Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 05/26/2020 03:42 PM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by H. Flores-Hernandez,Deputy Clerk 20STCV19955 Assigned for all purposes to: Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Judicial Officer: Elizabeth Feffer 1 MICHAEL N. FEUER, Los Angeles City Attorney WILFREDO R. RIVERA, Deputy Chief 2 CHRISTINA V. TUSAN, Supervising DCA, SBN 192203 WILLIAM R. PLETCHER, Deputy City Attorney, SBN 212664 3 MIGUEL J. RUIZ, Deputy City Attorney, SBN 240387 4 CARR A. TEKOSKY, Deputy City Attorney, SBN 293767 ALEX BERGJANS, Deputy City Attorney, SBN 302830 5 REBECCA A. MORSE, Deputy City Attorney, SBN 314853 OFFICE OF THE LOS ANGELES CITY ATTORNEY 6 CRIMINAL AND SPECIAL LITIGATION BRANCH 200 North Main Street, 500 City Hall East 7 Los Angeles, California 90012-4131 Telephone (213) 473-6907 / Facsimile (213) 978-8111 8 email: christina.tusan@lacity.org 9 Attorneys for Plaintiff, the 10 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA [NO FEE - Govt. Code § 6103] 11 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 12 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 13 14 15 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 16 17 18 19 20 21 v. Case No. ____________________ COMPLAINT FOR PERMANENT Plaintiff, INJUNCTION, CIVIL PENALTIES, RESTITUTION, AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF WELLNESS MATRIX GROUP, INC., a Nevada corporation, d/b/a CORONA STOP 28, STOP CORONA 28, CS-28, and VIRASTOP28; GEORGE A. TODT, an individual; BARRY MIGLIORINI, an individual; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, [VERIFIED ANSWER REQUIRED PURSUANT TO CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 446] Defendants. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTION, CIVIL PENALTIES, AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF 1 The People of the State of California (the “People” or “Plaintiff”), by and through their 2 attorney, Michael N. Feuer, City Attorney for the City of Los Angeles, bring this civil law 3 enforcement action against the following Defendants: (1) Wellness Matrix Group, Inc. 4 (“WMGR”), doing business as, and also known as, CoronaStop28.com, StopCorona28.com, CS5 28.com, and ViraStop28.com; (2) George A. Todt (“Todt”); and (3) Barry Migliorini 6 (“Migliorini” and collectively with WMGR and Todt, “Defendants”). Plaintiff alleges the 7 following on information and belief: 8 INTRODUCTION 9 1. Over the past three months, while Los Angeles and the rest of the country made 10 significant sacrifices and took difficult steps to respond to and slow the spread of COVID-19,1 11 Defendants built and profited from multiple business scams, including the sale of fraudulent “at12 home” COVID-19 tests and COVID-19 “disinfectants,” designed to take advantage of, and 13 profit from, the fear, anxiety, and misinformation arising from the global pandemic. This is a 14 civil law enforcement action to halt, penalize, and obtain restitution for consumers from 15 Defendants’ for their unfair, fraudulent, unlawful, and dangerous business practices. 16 2. Defendants’ fraudulent scheme is sophisticated and wide ranging: it involves 17 complex coordination between multiple companies, websites, distribution channels, and the 18 actions of many individuals. This is not a mere misguided attempt to bring useful products to 19 consumers during this pandemic. Defendants have acted in a manner that puts the health and 20 lives of Californians at risk in order to cash in from the sale of fraudulent products during a 21 public health crisis. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 On March 4, 2020, the City of Los Angeles, the County of Los Angeles, and the State of California all declared a public health emergency related to SARS-CoV-2, the novel coronavirus which causes COVID-19, to help protect public health from this serious pandemic. On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization recognized the spread of COVID-19 as a global pandemic. Symptoms of COVID-19 can include high fever, sharp cough, and shortness of breath or breathing difficulty. In some cases, COVID-19 quickly progresses to pneumonia, Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS), kidney failure, and other serious life-threatening complications. To date, the COVID-19 pandemic has been particularly dangerous—even deadly—for the elderly and those with other pre-existing conditions, although all age groups have been impacted. 