguments challenging the

court’s contempt finding; they focus principally on the

second and fourth elements. Regarding the second element, Trudeau argues that his infomercials didn’t misrepresent anything and thus didn’t violate the Consent

Order. In Trudeau’s view, describing the protocol as “easy”

and saying dieters who complete the protocol can eat

“anything you want” merely quoted or paraphrased

the book.

We aren’t persuaded. Trudeau agreed not to “misrepresent the content of the book.” We concur with the district

court that “the word ‘content’ does not refer to a few

cherry-picked phrases.” Trudeau, 567 F. Supp. 2d at

1022. The 2004 Consent Order had two purposes: to

protect consumers from deceptive practices and to compensate those already allegedly deceived. (R. 56.) The
No. 08-4249 21

Order wouldn’t go very far in accomplishing that first

goal if it merely prohibited misquoting the book, as

Trudeau suggests. In the consumer protection context,

the word “content” refers to the substance of a publication, its “essential meaning” or the “topics” and “ideas”

contained within. See WEBSTER’S THIRD NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY 492 (1986). When people buy

books, they purchase the author’s ideas, as expressed

through an amalgamation of many individual statements. They don’t purchase select quotes (unless it’s a

book of quotes). So it’s possible to accurately recount

specific statements in isolation but still completely misrepresent the “content” of the book by allowing consumers to infer that the quotations are indicative of the

content, when in fact they are not.

That’s precisely what Trudeau did when he described

the protocol as “easy” and “inexpensive,” said that dieters

can “do it at home,” and boasted that after completion

a dieter can eat “anything you want” with “no restrictions.” No one disputes that Trudeau’s book repeatedly

states that the protocol is “easy.” But the principal

content of the book is the diet protocol itself, along

with how it works, why it was suppressed, and how

successful it is. Like the district court, we think the protocol is anything but easy, simple, or able to be done at

home. Phase One alone contains 60 separate rules for

dieters to follow, three dozen of which the book says a

dieter “MUST” or “MUST NOT” do. But in the

infomercials, Trudeau fails to mention a single aspect of

his weight loss protocol. He never talks about the 500-

calorie-per-day limitation, the colonics (or water ene-
22 No. 08-4249

Trudeau does say in his infomercials that physical exercise 10

is recommended. But he also repeatedly says that exercise is not

required and that one can achieve the weight loss results

without exercise. However, according to the Weight Loss Cure

book, walking outside for an hour a day is something that

dieters “MUST” do during Phases One, Three, and Four, and

something that is “STRONGLY SUGGESTED” in Phase Two.

One might wonder how a person can walk for an hour each

day when consuming only 500 calories.

The label for Novarel, a brand name for hCG, states, 11

INDICATIONS AND USAGE: HCG HAS NOT BEEN

DEMONSTRATED TO BE EFFECTIVE ADJUNCTIVE

THERAPY IN THE TREATMENT OF OBESITY. THERE

IS NO SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT IT INCREASES WEIGHT LOSS BEYOND THAT RESULTING FROM CALORIC RESTRICTION, THAT IT

CAUSES A MORE ATTRACTIVE OR “NORMAL”

DISTRIBUTION OF FAT, OR THAT IT DECREASES

(continued...)

mas), the organ cleanses, the 100% organic diet (which

the book even acknowledges is “next to impossible”), or

any of the other dietary or lifestyle restrictions that the

book says dieters “must” adhere to. The closest he 10

comes to letting viewers know what is actually

involved with the diet is to say that dieters must take

a “miracle, magical, all-natural substance” that will

reset their hypothalamus and reduce their hunger. But

Trudeau leaves out the fact that the magical substance

is actually a prescription drug taken by injection that

cannot be prescribed for weight loss in the United States

and can cause several serious adverse reactions. So 11
No. 08-4249 23

(...continued) 11

THE HUNGER AND DISCOMFORT ASSOCIATED

WITH CALORIE-RESTRICTED DIETS.

See http://www.ferringfertility.com/medications/novarel/

novarelpi.pdf (last visited Aug. 24, 2009).

The principal serious adverse reactions are ovarian enlargement, enlargement or rupture of preexisting ovarian cysts,

multiple births, and arterial thromboembolism. Id.

dieters are left with either convincing their doctor to

prescribe hCG off-label or traveling to a foreign country,

as Trudeau did, to get the drug. But only after the

infomercial viewer spends the money to buy the book

does he or she learn any of this.

Trudeau counters that his calling the protocol “easy”

merely describes his subjective opinion; in his view, the

FTC shouldn’t be able to call him a liar for simply

speaking his mind. In many circumstances, using such

subjective, comparative terms as “easy” constitutes

mere “puffing,” an exaggerated opinion expressed for

the intent to sell something. BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY

1269 (8th ed. 2004); see also Corley v. Rosewood Care Ctr., Inc.,

388 F.3d 990, 1008-09 (7th Cir. 2004) (claim that service

was “high quality” was mere puffery). In Carlay Co. v. FTC,

153 F.2d 493 (7th Cir. 1946), for example, the FTC sought

to stop a company from advertising its weight-loss plan

as “easy” and without dietary restrictions. The plan

involved eating a few pieces of caramel candy before

meals to decrease hunger. Id. at 494. After examining

what the diet required, we set aside the FTC’s cease-and-
24 No. 08-4249

desist order because we concluded the advertisements

were harmless puffery and not deceptive. Id. at 496 (“This,

comparatively speaking when one thinks of reduction

of obesity, anyone must declare comparatively

simple, comparatively easy.”). Trudeau argues that his

infomercials are no different from the advertising in

Carlay, espousing subjective opinions incapable of misleading consumers.

Trudeau misreads Carlay. Carlay does not stand for the

proposition, as Trudeau suggests, that bragging about

the relative ease of a product is always puffery per se.

Puffery is ordinarily defined as “empty superlatives on

which no reasonable person would rely . . . .” All-Tech

Telecom, Inc. v. Amway Corp., 174 F.3d 862, 868 (7th Cir.

1999); see also Speakers of Sport, Inc. v. ProServ, Inc., 178

F.3d 862, 866 (7th Cir. 1999). Given the large number

of weight loss programs on the market, we think a reasonable person would rely on statements about the

relative ease of the program being marketed. Therefore,

in Carlay, we examined what the diet actually required

and then determined, under those circumstances, that

the advertised claim that the diet was easy was not misleading. Carlay, 153 F.2d at 496 (“[W]e think the only

inference possible to draw from the undisputed facts

lead necessarily to the conclusion that the plan is not a

complicated one, but rather a relatively easy one

involving no drugs, no restricted or rigorous diet . . . .”).

