- Report: #1119031
Report - Rebuttal - Arbitrate
Complaint Review: QRAY
QRAYP.O BOX 9 ARLINGTON HEIGHTS, Illinois USA
QRAY Trademark Licensing Corp., Ion-Ray Co. LtdQT, Inc. QRAY RIPPED ME OFF FOR $199.00 - THE FTC RECEIVED JUDGEMENT FOR $11 MILLION DOLLARS ARLINGTON HEIGHTS Illinois
A business' first
line of defense
on the Internet.
If your business is
willing to make a
Click here now..
Per my discussion this morning with Tracy, I am forwarding you my request and demand for a full refund of the purchase price of my defective product. I provided you all my information and requested a call from Mr. Park and/or your attorneys to resolve this matter, and I reiterate that request once again. If by the end of business on 1/27/14 I do not receive a call or contact from either Mr. Park or your attorneys, you will leave me with no other alternative but to go ahead and proceed as promised to file a complaint with the FTC, Better Business Bureau, and EVERY other resource available to me. Please call me at 650-245-1343 to resolve this matter. As I stated above, if you choose to avoid trying to resolve this matter in a reasonable and fair way, you alone will be the party responsible for the outcome. I respectfully and sincerely hope you make a good choice - certainly better than the bad choice you made appealing the court's ruling to uphold the judgement that you are required to pay over $11 million dollars as a result of false advertising. For the record, this is not a "money issue" to me. This is about being responsible and honest in your business dealings - which QRay clearly has not done. The ball is clearly and squarely in your court - I hope you make the fair and correct business decision. I look forward to your timely reply... Sincerely, Peter Brewster. FOR THE RECORD: I DO NOT WANT TO OWN OR HAVE ANYTHING FURTHER TO DO WITH YOUR COMPANY ONCE THIS MATTER IS RESOLVED. I will make you a one time offer that is good until 5:00 p.m. P.S.T January 27, 2014. In an attempt to be reasonable and fair, I will "meet you half way" and accept a refund for half the purchase price of my defective and fraudulent bracelet. Therefore, Q-RAY will issue me a check for$100.00 immediately - I will sign a release stating we have resolved this matter in it's entirety - and will conclude our business. I will not negotiate any further about this matter. This is a "TAKE IT OR LEAVE IT - ONE TIME ONLY OFFER"!
Appeals Court Affirms Ruling in FTCs Favor in Q-Ray Bracelet Case
January 7, 2008
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has upheld a district court ruling requiring marketers of the “Q-Ray Ionized Bracelet” to give up almost $16 million in net profits as part of a maximum $87 million they must pay in refunds to consumers.
In a decision issued on January 3 and written by Chief Judge Frank Easterbrook, the court concluded, “The magistrate judge did not commit a clear error, or abuse his discretion, in concluding that the defendants set out to bilk unsophisticated persons who found themselves in pain from arthritis and other chronic conditions.” The court found that the defendants’ claims about how their product worked, for example, through “ionization” or “enhancing the flow of bio-energy” were “blather.” Judge Easterbrook wrote, “Defendants might as well have said: Beneficent creatures from the 17th Dimension use this bracelet as a beacon to locate people who need pain relief, and whisk them off to their homeworld every night to provide help in ways unknown to our science.”
The FTC filed its case in May 2003, alleging that QT Inc., Q-Ray Company, and Bio-Metal, Inc., located in Illinois, and their owner, Que Te Park, also known as Andrew Q. Park, made false and misleading advertising claims that the Q-Ray bracelet provided immediate and significant pain relief and deceptively advertised their refund policy, in violation of Sections 5 and 12 of the FTC Act. In September 2006, the federal district court in Chicago found in favor of the FTC. In November 2006, the court required the defendants to turn over a minimum of $22.5 million in net profits and up to $87 million in refunds to consumers who bought the bracelets between January 1, 2000 and June 30, 2003, when the bracelet was advertised on infomercials and Internet Web sites, and at trade shows. The district court later reduced the minimum disgorgement amount to $15.9 million, which the appellate court has upheld.
The appellate court rejected the defendants’ argument that the magistrate judge had held the defendants to too high a standard of proof for their purported therapeutic claims about the
bracelet and found that the claims must be based on science. The court found that “proof is what separates an effect new to science from a swindle” and that the defendants “have no proof,” stating that the “tests” the defendants relied on were “bunk.” The court also rejected the defendants’ contention that testimonials could support their claims -- the defendants could not show that the testimonialists would not have enjoyed the same pain relief even if they had not worn the bracelet. “That’s why the ‘testimonial’ of someone who keeps elephants off the streets of a large city by snapping his fingers is the basis of a joke rather than proof of cause and effect,” stated the court.
The appellate court also rejected the defendants’ argument that because their bracelet conferred a benefit to consumers through its placebo effect, they were vindicated in making their false therapeutic claims. The court held that the Federal Trade Commission Act “lacks an exception for ‘beneficial deceit’.” The court noted, “Deceit such as the tall tales that defendants told about the Q-Ray Ionized Bracelet will lead some consumers to avoid treatments that cost less and do more . . .”.
The court also found that the defendants deceived consumers who purchased online and received only a 10-day return period when the infomercials promised a 30-day refund and suggested that consumers purchase online. “The disclosure of this shorter period was buried several clicks away in the web site” and did not ameliorate the infomercial time frame upon which “reasonable consumers” could rely, the court stated.
The Q-Ray defendants are currently in Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
Copies of the decision are available from the FTC’s Web site at http://www.ftc.gov and the FTC’s Consumer Response Center, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20580. The FTC works for the consumer to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, click http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/complaint.shtm or call 1-877-382-4357. The FTC enters Internet, telemarketing, identity theft, and other fraud-related complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 1,600 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. For free information on a variety of consumer topics, clickhttp://ftc.gov/bcp/consumer.shtm.
This report was posted on Ripoff Report on 01/28/2014 12:02 PM and is a permanent record located here: http://www.ripoffreport.com/r/QRAY/ARLINGTON-HEIGHTS-Illinois-60006/QRAY-Trademark-Licensing-Corp-Ion-Ray-Co-LtdQT-Inc-QRAY-RIPPED-ME-OFF-FOR-19900--1119031. The posting time indicated is Arizona local time. Arizona does not observe daylight savings so the post time may be Mountain or Pacific depending on the time of year.
If you would like to see more Rip-off Reports on this company/individual, search here:Search Tips
In order to assure the best results in your search:
- Keep the name short & simple, and try different variations of the name.
- Do not include ".com", "S", "Inc.", "Corp", or "LLC" at the end of the Company name.
- Use only the first/main part of a name to get best results.
- Only search one name at a time if Company has many AKA's.
Advertisers above have met our
strict standards for business conduct.