1 COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTION, CIVIL PENALTIES, AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF 1 3. In late February, consumer demand for COVID-19 diagnostic tests and for 2 household and industrial cleaning products that could disinfect surfaces and fabrics began to 3 increase. In response, Defendants’ advertised, sold or attempted to sell through multiple 4 commercial channels “at-home” serology test kits for the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus and a suite 5 of purported anti-COVID-19 “disinfectants” under the “CoronaStop28” and related brand 6 names, in sizes ranging from 2-oz. bottles for personal use to 55-gallon drums for large-scale 7 disinfection operations. 8 4. To sell these products, Defendants made a number of false claims and 9 representations designed to communicate to consumers that the products were approved and 10 endorsed by the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”), the Environmental Protection Agency 11 ("EPA”), and leading scientific experts. Defendants did not stop at just making false 12 statements; they attached irrelevant or false government registration numbers to their products 13 and fabricated phony scientific studies and white papers purporting to substantiate their value. 14 5. Defendants advertised that their “at-home” COVID-19 test kits were approved by 15 the FDA, the federal agency that regulates the sale of medical devices, such as medical test kits. 16 Under the law, a manufacturer’s at-home test kit cannot lawfully be sold in California or 17 anywhere else in the United States unless it has FDA approval. Contrary to Defendants’ false 18 claims and advertising, the FDA never approved Defendants’ “at-home” test kit. To date, the 19 FDA has approved no “at-home” serology test kits. But Defendants continued to make these 20 false claims in order to sell “at-home” test kits in California, including in the City of Los 21 Angeles. 22 6. Defendants have engaged in similar fraudulent practices in order to sell their 23 COVID-19 disinfectants. Like medical tests and devices, the sale of disinfectants is regulated 24 by the state and federal government. The EPA and the California Department of Pesticide 25 Registration (“CDPR”) regulate the sale of disinfectant products classified as pesticides, 26 including those designed to mitigate the spread of SARS-CoV-2. Unless a disinfectant product 27 is registered on the EPA’s “List N: Disinfectants for Use Against SARS-CoV-2” (“List N”) and 28 separately registered with the CDPR, it cannot be sold in California. None of the disinfectant 2 COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTION, CIVIL PENALTIES, AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF 1 products marketed and sold by Defendants appear on List N, nor are they registered with 2 CDPR. Worse, the “EPA registration numbers” Defendants associate with their CoronaStop28 3 products are fraudulent. 4 7. Defendants have made numerous additional false claims to tout their unapproved 5 and unregistered products. They have falsely claimed that their disinfectants are “EPA6 approved.” Defendants falsely claim their CoronaStop28 products can be applied to human 7 skin, and falsely claim that their disinfectants are non-toxic and “environmentally friendly.” 8 8. Defendants also include in their advertisements and marketing materials a purported 9 “scientific” research paper, ostensibly authored by a distinguished researcher and professor of 10 medicine, which states that the CoronaStop28 products continue to “kill virus” for up to 28 days 11 after application, among many other false and misleading claims regarding the effectiveness of 12 their disinfectants. The purported authors did not write the paper and have never performed any 13 testing on CoronaStop28 or related products. The paper is a pure work of fiction; Defendants 14 made up the study and simply stole the researchers’ names and credentials to fraudulently 15 bolster their product. 16 9. Defendants’ shocking deceptive conduct is far from harmless. A consumer scam 17 like this compounds the dangers and damage of the COVID-19 pandemic by spreading 18 misinformation and creating confusion. 19 10. Whenever consumers are motivated even in part by fear and anxiety, they are 20 particularly vulnerable to deceptive practices and to those who would prey on those fears to 21 persuade the consumers to seek protections, such as Defendants’ falsely advertised and 22 fraudulent tests and disinfectant products. 