But subjective, comparative terms are not always purely

innocuous; courts, including the Supreme Court, have

found that such terms are capable of deceiving consumers. See Reilly v. Pinkus, 338 U.S. 269, 271-75 (1949) (finding
No. 08-4249 25

that weight loss program advertising could support

finding of fraud when it claimed that dieters could “eat

plenty” and reduce their weight “surely and easily, ‘without tortuous diet,’ ” when in fact there was little evidence

that diet had any weight-loss benefits and the diet could

not be “pursued in ease and comfort”); Goodman v. FTC,

244 F.2d 584, 603 (9th Cir. 1957) (finding that, under the

circumstances, seller’s representations about the “ease” of

learning how to weave from seller’s products were deceptive). Such is the case here. The Weight Loss Cure protocol—which does involve drugs and a restricted and

rigorous diet—is hardly “easy” when compared to the diet

examined in Carlay or any number of other diet programs

that do not involve the combination of daily injections,

heavily restricted diets, colonics, organ cleanses, and daily

exercise, among dozens of other restrictions.

Furthermore, Trudeau’s puffery argument misses the

point of the court’s do-not-deceive order. The order

applies to more than singular statements in the

infomercials—the order regulates the infomercials themselves. To determine whether Trudeau violated the

Order, we look not to isolated claims of relative ease but

to what the infomercial as a whole conveyed. Cf. Alpine

Bank v. Hubbell, 555 F.3d 1097, 1106 (10th Cir. 2009)

(“In determining whether a statement is puffery, the

context matters.”).

Through a repetitive mosaic of vague, glowing statements, Trudeau creates an image of a safe, simple, inexpensive way to shed pounds without exercise or dietary

restrictions. But, as we discussed, that’s hardly the
26 No. 08-4249

regimen the book describes. In the infomercials, Trudeau

never mentions the hCG injections but instead talks

about a “miracle all-natural substance” that is “easy to

get” (in fact, he claims “you can get it anywhere”), and

which he claims is the “[s]afest, most effective way to

lose weight on Planet Earth.” Beyond the fact that hCG

is a prescription medication unable to be prescribed for

weight loss (so dieters can hardly pick it up at any corner

store, as viewers are led to believe), we find Trudeau’s

claim about the safety of the “miracle substance” particularly troubling given the potentially devastating side

effects associated with taking hCG, see note 11, supra.

Furthermore, Trudeau reinforces his “easy to do” with

comments like, “[T]his substance, combined with a

few other little things in the protocol, triggers the hypothalamus gland.” The 500-calorie-a-day diet in Phase

Two and the dozens of diet and lifestyle restrictions

are hardly “a few other little things.” These kinds of

statements, combined with Trudeau’s repeated claims

that the diet is “easy,” misrepresent the content of the

book.

Moreover, even if we assume that part of Trudeau’s

pitch was mere puffery, the infomercials are still loaded

with other statements that are patently false. Trudeau

repeatedly claimed in the infomercials that the protocol

can be completed “at home” and that “you don’t have

to go to a clinic to do it.” But the book instructs that all

hCG injections must be administered under a physician’s

supervision and that trips to a licensed colon therapist

for colonics are required. Even if dieters administer

their own hCG injections, at least some visits to the doc-
No. 08-4249 27

tor’s office are necessary. As the district court noted,

house calls are exceedingly rare these days and would

likely be cost-prohibitive, which would contradict Trudeau’s claim that the diet is “inexpensive.”

Trudeau’s claim that upon completion of the protocol

dieters can eat anything they want—that “nothing is

restricted”—is equally erroneous and deceiving. Trudeau

is correct that the book echoes this statement: “eat anything you want, as much as you want, as often as you

want.” But in the very next sentence, which Trudeau

never mentions in the infomercials, the book reads: “The

only caveat is only eat 100% organic food.” WEIGHT LOSS

CURE, supra, at 106. The book then goes on to list dozens

of “dos and don’ts” that prescribe precisely what to

eat, what not to eat, when to eat, and how much to eat.

No food produced by publicly traded companies. No

fast food or food served in regional or national chain

restaurants. No corn syrup. No artificial sweeteners. No

trans fats. No MSG. No food prepared in a microwave.

No farm-raised fish. These are dietary restrictions;

dieters cannot eat anything they want.

In sum, Trudeau misrepresented the content of his

Weight Loss Cure book. Trudeau may have quoted parts

of his book, but he did so deceptively. These selective

quotations mislead because they present consumers

with an incomplete picture of what the protocol requires,

thereby inducing consumers to purchase the book on

false hopes and assumptions. True, Trudeau’s belief

that the protocol is “easy” is his subjective opinion. But

without giving consumers a fuller picture of what the
28 No. 08-4249

Given Trudeau’s blatant misrepresentations, we cannot 12

accept Trudeau’s argument that the FTC’s enforcement proceedings violate the FTC’s own policy, the Mirror Image

Doctrine, which says that the FTC will ordinarily stay its hand

if an ad for a book merely quotes the book or expresses the

author’s opinion. Advertising in Books, 36 Fed. Reg. 13414-02

(July 21, 1971). Trudeau did not merely quote his book or

express his opinions. He made factual assertions that directly

contradict what he wrote in the book. The Mirror Image

Doctrine was adopted to help the FTC avoid running afoul

of the First Amendment when regulating advertising for

publications. But, under the First Amendment, “false or misleading commercial speech receives no protection at all.”

United States v. Benson, 561 F.3d 718, 725 (7th Cir. 2009) (citing

(continued...)

protocol entails while claiming that the protocol is “the

easiest method known on planet Earth,” consumers are

led to believe that Trudeau’s statements are more than

just his beliefs; they appear as objective facts. Moreover,

Trudeau did more than just quote his book; he outright

lied. In one infomercial, Trudeau claimed the protocol

was “not a diet, not an exercise program, not portion

control, not calorie counting, . . . no crazy potions, powder

or pills . . . .” None of that is true. Dieters “MUST” eat

only 100% organic food, walk an hour a day, eat six

meals per day, eat only 500 calories per day for up to

45 days, drink organic raw apple vinegar cider, and take

probiotics, krill oil, Vitamin E, digestive enzymes, and

Acetyl-L Carnitine. Consequently, we conclude Trudeau

violated the 2004 Consent Order by misrepresenting

the content of his book.12
No. 08-4249 29

(...continued) 12

Cent. Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n of New

York, 447 U.S. 557, 562-63 (1980)). So we see no constitutional

problem with the finding of contempt in this case.

B.

Turning to the fourth element of the standard for contempt, Trudeau contends that he diligently tried to

adhere to the court’s command. He submits that the

Weight Loss Cure infomercial was no different from his

previous Natural Cures infomercials, which the FTC

implicitly blessed by not objecting to them. Moreover,

Trudeau claims he had been in fairly regular contact

with the FTC after the court issued the 2004 Consent

Order. He complains that the FTC never gave him a headsup that his Weight Loss Cure infomercial was problematic until it filed its contempt complaint, though it

had first seen the infomercial eight months before filing.

