TRO Blocks Deceptive Claims That Drug Card Would Provide Free Drugs
Client Alert | 1 min read | 10.29.05
by Linda Lavache
A Washington district court issued a temporary restraining order and asset freeze against MyFreeMedicine.com and its owner, Geoffrey J. Hassler (collectively, “Defendants”) for deceptively claiming their drug card program, targeted at low income consumers, would provide free prescription medications. The FTC filed a complaint against MyFreeMedicine on September 20, and the injunction followed. FTC v. MyFreeMedicine.com, LLC, No. CV-05-1607 (W.D. Wash. Oct 17, 2005).
The FTC complaint alleges that Defendants' television and radio ads urged low income consumers without insurance to call a toll free number to see if obtain free medications if they are eligible. Defendants' sales representatives allegedly told calling consumers, without checking on their eligibility, that, if they joined Defendants' $199.95 program, they would receive free prescription medications. Defendants also allegedly asserted that they worked directly with pharmaceutical companies and the government, and promised a refund if the consumer could not obtain his or her medication for free through the program. The FTC complaint contends that rather than provide consumers with free prescription medications, “Defendants' program consists only of selling consumers [drug company patient assistance program] application forms.” The complaint also alleges that Defendants refused to provide refunds to consumers.
The District Court for the Western District of Washington issued a temporary restraining order against Defendants, finding that there was good cause to believe that Defendants engaged in, and would likely continue to engage in, acts and practices that violate Section 5(a) of the Federal Trade Commission Act. The district court also ordered a freeze of the Defendants' assets and ordered Defendants to repatriate all Defendants' foreign assets.
Insights
Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.12.25
Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality
On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument.
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.11.25
Director Squires Revamps the Workings of the U.S. Patent Office
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.10.25
Creativity You Can Use: CJEU Clarifies Copyright for Applied Art
Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.10.25
Federal Court Strikes Down Interior Order Suspending Wind Energy Development