23 11. The consequences and damage caused by Defendants’ fraudulent enterprise extends 24 far beyond financial harm to consumers duped by Defendants’ false advertisements. An 25 asymptomatic COVID-19 carrier could decide to visit his elderly parents after falsely testing 26 negative on Defendants’ unapproved “at-home” test kit and unknowingly transmit the virus. A 27 well-meaning small business owner could neglect to clean infected surfaces in her store because 28 she is relying on Defendants’ false representation that the CoronaStop28 products keep killing 3 COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTION, CIVIL PENALTIES, AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF 1 the virus for four weeks after application. Defendants’ unlawful business practices are more 2 than a scam: they are a threat to public health. 3 12. In this emergency, consumers require—and under California law are entitled to— 4 accurate, reliable, and truthful information about COVID-19, including on testing, treatments, 5 disinfecting products, and cures. The health, and even the lives, of California consumers 6 depend on it. In this law enforcement action, the People seek an order permanently enjoining 7 Defendants from engaging in false advertising and other unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent 8 practices, and request restitution to California consumers as appropriate, civil penalties, and all 9 other relief available under California law. 10 11 PARTIES 13. Plaintiff, the People of the State of California (the “People” or “Plaintiff”), is the 12 sovereign power of the State of California (Gov. Code § 100), authorized to enforce Business 13 and Professions Code section 17200 et seq. (“Unfair Competition Law” or “UCL”) and Business 14 and Professions Code section 17500 et seq. (“False Advertising Law” or “FAL”) in civil law 15 enforcement actions. The People have an interest in ensuring that the individuals and entities 16 doing business in this state comply with all applicable laws. The People act here by and through 17 Michael N. Feuer, Los Angeles City Attorney, under the authority granted to them by Business 18 and Professions Code sections 17204, 17206, 17508, 17535, and 17536. 19 14. Defendant Wellness Matrix Group, Inc. (“WMGR”) is a Nevada corporation, 20 headquartered and with its principal place of business in Huntington Beach, California. 21 Incorporated in 2009, defendant WMGR represents that it is a “next generation health and 22 wellness platform” that provides “personalized biometric data analytics.” On February 24, 2020, 23 WMGR filed a Form 10 with the intent of registering its common stock with the Securities and 24 Exchange Commission (“SEC”). WMGR, and/or its agents, representatives, and/or co25 conspirators occasionally do business as CoronaStop, CoronaStopper, CoronaStoppers, 26 CoronaStop 28, CS-28, StopCorona 28, and other related names. WMGR also markets and sells 27 an “at-home” COVID-19 test and coronavirus-related disinfectant products through multiple 28 distribution channels. At all relevant times, WMGR has transacted business in California, 4 COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTION, CIVIL PENALTIES, AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF 1 including in Los Angeles City and County. 2 15. Defendant George A. Todt (“Todt”) is an individual and a resident of Marina Del 3 Rey, California. At all relevant times, Todt has transacted business in California, including in 4 Los Angeles City and County. Todt is the Director of Business Affairs for WMGR and an owner 5 of WMGR through his ownership stake in and role as a Manager of Chanzong Huayan, LLC, an 6 entity that owns 300 million shares of WMGR common stock, which constitutes 82.75% of 7 WMGR common stock. Defendant Todt is also the brother of WMGR’s Chief Financial Officer 8 David Todt. Todt has admitted to doing “business development” for WMGR. At all times 9 relevant to this Complaint, Todt was acting as an agent of WMGR, including but not limited to 10 directly making misrepresentations on Defendants’ behalf to residents of Los Angeles on a Los 11 Angeles-based radio program regarding Defendants’ fraudulent test kits and disinfectant 12 products. 