None of this convinces us that we should reverse.

First, that the FTC did not object to the Natural Cures

infomercial is largely irrelevant. Estoppel against the

government is available only under narrow circumstances.

See United States v. Lindberg Corp., 882 F.2d 1158, 1164 (7th

Cir. 1989). Trudeau’s are not among them. Nothing about

the FTC’s prior approval should have led Trudeau to

believe that he could selectively quote his weight loss

book as being “easy” and “simple,” while leaving out

nearly every relevant detail about the weight loss protocol. Moreover, as we just discussed, Trudeau didn’t merely

“quote” the weight loss book. He falsely described the
30 No. 08-4249

For these reasons, Trudeau’s one-sentence attempt at a laches 13

argument in the remedy portion of his brief also fails. Trudeau

cannot show “an unreasonable lack of diligence by the party

against whom the defense is asserted” or “prejudice arising

therefrom.” Hot Wax, Inc. v. Turtle Wax, Inc., 191 F.3d 813,

820 (7th Cir. 1999).

weight loss protocol to make it sound safer and less

arduous than it actually is. The extent to which Trudeau

could reasonably rely on the FTC’s approval of the Natural

Cures infomercial ended when Trudeau began uttering

false statements and quotes that mischaracterized the

content of the Weight Loss Cures book.

Trudeau’s focus on the 8-month delay between the

time the infomercials first hit the airwaves and the date

the FTC filed its contempt petition is equally unavailing.

Though the FTC knew the infomercials were on the air

by January 2007, they didn’t receive a copy of the Weight

Loss Cure book until March. This could have been

because the book was not yet published when the

infomercials first started running. By July of that year, the

FTC’s division of enforcement concluded its review of

the matter and recommended that contempt proceedings were necessary. That recommendation moved

through the FTC’s bureaucracy over the next two months,

and on September 10, the Commission authorized the

Division of Enforcement to file a civil contempt action

against Trudeau. We cannot say that any delay associated

with this seemingly ordinary review process was “prolonged and inexcusable” such that it would support

Trudeau’s laches-like argument. See id. at 1164 (“Re- 13
No. 08-4249 31

garding the application of laches against the government, this court has stated that ‘[l]aches bars the

assertion of a claim where deferment of action to

enforce claimed rights is prolonged and inexcusable

and operates to . . . [a party’s] material prejudice.’ ” (quoting Woodstock/Kenosha Health Ctr. v. Schweiker, 713 F.2d

285, 291 (7th Cir. 1983))).

We see nothing that would justify overturning the

district court’s conclusions. Trudeau did not diligently

comply with the Consent Order at all. Beyond the fact

that Trudeau repeatedly distorted the content of the

Weight Loss Cure book in multiple infomercials, we

have insufficient indication in the record, despite Trudeau’s assertions to the contrary, that Trudeau was regularly in contact with the FTC regarding the Weight Loss

Cure infomercial. Trudeau complains about the FTC not

starting its review of the infomercial sooner. But we see

no evidence that Trudeau provided the FTC with an

unpublished manuscript or some other means to speed

up the review process. And we have nothing to indicate

that either Trudeau or ITV ceased airing the infomercial

upon the FTC’s filing for contempt. In short, we see no

reason to conclude that Trudeau diligently complied

with the Consent Order’s command not to misrepresent

the content of his books. Accordingly, the district court

did not err in finding Trudeau in contempt.

III. The Monetary Sanction

Though the district court was right in finding Trudeau

in contempt, the monetary sanction imposed to
32 No. 08-4249

remedy that contempt is a different story. We review the

sanction amount for clear error, but we review the calculation method used to reach that amount de novo.

FTC v. Kuykendall, 371 F.3d 745, 763 (10th Cir. 2004) (en

banc). Ultimately, the final $37.6 million figure the

district court settled on might be correct. But the court’s

order, as it stands now, does not give us enough information to affirm that conclusion. The order tells us

little about such things as how the court arrived at the

figure it did, whether the award will be used to

reimburse consumers, and what happens if there’s

money left over after all reimbursements are paid. So we

must remand to allow the court to provide greater detail

on these questions. Beyond more detail in the order,

Trudeau seeks greater procedural protections, such as

a jury trial and a proof-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard, on remand. We decline to find such safeguards

required in this case.

A.

Contempt sanctions come in two forms—criminal and

civil. In a given case, which form a sanction takes

depends on the “character of the relief itself,” and not

on the “subjective intent of . . . courts.” Int’l Union,

United Mine Workers of Am. v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821, 828

(1994); see also Shillitani v. United States, 384 U.S. 364, 369

(1966) (“ ‘It is not the fact of punishment, but rather

its character and purpose, that often serve to distinguish’

civil from criminal contempt.”) (quoting Gompers v.

Buck Stove & Range Co., 221 U.S. 418, 441 (1911)). The
No. 08-4249 33

form of the sanction matters because criminal sanctions

require certain constitutional safeguards before they are

imposed (e.g., right to counsel, notice of charges, double

jeopardy, proof beyond a reasonable doubt). Bagwell, 512

U.S. at 826-27, 831; In re Troutt, 460 F.3d 887, 893 (7th Cir.

2006); see also FED. R. CRIM. P. 42(a). Civil sanctions, by

contrast, may be imposed without as many safeguards,

Bagwell, 512 U.S. at 831, though some level of due

process is always required, and might vary depending

on the circumstances, id. at 833-34 (“Contempts involving

out-of-court disobedience to complex injunctions often

require elaborate and reliable factfinding.”); see generally

11A CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT, ARTHUR R. MILLER &

MARY KAY KANE,FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 2960

(2d ed. 2009).

It’s undisputed th at Trudeau’s contempt proceedings

had none of the bells and whistles of a criminal trial. See

FED. R. CRIM. P. 42(a) (requiring, in most circumstances,

elaborate notice, appointment of a prosecutor, and a jury

trial). And the government has not yet sought criminal

punishment. So for the $37.6 million judgment to stand,

we must conclude that the sanction was a “civil” one.

The differences between criminal and civil contempt

sanctions are not always easy to discern. See Bagwell, 512

U.S. at 827. Generally, civil contempt “is remedial, and

for the benefit of the complainant,” while criminal contempt “is punitive, to vindicate the authority of the

court.” Id. at 827-28; Manez, 533 F.3d at 590. In terms

of monetary sanctions, civil sanctions fall in two categories. They can compensate the complainant for his losses
34 No. 08-4249

caused by the contemptuous conduct. Bagwell, 512 U.S. at

829; United States v. United Mine Workers of Am., 330 U.S.

