Supreme Court won’t hear $40 million sanctions case against supplement maker

Hi-Tech Pharmaceuticals Inc. has exhausted its appeals in a long-running battle with the federal government—and it will cost the supplement company dearly.

Josh Long, Associate editorial director, SupplySide Supplement Journal

November 2, 2020

2 Min Read
SupplySide Supplement Journal logo in a gray background | SupplySide Supplement Journal

A manufacturer of dietary supplements and two individuals are on the hook for $40 million in sanctions for violating a 2008 court injunction by failing to support advertising statements with “competent and reliable scientific evidence.”

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday denied a petition for a writ of certiorari filed by Hi-Tech Pharmaceuticals Inc. and several others.

Through its refusal to hear the case, the nation’s highest court left undisturbed a 2019 federal appeals court ruling, which upheld a previous order that imposed $40 million in sanctions against Hi-Tech, its president Jared Wheat and a sales executive, Stephen Smith. A fourth defendant was ordered to pay $120,000 in sanctions after being found in contempt for violating a separate injunction.

The hefty sanctions were re-imposed in 2017 after years of litigation between Hi-Tech and the Federal Trade Commission over advertisement statements that touted four fat-burning and weight loss products. After conducting a bench trial, Federal Senior Judge Charles A. Pannell Jr. concluded in 2017 that the defendants lacked the necessary evidence—specifically randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials—to support their advertising statements.

In FTC’s civil action against Hi-Tech, Wheat and Smith, the judge explained the sanctions he imposed corresponded to the gross receipts for the sales of four weight loss products over a period in which the defendants “engaged in contumacious conduct."

Related:Appeals court affirms $40 million in sanctions against dietary supplement maker

“The court recognizes that the compensatory sanctions are significant, but so, too, was the defendants’ contumacious conduct," Pannell wrote in his 132-page order in 2017. “While the defendants essentially claim that several of the violations were honest mistakes, the record is replete with evidence—both direct and circumstantial—showing an intentional defiance of the court’s injunctions."

In 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit upheld Pannell's order and denied a request for a rehearing en banc, which prompted Hi-Tech to seek review with the Supreme Court.

Neither Wheat nor Anne Voigts, a lawyer who filed the petition with the Supreme Court, immediately commented on Tuesday's decision in response to a reporter's email. An FTC spokesman declined to comment.

 

About the Author

Josh Long

Associate editorial director, SupplySide Supplement Journal , Informa Markets Health and Nutrition

Josh Long directs the online news, feature and op-ed coverage at SupplySide Supplement Journal (formerly known as Natural Products Insider), which targets the health and wellness industry. He has been reporting on developments in the dietary supplement industry for over a decade, with a focus on regulatory issues, including at the Food and Drug Administration.

He has moderated and/or presented at industry trade shows, including SupplySide East, SupplySide West, Natural Products Expo West, NBJ Summit and the annual Dietary Supplement Regulatory Summit.

Connect with Josh on LinkedIn and ping him with story ideas at [email protected]

Education and previous experience

Josh majored in journalism and graduated from Arizona State University the same year "Jake the Snake" Plummer led the Sun Devils to the Rose Bowl against the Ohio State Buckeyes. He also holds a J.D. from the University of Wyoming College of Law, was admitted in 2008 to practice law in the state of Colorado and spent a year clerking for a state district court judge.

Over more than a quarter century, he’s written on various topics for newspapers and business-to-business publications – from the Yavapai in Arizona and a controversial plan for a nuclear-waste incinerator in Idaho to nuanced issues, including FDA enforcement of the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA).

Since the late 1990s, his articles have been published in a variety of media, including but not limited to, the Cape Cod Times (in Massachusetts), Sedona Red Rock News (in Arizona), Denver Post (in Colorado), Casper Star-Tribune (in Wyoming), now-defunct Jackson Hole Guide (in Wyoming), Colorado Lawyer (published by the Colorado Bar Association) and Nutrition Business Journal.

Subscribe for the latest consumer trends, trade news, nutrition science and regulatory updates in the supplement industry!
Join 37,000+ members. Yes, it's completely free.

You May Also Like