13 16. Defendant Barry Migliorini (“Migliorini”) is an individual and resident of 14 Fountain Valley, California. At all relevant times, Migliorini has transacted business in 15 California, including in Los Angeles City and County. Migliorini is WMGR’s CEO and is a 16 director of the company with effective voting control on a fully diluted basis. At all times 17 relevant to this Complaint, Migliorini was acting as an agent of WMGR. 18 17. Defendants sued herein as Does 1 through 20, inclusive, are presently unknown 19 to the People, who therefore sue these unknown Defendants by such fictitious names. When the 20 true names and capacities of any unknown Defendants have been ascertained, the People will 21 ask leave of the Court to amend this Complaint and to insert in lieu of such fictitious names the 22 true names and capacities of any fictitiously named Defendants. The People are informed and 23 believe that Does 1 through 20 participated in, and are responsible for, the wrongful conduct 24 alleged in this Complaint. 25 18. Each Defendant is a “person” within the meaning of Business and Professions 26 Code sections 17506 and 17201. 27 19. Whenever this Complaint refers to “Defendants,” it includes any and all 28 Defendants named in paragraphs 14 through 17 of this Complaint. 5 COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTION, CIVIL PENALTIES, AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF 1 20. At all relevant times, some or all Defendants acted as the agent of the others, and 2 all Defendants acted within the scope of their agency if acting as an agent of another. 3 21. At all relevant times, Defendants together comprised an “organization of 4 persons” within the meaning of Business and Professions Code section 17201, in that they 5 associated together for the common purpose of engaging in a course of unlawful, unfair, and 6 fraudulent business acts and practices as alleged herein. 7 22. At all relevant times, each Defendant acted individually and jointly with every 8 other Defendant in committing the acts alleged to have been committed by “Defendants” in this 9 Complaint. 10 23. At all relevant times, each Defendant acted: (a) as a principal; (b) under express 11 or implied agency; and/or (c) with actual or ostensible authority to perform the acts alleged in 12 this Complaint on behalf of every other Defendant. 13 24. At all relevant times, each Defendant knew or realized, or should have known or 14 realized, that the other Defendants were engaging in or planned to engage in the violations of 15 law alleged in this Complaint. Knowing or realizing that the other Defendants were engaging in 16 such unlawful conduct, each Defendant nevertheless facilitated the commission of those 17 unlawful acts. Each Defendant intended to and did encourage, facilitate, or assist in the 18 commission of the unlawful acts, and thereby aided and abetted the other Defendants in the 19 unlawful conduct. 20 25. Defendants have engaged in a conspiracy, common enterprise, and common 21 course of conduct, the purpose of which was and is to engage in the violations of law alleged in 22 this Complaint. The conspiracy, common enterprise, and common course of conduct continue 23 to the present. 24 25 JURISDICTION AND VENUE 26. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to Business 26 and Professions Code sections 17203, 17204, 17206, 17500, 17508, 17535, and 17536. 27 27. This Court has personal jurisdiction over each of the Defendants pursuant to 28 California Constitution, Article VI, section 10, and California Code of Civil Procedure section 6 COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTION, CIVIL PENALTIES, AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF 1 410.10 in that each Defendant that is a corporation that advertises to and does substantial 2 business in California; Defendant Todt is an individual who resides in California and who has 3 publicly touted Defendants’ test kits and disinfectants through a radio program in Los Angeles; 4 Defendant Migliorini is an individual who resides in California and who has done substantial 5 business in California and Los Angeles; Defendants have purposely availed themselves of the 6 benefits of doing business in this state and in Los Angeles City and County; and Defendants’ 7 violations of law alleged herein occurred, in whole or in part, in this state. 8 28. The violations of law alleged in this Complaint occurred in Los Angeles City and 9 County and throughout the State of California. Venue for this matter properly lies within Los 10 Angeles County because the violations of law alleged in this Complaint occurred, in whole or in 11 part, in Los Angeles County. 12 13 I. 14 STATUTORY BACKGROUND THE UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW 29. Business and Professions Code section 17200 provides that “unfair competition 15 shall mean and include unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business practice.” 