258, 303-04 (1947). Or they can coerce the contemnor’s

compliance with a court order. A coercive sanction

must afford the contemnor the opportunity to “purge,”

Bagwell, 512 U.S. at 829, meaning the contemnor can

avoid punishment by complying with the court order,

Penfield Co. v. SEC, 330 U.S. 585, 590 (1947). On the other

hand, a criminal contempt sanction is “a ‘flat, unconditional fine’ totaling even as little as $50 announced after

a finding of contempt . . . [where] the contemnor has no

subsequent opportunity to reduce or avoid the fine

through compliance.” Bagwell, 512 U.S. at 829.

Trudeau argues that the sanction imposed was neither

coercive nor compensatory and thus not civil. We

think Trudeau is clearly right on the coercive part. The

district court described its sanction as “coercive,” in the

sense that it would “convince somebody like Kevin

Trudeau to not disobey the orders of the Court.” But

that’s not quite what the Supreme Court intended

coercive contempt sanctions to be. “Where a fine is not

compensatory, it is civil only if the contemnor is afforded

an opportunity to purge.” Id. Trudeau must be able to

avoid the penalty, or some part of it, by complying

with the order. If Trudeau were incarcerated for his

contempt, we would say he “carries the keys of his prison

in his own pocket.” Gompers, 221 U.S. at 442 (quotation

omitted). This is because coercive sanctions are “not

intended as a deterrent to offenses against the public.”

Penfield, 330 U.S. at 590; see also In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 280 F.3d 1103, 1107 (7th Cir. 2002) (“A contempt
No. 08-4249 35

order is considered . . . criminal if its purpose is to

punish the contemnor, vindicate the court’s authority, or

deter future misconduct.”). As the order stands now,

Trudeau has no opportunity to purge any of the

$37.6 million judgment by representing his books truthfully from here on out. Without a purge provision, the

order is not coercive.

So for the sanction to stand, it must “compensate the

complainant for losses sustained.” United Mine Workers,

330 U.S. at 303-04. The FTC explicitly sought a compensatory remedy. (R. 186.) And the district court stated at

the hearings on remedies and, to some extent, in its

order that it intended to compensate those who bought

the Weight Loss Cure book as a result of the infomercial.

But, as we mentioned, the court’s subjective intent is

largely irrelevant; what counts are the characteristics of

the sanction actually imposed. Bagwell, 512 U.S. at 828;

Shillitani, 384 U.S. at 369.

For the most part, we agree with Trudeau that the

characteristics that make a contempt sanction compensatory are missing from the $37.6 million order. The

court’s order lacks two key ingredients needed in any

compensatory contempt sanction: (1) the order fails to

explain how the court arrived at the $37.6 million figure;

and (2) the order lacks any mention of how the sanction

should be administered. See Kuykendall, 371 F.3d at 763-67.

Though we can’t promise a “cure” from reversal, we

endeavor in the following discussion to provide some

general guidelines for imposing a compensatory contempt sanction in this case. 
36 No. 08-4249

1.

The district court must explain how it arrived at the

specific amount of the sanction imposed. Mid-Am. Waste

Sys., Inc. v. City of Gary, Ind., 49 F.3d 286, 293 (7th Cir. 1995)

(“A judge reckoning a compensatory award must make

subsidiary findings that permit the parties (and the

court of appeals) to know the basis of the decision.”); see

also Autotech, 499 F.3d at 752 (“The amount of the

sanction must be supported in the record.”). This means

not only explaining where the numbers came from, but

also outlining the methodology the court used to crunch

those numbers and arrive at what it believed to be the

appropriate amount. See Mid-Am. Waste Sys., 49 F.3d at

293; SEC v. McNamee, 481 F.3d 451, 457 (7th Cir. 2007);

Kuykendall, 371 F.3d at 763-64. This information is crucial

to ensuring that the award is not greater than necessary.

If any part of it winds up being punitive instead of remedial, then criminal proceedings are required to sustain

it. Nye v. United States, 313 U.S. 33, 43-44 (1941); see also

Bagwell, 512 U.S. at 831.

We agree with Trudeau that the district court’s contempt sanction was deficient in this regard. The court’s

order gives little indication of how the court arrived at

the award it did. Perhaps more importantly, we’re left

clueless as to how or why the award ballooned from

around $5 million in the original order to over $37 million

in response to the FTC’s Rule 59 motion, which never

requested such an increase (the FTC’s motion merely

endeavored to correct a “mathematical error” and

increase the award by a couple hundred thousand dollars).
No. 08-4249 37

All we have is a statement that the $37,616,161 figure

“represent[s] a reasonable approximation of the loss

consumers suffered as a result of defendant’s deceptive

infomercials.” Supp. Order & J., FTC v. Trudeau, No. 03-CV3904 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 4, 2008) (R. 220). What kinds of “loss”

does that figure approximate? Does it include all book

sales, or only sales made through the 800-number

provided in the infomercials (and not retail book sales)?

What about Internet sales? Does the figure include shipping and handling fees? What about returns—does it net

those out against the book sales? See Autotech, 499 F.3d at

752 (“When the purpose of sanctions in a civil contempt

proceeding is compensatory, a fine, payable to the complainant, must be based on evidence of actual loss.”

(quoting S. Suburban Housing Ctr. v. Berry, 186 F.3d 851,

854 (7th Cir. 1999))). And why did the court switch its

basis for the award from disgorging a portion of Trudeau’s

royalties (the original $5.1 million judgment) to fully

compensating consumer losses? Though we can guess

where the $37,616,161 figure comes from (that’s the

amount the FTC in its original remedies brief argued was

attributable to book sales from infomercials less

returned books), the order contains hardly any findings

to substantiate it. In other words, the district court failed

to sufficiently “calibrate the fines to damages caused by

[Trudeau’s] contumacious activities.” Bagwell, 512 U.S. at

834. On remand, the district court should make

sufficient factual findings to substantiate its award

amount. Mid-Am. Waste Sys., 49 F.3d at 293. This means the

court must explain the method it used to calculate the

award, why the court chose that method, and how the
38 No. 08-4249

evidence of record supports the figures plugged into

that method.

Trudeau asks us to go further and tell the district court

which calculation method it should use. Relying on the

Second Circuit’s opinion in FTC v. Verity Int’l Ltd., 443

F.3d 48, 66-70 (2d Cir. 2006), Trudeau contends that the

district court should base its award not on consumers’

losses but rather on Trudeau’s gain, a sum he argues

is only a fraction, if anything, of what book purchasers lost.

We decline Trudeau’s invitation to be so exacting at

this stage in the proceedings. Courts have broad

discretion to fashion contempt remedies and the particular remedy chosen should be “based on the nature of

the harm and the probable effect of alternative sanctions.” Connolly v. J.T. Ventures, 851 F.2d 930, 933 (7th Cir.

