Q-Ray Ordered to Forfeit Profits, Refund Consumers

WASHINGTON—A federal court has ruled in favor of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in its case against the marketers of the Q-Ray ionized bracelet, ordering the defendants to turn over $22.5 million in profits and refund up to $87 million to its customers. Following a bench trial held earlier this summer, the court issued its decision Sept 8, finding advertising by Que Te (Andrew) Park and his companies was false and misleading in representing that the bracelet provides immediate, significant, and/or complete pain relief, and that scientific tests proved that it relieves pain. The court also found that the defendants deceptively advertised their refund policy.

While the court has not issued its final judgment on penalty, it established the monetary profit seizure and refund amounts, and promised to impose a permanent injunction to prevent them from engaging in such deceptive conduct in the future.

“This is an egregious example of false advertising,” said Lydia Parnes, director of the FTC Bureau of Consumer Protection. “These defendants lied about the so-called medicinal benefits of their product, and deceived people in pain. The judgment against them is a real victory for all consumers.”

In its original May 2003 case, FTC alleged the defendants had misrepresented that the Q-Ray ionized bracelet “provides immediate significant or complete relief from various types of pain, including, but not limited to, musculoskeletal pain, sciatic pain, persistent headaches, sinus problems, tendinitis, or injuries,” and that “tests prove that the Q-Ray bracelet relieves pain.”

It also accused the defendants of misrepresenting its 30-day guarantee program and refund policy.

At that time, the court found that defendants QT Inc., Q-Ray Co., and Bio-Metal Inc., located in Illinois, and their owner, Park, had engaged in misleading and false advertising in violation of Sections 5 and 12 of the FTC Act. The court did not find defendant Jung Joo Park (Que Te Park’s wife) liable.

For more on the court’s decision and the case’s history, visit www.ftc.gov/opa/2006/09/qray.htm.

Editor’s note: For more on the possible ramifications of the Q-Ray decision, see Marc Ullman’s analysis, page 116.