Opinion ID: 768048
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Amount of Refund Needed to Redress Injury

Text: 39 Michael Chierico challenges the district court's $7.2 million valuation of the damages caused by his fraudulent telemarketing. He argues that the FTC's evidence supports, at best, several thousand dollars in damages. Michael Chierico bases this argument on the existence of a full refund policy, coupled with the FTC's failure to show that the complaining businesses did not receive toner, or did not use the toner they received. We review the district court's assessment of contempt sanctions for an abuse of discretion. See Jove Eng'g, Inc. v. Internal Revenue Serv., 92 F.3d 1539, 1559 (11th Cir.1996). 40 [T]here can be no 'equity' in a compensatory award except as it provides a fair equivalent for some loss. Gregory, 896 F.2d at 35 (quoting National Drying Mach. Co. v. Ackoff, 245 F.2d 192, 195 (3d Cir.1957)). While it may be true that the defrauded businesses received a useful product, and though less likely, they may have even received the product at a competitive price, 12 the central issue here is whether the seller's misrepresentations tainted the customer's purchasing decisions. See Figgie, 994 F.2d at 606. Weagree with the Ninth Circuit in Figgie that in cases like this, [t]he fraud in the selling, not the value of the thing sold, is what entitles consumers in this case to full refunds ... for each [product] that is not useful to them. Id. 13 Accordingly, we affirm the district court's assessment of damages in the amount of gross sales.