1988). Consumer loss is a common measure for civil

sanctions in contempt proceedings and direct FTC actions.

See, e.g., FTC v. Febre, 128 F.3d 530, 536 (7th Cir. 1997)

(direct FTC action under FTC Act § 13(b)); Kuykendall, 371

F.3d at 764-66 (contempt proceeding); McGregor v. Chierico,

206 F.3d 1378, 1388-89 (11th Cir. 2000) (direct FTC action

under FTC Act § 13(b)); FTC v. Figgie Int’l, Inc., 994 F.2d

595, 606-07 (9th Cir. 1993) (direct FTC action under FTC

Act § 19). Indeed, some courts, including ours, have held

that in certain cases consumer loss is a more appropriate

measure than ill-gotten gains. See FTC v. Stefanchik,

559 F.3d 924, 932 (9th Cir. 2009); Febre, 128 F.3d at 536;

Figgie, 994 F.2d at 606-07. Nonetheless, we have held, in

both contempt proceedings and direct FTC actions, that

the defendant’s profits can be a proper measure for
No. 08-4249 39

sanctions. See Connolly, 851 F.3d at 933-34 (holding that

United Mine Workers, 330 U.S. at 304, which stated “such

[compensatory] fine[s] must of course be based upon

evidence of complainant’s actual loss,” did not limit

contempt sanctions to only consumer loss); FTC v. QT, Inc.,

512 F.3d 858, 863 (7th Cir. 2008) (“Disgorging profits is

an appropriate remedy” in direct FTC action); cf. Leman v.

Krentler-Arnold Hinge Last Co., 284 U.S. 448, 456-57 (1932)

(“Profits are thus allowed as an equitable measure of

compensation” in patent infringement cases). In fact,

some courts have imposed hybrid awards that include

some combination of ill-gotten gains and consumer

losses. See QT, 512 F.3d at 864; Figgie, 994 F.2d at 601, 607-

08. So, in the abstract, more than one measure could

be reasonable; the circumstances of the case will dictate

which is most appropriate. For example, as a prerequisite

to basing sanctions on consumer loss, courts often

require a finding that the defendants were “engaged in a

pattern or practice of contemptuous conduct” as opposed

to “isolated instances of contumacy.” Kuykendall, 371 F.3d

at 764; see also Figgie, 994 F.2d at 606 (allowing consumer

loss as measure of sanction where defendant’s misrepresentations were “widely disseminated”); FTC v. Sec. Rare

Coin & Bullion Corp., 931 F.2d 1312, 1316 (8th Cir. 1991)

(same). Here, however, the district court’s order gives

no indication why consumer loss is the better remedy.

Likewise, the court’s order contains no factual findings

that would justify our mandating that the court adopt

the Second Circuit’s approach in Verity on remand. The

court in Verity, which dealt with a direct FTC action, held

that certain circumstances require courts to limit dis-
40 No. 08-4249

gorgement to the defendant’s profits. The court explained

that, at bottom, the equitable remedy available under

§ 13(b) of the FTC Act is restitution, which is properly

measured as “the benefit unjustly received by the defendants.” Verity, 443 F.3d at 67. The court observed that the

amount of that benefit would often equal the amount

consumers lost. So consumer loss would often be an

appropriate measure for restitution. However, in some

situations—“for example, when some middleman not

party to the lawsuit takes some of the consumer’s

money before it reaches the defendant’s hands”—the

amount the defendants unjustly received might equal

only a fraction of total consumer loss; in those cases, the

Second Circuit held that restitution must be limited to

that fraction, as opposed to total loss. Id. at 68.

Trudeau likens his case to Verity, claiming that ITV

operated as a “middleman” who skimmed the revenue

from the book sales before Trudeau could pocket any of

it. But we lack any factual finding from the district court

to that effect. In an earlier order, the district court noted

that one of Trudeau’s companies sold its assets to ITV

in exchange for monthly payments of $1 million for

121 months. But the court also noted that Trudeau had

taken no steps to enforce his contractual rights. As

such, we are somewhat dubious as to whether ITV is

completely unaffiliated with Trudeau, as Trudeau

claims, and thus whether it could be an independent

“middleman” at all. But that is beside the point. Considering whether Verity’s reasoning applies here would be

premature absent a finding that ITV indeed operated as

a middleman. We will leave the first crack at the factual
No. 08-4249 41

We note that a money-back guarantee is not a general defense 14

to a contempt action. FTC v. Think Achievement Corp., 312

F.3d 259, 261 (7th Cir. 2002).

and legal questions posed by Trudeau’s Verity argument

to the district court.

So in sum, we reiterate that the district court has

broad discretion to fashion an appropriate remedy in a

civil contempt action. Connolly, 851 F.2d at 933.

Ultimately, the court’s $37.6 million award might be

reasonable. But so might a lesser figure based only on

Trudeau’s profits. Whether the court chooses consumer

losses or ill-gotten gains, though, the court must explain

why it chose the calculation method it did and how the

record supports its calculations. The FTC bears the

initial burden of establishing the baseline figure: a reasonable approximation of losses, gains, or some other

measure the court finds appropriate. See Kuykendall, 371

F.3d at 764; Febre, 128 F.3d at 535. “[T]hen the burden

shifts to the defendant[ ] to show that those figures were

inaccurate.” Febre, 128 F.3d at 535; see also QT, 512 F.3d

at 864; Kuykendall, 371 F.3d at 766 (“[T]he defendants

must be allowed to put forth evidence showing that

certain amounts should offset the sanctions assessed

against them.”). For example, Trudeau might be able to

show that he already compensated some customers

with full refunds for their purchases. See Kuykendall,

14

371 F.3d at 766. But see Verity, 443 F.3d at 69 (placing this

burden on the FTC). Also, if the court chooses consumer loss as its baseline, Trudeau might show that

some customers were wholly satisfied with their
42 No. 08-4249

This should allay Trudeau’s concern that he should not have 15

to pay for purchasers who “spurn the opportunity” for a

refund. We disagree with Trudeau, however, that the FTC

should bear the burden of proving that customers were dissatisfied with their purchases. Just as the FTC is not required to

prove individual customer reliance on the defendant’s misrepresentations, see McGregor, 206 F.3d at 1388; Figgie, 994 F.2d at 605;

Sec. Rare Coin, 931 F.2d at 1316, the FTC is not required to

prove individual customer dissatisfaction, see Kuykendall, 371

F.3d at 765. “[I]t would be virtually impossible for the FTC to

offer such proof, and to require it would thwart and frustrate

the public purposes of FTC action.” McGregor, 206 F.3d at 1388

(quoting Security Rare Coin, 931 F.2d at 1316). “To the extent

the large number of consumers affected by the defendant[’s]

deceptive trade practices creates a risk of uncertainty, the

defendants must bear that risk.” Kuykendall, 371 F.3d at 765.