16 30. Business and Professions Code section 17203 provides that “(a)ny person 17 performing or proposing to perform an act of unfair competition within this state may be 18 enjoined in any court of competent jurisdiction.” Section 17203 also permits recovery of any 19 “interest in money or property, real or personal” acquired by a violation of the Unfair 20 Competition Law. 21 31. Business and Professions Code section 17206, subdivision (a), provides that any 22 person violating section 17200 “shall be liable for a civil penalty not to exceed two thousand 23 five hundred dollars ($2,500) for each violation, which shall be assessed and recovered in a civil 24 action brought in the name of the people of the State of California . . . by any city attorney of a 25 city having a population in excess of 750,000.” 26 32. Under Business and Professions Code section 17205, these remedies and penalties 27 are “cumulative to each other and to the remedies or penalties available under all other laws of 28 this state.” 7 COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTION, CIVIL PENALTIES, AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF 1 II. 2 THE FALSE ADVERTISING LAW 33. Business and Professions Code section 17500 provides that it is unlawful for any 3 person “with the intent directly or indirectly to dispose of real or personal property . . . to make 4 or disseminate or cause to be made . . . any statement, concerning that real or personal property . 5 . . which is untrue or misleading, and which is known, or which by the exercise of reasonable 6 care should be known, to be untrue or misleading.” 7 34. Business and Professions Code section 17535 authorizes “any city attorney” to 8 seek an injunction to prevent such untrue or misleading statements, and to provide restitution for 9 victims of such statements. 10 35. Business and Professions Code section 17536 provides that any person violating 11 section 17500 “shall be liable for a civil penalty not to exceed two thousand five hundred dollars 12 ($2,500) for each violation, which shall be assessed and recovered in a civil action brought in the 13 name of the people of the State of California . . . by any . . . city attorney.” These civil penalties 14 are cumulative to those obtained under Section 17200. 15 III. THE SHERMAN FOOD, DRUG, AND COSMETIC LAW 16 36. Health and Safety Code section 109875 et seq. (the “Sherman Food, Drug, and 17 Cosmetic Law” or “Sherman Law”) regulates the advertising, manufacture, and sale of drugs and 18 medical devices in California (including incorporation of relevant federal standards). 19 37. Health and Safety Code section 109920 defines “device” as “any instrument, 20 apparatus, implement, machine, contrivance, implant, in vitro reagent, or other similar or related 21 article, including any component, part, or accessory, that is . . . (b) [i]ntended for use in the 22 diagnosis of disease or other condition, or in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of 23 disease in humans or any other animal.” 24 38. Health and Safety Code section 109925 defines “drug” as, inter alia, “an article 25 used or intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in 26 human beings or any other animal” or “an article other than food, that is used or intended to 27 affect the structure or any function of the body of human beings or any other animal.” 28 39. Health and Safety Code section 109948.1 defines “home medical device,” in 8 COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTION, CIVIL PENALTIES, AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF 1 relevant part, as “a device intended for use in a home care setting including, but not limited to... 2 (4) Respiratory disease management devices . . . (11) [d]isposable medical supplies [and] (12) In 3 vitro diagnostic tests.” (Health & Saf. Code § 109948.1 (b).) 4 40. Under California law, “[a]ny drug or device is misbranded if its labeling is false 5 or misleading in any particular.” (Health & Saf. Code § 111330.) It is unlawful for any person to 6 manufacture, sell, deliver, hold, or offer for sale any drug or device that is misbranded (Health & 7 Saf. Code § 111440), or to “sell, deliver, or give away any new drug or device” out of 8 compliance with federal or state regulations governing the approval of new drug and device 9 applications. (Health & Saf. Code § 111550.) 10 41. “It is unlawful for any person to disseminate any false advertisement of any . . . 