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 | 3 min read | 06.12.26
DOJ Guidance Backs Away From Disparate Impact Liability
On June 9, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a formal opinion concluding that the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission’s (EEOC) existing interpretations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) disparate-impact liability, including the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP), are unconstitutional. According to the opinion, EEOC’s prior interpretations contemplate liability based on disproportionately adverse effects alone, without regard to an employer’s likely intent, rather than treating disparate impact as an evidentiary mechanism to “smoke out” intentional discrimination. DOJ found that this approach functions as a “qualified racial-proportionality mandate” that places “a racial thumb on the scales, often requiring employers to evaluate the racial outcomes of their policies, and to make decisions based on (because of) those racial outcomes.” The opinion fulfills one mandate of Executive Order 14281, which rejected disparate-impact liability insofar as it “creates a near insurmountable presumption that unlawful discrimination exists wherever there are any differences in outcomes among different [demographic groups].”
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
Auto Dealers: The FTC Is Back in the Driver’s Seat — Warning Letters Signal Renewed Federal Scrutiny
Client Alert | 13 min read | 06.12.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