Furthermore, if consumer loss is the measure, we agree 16

with our sister circuits that the award amount need not be

(continued...)

purchase. See Kuykendall, 371 F.3d at 766. Though 15

Trudeau argues that the FTC should bear these burdens,

“ ‘the risk of uncertainty should fall on the wrongdoer

whose illegal conduct created the uncertainty.’ ” Febre, 128

F.3d at 535 (quoting SEC v. First City Fin. Corp., Ltd., 890

F.2d 1215, 1232 (D.C. Cir. 1989)). In its order, the court

must make sufficient factual findings to support its

ultimate award. Mid-Am. Waste Sys., 49 F.3d at 293. If

consumer loss is the measure, the court must explain

what that figure represents: for instance, which consumer

purchases are included (e.g., infomercials, retail, or

Internet sales) and whether shipping and handling fees

are included. If ill-gotten gains is the measure, the 16
No. 08-4249 43

(...continued) 16

reduced by the “value” of the books. See Kuykendall, 371 F.3d at

766; McGregor, 206 F.3d 1388-89; Figgie, 994 F.2d at 606. In unfair

and deceptive trade practices cases, the difference between

the price paid and the market value of the good bought is

irrelevant, “because if the customers had known the truth, they

might not have bought any [goods] at all.” Kuykendall, 371 F.3d

at 766 (citing Figgie, 994 F.2d at 606). “The fraud in the selling,

not in the value of the thing sold, is what entitles consumers

in this case to full refunds.” Figgie, 994 F.2d at 606. Our decision

in SEC v. McNamee, 481 F.3d 451 (7th Cir. 2007), a securities

case, in which the ordinary civil remedy was rescission, id. at

457, not restitution and disgorgement, see Febre, 128 F.3d at 536-

37; FTC v. Gem Merch., 87 F.3d 466, 469-70 (11th Cir. 1996), does

not compel a different result.

court must explain such things as the source of those

gains and why those gains are less than gross revenues.

And if the court chooses a hybrid approach, see QT, 512

F.3d at 864; Figgie, 994 F.2d at 601, 607-08, the court

should address both sets of issues. (We note that these

are just some examples, not an exhaustive list, of the

types of variables the court might include in its calculations.) Finally, the court may include in its calculation

the costs associated with locating and reimbursing defrauded purchasers. See Kuykendall, 371 F.3d at 767;

Figgie, 994 F.2d at 607. Accordingly, we remand for additional findings with respect to the amount of the sanction.
44 No. 08-4249

2.

Beyond explaining its calculations, the court must also

outline how the sanction should be administered. See

Kuykendall, 371 F.3d at 767. As it stands now, the

court’s order is silent on this point. The order merely

commands Trudeau to pay $37.6 million to the FTC.

Simply ordering money to be paid to the U.S. Treasury

rather than to reimburse consumers looks more like a

criminal fine than a compensatory sanction. See Bagwell,

512 U.S. at 834 (“At no point did the trial court . . . indicate

that the fines were to compensate the complainant for

losses sustained.”). Though we do not question the

FTC’s integrity in that it will dutifully disperse the proceeds to defrauded book purchasers, we still think it

necessary in a contempt sanction of this kind that the

court’s order specify that the FTC must use the funds to

reimburse book purchasers. See Kuykendall, 371 F.3d at 767;

see also McDowell v. Phila. Hous. Auth., 423 F.3d 233, 241 (3d

Cir. 2005) (“ ‘Whether an award in civil contempt be

measured in terms of a plaintiff’s loss or a defendant’s

profit, such an award, by very definition, must be an

attempt to compensate plaintiff for the amount he is

out-of-pocket or for what defendant by his wrong may

be said to have diverted from the plaintiff or gained at

plaintiff’s expense.’ ” (quoting Nat’l Drying Mach. Co. v.

Ackoff, 245 F.2d 192, 194 (3d Cir. 1957))).

Along these lines, the court should “set forth procedures by which the FTC may . . . reimburse consumers

who have established their right to compensation.”

Kuykendall, 371 F.3d at 767. Preferably, the court should
No. 08-4249 45

order Trudeau to deposit the money in an escrow

account, see Figgie, 994 F.2d at 605, or into the registry

of the court in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 2041, see

Kuykendall, 371 F.3d at 767, with instructions on how the

FTC can access those funds and disperse them to defrauded consumers. Furthermore, the court should

provide that the FTC may use some part of the sanction

award to cover the costs of reimbursement, such as locating purchasers and mailing checks. See id.; Figgie, 994

F.2d at 607.

Finally, Trudeau contends that our decision in

McNamee, 481 F.3d at 457, compels the district court to

include a provision requiring excess money not

reimbursed to consumers to be returned back to

Trudeau, to avoid any portion of the award becoming

punitive rather than compensatory. We disagree. Courts

can fashion contempt sanctions based on the defendant’s unjust enrichment, even if that amount might

exceed the plaintiff’s loss. See Connolly, 851 F.2d at 932-34.

As we have held in direct FTC actions, “[d]isgorgement

to the United States Treasury does not transform compensatory damages into punitive damages. . . . [D]isgorgement is designed to be remedial.” Febre, 128 F.3d at 537;

see also Gem Merch, 87 F.3d at 469-70 (“[B]ecause it is not

always possible to distribute the money to the victims

of defendant’s wrongdoing, a court may order the

funds paid to the United States Treasury.”). McNamee

does not hold otherwise. That case involved a contempt

sanction for a violation of an injunction that prohibited

selling unregistered stock, for which the ordinary civil
46 No. 08-4249

remedy was rescission. 481 F.3d at 457. We reversed

largely because the district court’s sanction failed to

resemble rescission in ways that unduly punished the

contemnor. Id. McNamee never dealt with disgorgement,

nor did it foreclose our belief that fraudsters should not

be “unjustly enriched by retaining some of their

unlawful proceeds by virtue of the fact that they cannot

identify all the consumers entitled to restitution,” Febre,

128 F.3d at 537. As such, to the extent the aggregate

amount reimbursed to consumers is less than Trudeau’s

ill-gotten gains, the district court need not necessarily

require that the excess be returned to Trudeau.

We express no opinion, however, on whether the

district court must include a return-to-contemnor provision should the court find that Trudeau’s unjust enrichment represents only some, or none, of the total

sanction amount. The remainder of the sanction could

be dedicated to redressing consumer losses, and in such

a situation, the logic in McNamee might have more

force. See Kuykendall, 371 F.3d at 756 n.6 (“[A]ny damages

the FTC receives must be distributed to injured consumers and cannot be retained.”). But without knowing

whether some part of the sanction will not correspond

to Trudeau’s ill-gotten gains, it would be premature for

us to decide that issue today. So we won’t.