11 drug, [or] device . . . An advertisement is false if it is false or misleading in any particular.” 12 (Health & Saf. Code § 110390.) 13 42. It is unlawful for any person to manufacture, sell, deliver, hold, or offer for sale 14 any drug or device that is falsely advertised. (Health & Saf. Code § 110395.) 15 43. It is unlawful for any person to advertise any drug or device that is misbranded. 16 (Health & Saf. Code § 110398.) 17 IV. 18 THE FEDERAL INSECTICIDE, FUNGICIDE AND RODENTICIDE ACT 44. The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (“FIFRA”) governs the 19 registration, distribution, sale and use of pesticides, which includes disinfectants, in the United 20 States. (7 U.S.C. § 136 et seq.) 21 45. “Pesticides” are defined under FIFRA as “any substance or mixture of substances 22 intended for preventing, destroying, repelling, or mitigating any pest.” (7 U.S.C. § 136(u).) The 23 definition of “pests” includes “any . . . virus,” except for viruses that are on or inside human 24 beings or animals. (7 U.S.C. § 136(t).) 25 46. FIFRA prohibits the sale or distribution of pesticides that are unregistered, 26 misbranded (e.g., their labeling lacks required elements such as warnings, directions for use, an 27 ingredient statement, or includes false or misleading claims, etc.), and the sale or distribution of 28 registered pesticides with claims that substantially differ from those allowed under the terms of 9 COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTION, CIVIL PENALTIES, AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF 1 their registration. (7 U.S.C. §§ 136a(a), 136j.) 2 47. FIFRA also prohibits the sale of misbranded pesticide devices. (7 U.S.C. § 136j.) 3 A pesticide is misbranded, among other things, if “its labeling bears any statement, design, or 4 graphic representation relative thereto or to its ingredients which is false or misleading in any 5 particular” or “it is an imitation of, or is offered for sale under the name of, another pesticide.” 6 (7 U.S.C. § 136(q).) 7 48. The EPA interprets these prohibitions “as extending to advertisements in any 8 advertising medium to which pesticide users or the general public have access.” (40 C.F.R. § 9 168.22.) 10 V. 11 THE CALIFORNIA FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL CODE—PESTICIDE REGULATIONS 49. The California Food and Agricultural Code governs the registration, distribution, 12 sale and use of pesticides, which includes disinfectants, in California. (Food & Agr. Code § 13 12751, et seq.) 14 50. “Pesticides” are defined in the Food and Agricultural Code as including “(a) any 15 spray adjuvant” and “(b) any substance, or mixture of substances which is intended to be used. . . 16 for preventing, destroying, repelling, or mitigating any pest, as defined in Section 12754.5.” 17 (Food & Agr. Code § 12753 (a)-(b).) The definition of “pests” includes “[a]ny form of . . . virus, 18 fungus, bacteria, or other microorganism (except viruses, fungi, bacteria, or other 19 microorganisms on or in living man or other living animals).” (Food & Agr. Code § 12754.5.) 20 51. The Food and Agricultural Code prohibits the manufacture, sale or distribution of 21 “…any pesticide or any substance or mixture of substances that is represented to be a 22 pesticide…which is not registered pursuant to this chapter…” (Food & Agr. Code § 12993.) 23 52. The Food and Agricultural Code also bars the sale of misbranded pesticides, and 24 states that a pesticide is misbranded if “(a) the package or label bears any false or misleading 25 statement, design, or device regarding the article or any ingredient or substance that is contained 26 in it” or if “(d) it is labeled or branded so as to deceive or mislead the purchaser.” (Food & Agr. 27 Code § 12881.) 28 // 10 COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTION, CIVIL PENALTIES, AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF 1 VI. 2 CALIFORNIA’S GREENWASHING LAW 53. Business and Professions Code section 17580.5 makes it “unlawful for any person 3 to make any untruthful, deceptive, or misleading environmental marketing claim, whether 4 explicit or implied.” The law provides that “[f]or the purpose of this section, ‘environmental 5 marketing claim’ shall include any claim contained in the ‘Guides for the Use of Environmental 6 Marketing Claims’ published by the Federal Trade Commission” (the “Guides”). 