We remand for the district court to consider how best

to administer a compensatory sanction, should it choose

to impose one.
No. 08-4249 47

B.

Beyond attacking the sanction itself, Trudeau wants

greater procedural safeguards when that sanction is

imposed. Trudeau suggests that on remand he is entitled

to a “neutral factfinder” (presumably a jury or at least a

different district judge) and a proof-beyond-a-reasonabledoubt standard, even if the district court imposes a

valid civil contempt sanction. We disagree.

Trudeau’s argument stems from the Supreme Court’s

decision in Bagwell, where the Court concluded the sanction imposed was punitive and thus required criminal

process. 512 U.S. at 838. In dicta, the Court commented

on procedures that might be necessary in certain civil

contempt cases:

Contempts involving out-of-court disobedience to

complex injunctions often require elaborate and

reliable factfinding. . . . [T]he risk of erroneous

deprivation from the lack of a neutral factfinder

may be substantial. Under these circumstances,

criminal procedural protections such as the rights

to counsel and proof beyond a reasonable doubt

are both necessary and appropriate to protect the

due process rights of parties and prevent the

arbitrary exercise of judicial power.

Id. at 833-34. Trudeau argues that his is a case of “out-ofcourt disobedience to [a] complex injunction[ ]” requiring

nearly all the trimmings of criminal proceedings.

We find more than a few flaws with Trudeau’s reasoning.

First, even Trudeau admits that civil contempt is
48 No. 08-4249

an equitable action, see In re Grand Jury Proceedings

Empanelled May 1988, 894 F.2d 885, 884 (7th Cir. 1989), and

litigants have never been entitled to a jury trial for suits

in equity, Verity, 443 F.3d at 67 (citing Granfiananciera

S.A. v. Nordberg, 492 U.S. 33, 41 (1989)). See also Shillitani,

384 U.S. at 365 (“We hold that the conditional nature

of these sentences renders each of the actions a civil

contempt proceeding, for which indictment and jury

trial are not constitutionally required.”); Daniels v. Pipe

Fitters Ass’n, 113 F.3d 685, 688 (7th Cir. 1997) (“Accused

contemnors are not entitled to jury trials before judges

may enter remedial civil orders.”). Moreover, we have

no indication on this record that the district judge’s

neutrality is compromised. Second, we have never

adopted the dicta in Bagwell and required a more

exacting burden of proof on the complainant in a civil

contempt case. Instead, we have held in countless contempt cases involving violations of injunctions that the

complainant’s burden is one of “clear and convincing

evidence.” E.g., Prima Tek II, 525 F.3d at 542; Autotech, 499

F.3d at 751; Goluba, 45 F.3d at 1037. Third, Trudeau has

never been denied counsel in any proceedings, and in

fact has been ably represented by more than one prestigious Chicago law firm. Absent some live controversy

on this point, we see no need to determine whether

Trudeau has a due process right to counsel in civil contempt proceedings.

Furthermore, we share the Tenth Circuit’s skepticism

of the feasability and fairness of varying the process due

in civil contempt cases on the “complexity” of the injunction at issue. In Kuykendall, 371 F.3d at 754, the Tenth
No. 08-4249 49

Circuit sitting en banc rejected the panel’s decision to

adopt the flexible due process model outlined in

Bagwell. The en banc court concluded that “the panel

decision would . . . create an exception the district courts

would have difficulty applying on many levels, including during the determination of whether an injunction is complex, when a jury is required, and what the

jury’s burden of proof should be.” Id. We echo these

concerns and thus refrain from wholeheartedly

adopting the Court’s dicta in Bagwell at this time.

Even if we did, though, we don’t think the injunction

at issue would trigger the heightened protections.

Trudeau calls his injunction “complex” because the

Consent Order was 29 pages long. But the portion at

issue here was just 14 words: “the infomercial for any

such book . . . must not misrepresent the content of the

book.” A do-not-deceive order is not overly onerous.

That Trudeau continues to flout such orders and face

increasingly stiffer penalties is not a reason to call the

injunction “complex.” Moreover, the specific circumstances of this case alleviate some of the concerns the

Court expressed in Bagwell. Though Trudeau’s violation

occurred out of court, the infomercial recordings and

transcripts enabled the judge to review the offending

conduct first-hand. So we are confident in concluding

that Trudeau is not entitled to any special process on

remand. To be sure, Trudeau is entitled to notice, discovery, and an opportunity to present evidence. See Manez,

533 F.3d at 592; Autotech, 499 F.3d at 746-47; Tranzact Techs.,

Inc. v. 1Source Worldsite, 406 F.3d 851, 855 (7th Cir. 2005).

And Trudeau is entitled to the detailed justification for
50 No. 08-4249

the court’s decision that we outlined above. But the law

does not require more than that for civil contempt sanctions. Should the government or the district court seek

to impose criminal sanctions on remand, a different

measure of due process is required. See FED. R. CRIM. P. 42;

Bagwell, 512 U.S. at 826-27.

IV. The Infomercial Ban

Finally, Trudeau challenges the district court’s three-year

ban on Trudeau appearing in infomercials for any

product, including books and other publications. He

assails the infomercial ban on two grounds, but we

need only address the first. We agree with Trudeau that

the court erred in imposing the ban as a sanction for

civil contempt because it fails to give Trudeau an opportunity to purge. The ban runs for three years regardless

of Trudeau’s compliance with the underlying order not

to misrepresent his books.

Courts have broad discretion to fashion an appropriate

remedy for civil contempt. See Connolly, 851 F.2d at 933;

see also 11A WRIGHT, MILLER & KANE, supra § 2960 (“A

federal court’s discretion includes the power to frame a

sanction to fit the violation.”). But as explained in our

discussion of the monetary penalty, civil contempt sanctions come in two breeds, and two breeds only. They either

compensate those harmed by the contemnor’s violative

conduct or coerce the contemnor to cut it out. Bagwell, 512

U.S. at 828-29; Bailey, 567 F.3d at 933. Otherwise they

are criminal sanctions and require criminal process.

Bagwell, 512 U.S. at 826-27, 831-33, 838.
No. 08-4249 51

The infomercial ban is clearly not compensatory.

Whether it’s coercive is a somewhat closer question. A

coercive sanction seeks to bring the contemnor’s

conduct into compliance with the court’s order. Id. at 829;

In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 280 F.3d at 1107. In this

broad sense, the infomercial ban appears to “coerce”

compliance with the 2004 Consent Order prohibiting

Trudeau from misrepresenting the content of his books.

Trudeau can’t produce or participate in deceptive

infomercials if he can’t produce or participate in any

infomercials at all. However, the Supreme Court has

made clear that an essential ingredient to any coercive

contempt sanction is the opportunity to purge. Bagwell,

512 U.S. at 829 (citing Penfield, 330 U.S. at 590). A

“purgeable” sanction is one that allows the contemnor

to free himself of the sanction “by committing an affirmative act,” namely complying with the court’s order. Id.

at 828. “[A] per diem fine imposed for each day a

contemnor fails to comply with an affirmative court

order” is a purgeable sanction. Id. at 829. So is a fixed fine

if “imposed and suspended pending future compliance.”

Id. (citing United Mine Workers, 330 U.S. at 307). Even

imprisonment can be considered coercive, and thus not

criminal, if the contemnor can obtain his release through

compliance. See Gompers, 221 U.S. at 442. But “[t]o the

extent that ‘a sanction operates whether or not a party

remains in violation of the court order, it obviously does

not coerce any compliance.’ ” Harris v. City of Philadelphia,

47 F.3d 1311, 1329 (3d Cir. 1995) (quoting In re Magwood,

785 F.2d 1077, 1082 (D.C. Cir. 1986)); see also Lance v.

Plummer, 353 F.2d 585, 592 (5th Cir. 1965) (“[T]he sanction
52 No. 08-4249

cannot be one that does not come to an end when he

repents his past conduct and purges himself.”).

The trouble with the infomercial ban is that it lasts

for three years no matter what Trudeau does. Trudeau

could take all the steps in the world to convince the

FTC and the district court that he will be truthful in

his next infomercial, but even if he offers to read his

book word-for-word and say nothing else, he cannot

free himself of the court’s sanction. Rather, the three-year

ban is like a “prison term[ ] of a definite, pre-determined

length without the contemnor’s ability to purge,” which

we have held is “generally considered punitive and

therefore criminal contempt.” In re Grand Jury Proceedings,

280 F.3d at 1108. Simply put, the infomercial ban is not

purgeable and therefore not a proper coercive contempt

sanction. See Harris, 47 F.3d at 1329 (dismissal of defendant’s motion to modify decree was not civil sanction

because it failed to permit defendant to refile motion

should defendant comply); Lance, 353 F.2d at 592 (order

unconditionally prohibiting deputy sheriff from serving

as law enforcement or peace officer not coercive sanction).

But see Gregory v. Depte, 896 F.2d 31, 34 (3d Cir. 1990)

(upholding injunction limiting quantity of defendant’s

future sales as civil because it coerced compliance with

previous order, of which court had found defendant

in contempt).

The FTC attempts to solve this problem by arguing that

the infomercial ban need not be coercive or compensatory

because it’s not a contempt sanction at all. Rather, in

the FTC’s view, it’s simply a modification of the 2004
No. 08-4249 53

Consent Order brought about by the court’s granting the

FTC’s Rule 60(b) motion to modify the Order. (R. 187.)

We see a couple of problems with this argument. First,

the court never explicitly granted the FTC’s motion to

modify. The court crafted the infomercial ban in its

order on contempt remedies. In fact, the court introduced

the ban in the very same sentence as it imposed the

original $5.1 million fine. FTC v. Trudeau, 572 F. Supp. 2d at

925. The court never discussed the FTC’s motion or Rule

60(b). Instead, the court cited some classic contempt cases,

id. at 925-26 (citing Shillitani, 384 U.S. at 370, and Spallone

v. United States, 487 U.S. 1251, 1255, 1260 (1988) (Marshall,

J., concurring in denial of stay)), and framed the ban as

a vindication of the court’s “inherent power to enforce

its orders,” id. at 925. Modifying a court order and enforcing one are two different things—enforcing a court

order is achieved through contempt. See 11A WRIGHT,

MILLER & KANE, supra, § 2960. Furthermore, the court’s

statements in subsequent proceedings confirm that the

court intended to impose the infomercial ban as a contempt sanction: “This is not a prior restraint the way

we normally look at prior restraints. This is a remedy

for contempt.” (Hr’g Tr. 4, Sept. 2, 2008) (emphasis added).

Second, there wasn’t a peep in the FTC’s motion to

modify about anything like the three-year infomercial

ban the court imposed. The FTC’s motion sought two

changes to the 2004 Order: (1) to require Trudeau to

obtain a $10 million performance bond in connection

with producing any infomercial; and (2) more stringent

compliance reporting requirements. (R. 187.) So we find

it hard to hold that the court simply granted the FTC’s
54 No. 08-4249

motion, when the motion never mentioned the remedy

the court ultimately imposed.

Finally, even if we construed the court’s order as a sua

sponte modification of the Consent Order (though the

district court didn’t construe its order this way and

though the FTC failed to mention this option in its appellate briefing), we still must reverse. It’s true that courts

can on their own motion modify or vacate their decrees

pursuant to Rule 60(b)(5). See O’Sullivan v. City of

Chicago, 396 F.3d 843, 866 n.6 (7th Cir. 2005) (“A district

court need not wait for the parties explicitly to request

such changes; ‘the court can on its own motion vacate’—or

modify—‘the decree pursuant to Rule 60(b)(5).’ ” (quoting

United States v. Bd. of Educ. of Chi., 799 F.2d 281, 297 (7th

Cir. 1986))). However, we see no indication in the

record that Trudeau had any notice that the court was

considering such a broad sanction as an outright ban

on infomercials; the FTC’s motion didn’t give any such

notice. But notice to the defendant is imperative, particularly when the court is considering a stiffer injunction

than the one currently in force or the one proposed in a

party’s motion to modify. See W. Water Mgmt., Inc. v.

Brown, 40 F.3d 105, 109 (5th Cir. 1994) (notice required

for modification of injunction imposed sua sponte, despite

defendants’ motion for relief from injunction, because

modification was more stringent than relief defendants

requested). So in short we cannot construe the ban as

arising from some modification of the 2004 Consent

Order; rather the court imposed it as a sanction for Trudeau’s contempt.
No. 08-4249 55

Though we might be able to modify the infomercial

ban on our own to fashion a proper coercive contempt

remedy, see Lance, 353 F.2d at 592 (modifying order to

incorporate purge provision allowing ex-deputy sheriff

to be reinstated as law enforcement or peace officer

upon district court’s satisfaction that ex-deputy was no

longer in violation of original order and would in good

faith comply with order), we decline to do so here. The

district court is in a better position to fashion an appropriate coercive remedy, should it choose to do so on

remand. The court could also, of course, choose to impose

a criminal sanction instead. Or the district court could

modify the Consent Order, on motion from the FTC or on

its own motion, provided it give Trudeau sufficient

notice and an opportunity to be heard on the matter. But

it cannot impose a non-purgeable, three-year penalty as

a civil contempt sanction. Accordingly, we vacate the

infomercial ban and remand.

V. Conclusion

We AFFIRM the district court’s finding Trudeau in

contempt of the 2004 Consent Order. However, we

VACATE the monetary sanction and the infomercial ban

and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with

this opinion. 

8-27-09