7 54. The Guides specify that it “is deceptive to misrepresent, directly or by 8 implication, that a product . . . or service is non-toxic,” and “[n]on-toxic claims should be clearly 9 and prominently qualified to the extent necessary to avoid deception.” The Guides further 10 specify that a “non-toxic claim likely conveys that a product . . . or service is non-toxic both for 11 humans and for the environment generally,” and thus “marketers making non-toxic claims 12 should have competent and reliable scientific evidence that the product, package, or service is 13 non-toxic for humans and for the environment” and “should clearly and prominently qualify their 14 claims to avoid deception.” (16 C.F.R. § 260.10(a), (b) (2009).) 15 55. The Guides also specify that it “is deceptive to misrepresent, directly or by 16 implication, that a product, package, or service has been endorsed or certified by an independent 17 third party,” and any “marketer’s use of the name, logo, or seal of approval of a third-party 18 certifier or organization” should “meet the criteria for endorsements provided in the FTC's 19 Endorsement Guides.” (16 C.F.R. § 260.6(a), (b) (2009).) 20 56. The FTC’s Endorsement Guides define an “endorsement” as “any advertising 21 message (including . . . depictions of the name, signature, likeness or other identifying personal 22 characteristics of . . . the name or seal of an organization) that consumers are likely to believe 23 reflects the opinions, beliefs, findings, or experiences of a party other than the sponsoring 24 advertiser.” (16 C.F.R. § 255.0 (2009).) “Endorsements by organizations, especially expert 25 ones, are viewed as representing the judgment of a group,” and thus “an organization’s 26 endorsement must be reached by a process sufficient to ensure that the endorsement fairly 27 reflects the collective judgment of the organization.” (16 C.F.R. § 255.4 (2009).) 28 // 11 COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTION, CIVIL PENALTIES, AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF 1 57. The Guides also state that “[t]hird-party certification does not eliminate a 2 marketer’s obligation to ensure that it has substantiation for all claims reasonably communicated 3 by the certification.” (16 C.F.R. § 260.6(c) (2009).) 4 58. The Guides further state that “[i]t is deceptive to misrepresent, directly or by 5 implication, that a product, package, or service is free of, or does not contain or use, a substance. 6 Such claims should be clearly and prominently qualified to the extent necessary to avoid 7 deception.” (16 C.F.R. § 260.9(a) (2009).) Additionally, “[i]t is deceptive to misrepresent, 8 directly or by implication, that a product, package, or service offers a general environmental 9 benefit.” (16 C.F.R. § 260.4(a) (2009).) 10 59. For each violation of Section 17580.5, a civil penalty may be assessed under 11 Section 17536 in an amount not to exceed $2,500 for each violation. As noted above, penalties 12 under Section 17536 are cumulative to other remedies. 13 THE FDA HAS NOT APPROVED DEFENDANTS’ AT-HOME TEST KITS 14 60. The FDA is responsible for validating and authorizing the safety and effectiveness 15 of drugs and medical devices, such as drug test kits. 16 61. As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, the FDA has issued guidelines to 17 accelerate the availability of COVID-19 testing (“Interim Guidelines”), while still retaining 18 standards for reliability and validity of such devices. 19 62. The Interim Guidelines emphasize the importance of FDA validation of all tests 20 because “[i]n the context of a public health emergency involving pandemic infectious disease, it 21 is critically important that tests are validated because false results not only can negatively impact 22 the individual patient but also can have broad public health impact.” 23 24 25 26 27 28 63. The Interim Guidelines provide guidance in four different areas: A. Part A is directed to clinical labs developing tests and the process for received Emergency Use Authorization; B. Part B is directed to States allowing them to set their own validation standards for testing; C. Part C provides guidance to commercial manufacturers of diagnostic tests that are 12 COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTION, CIVIL PENALTIES, AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF 1 2 provided to laboratories or health care providers; and D. Part D provides guidance to commercial manufacturers of diagnostic tests relying 3 4 solely on blood; 64. Importantly, none of the Interim Guidelines apply to at-home test kits. Parts C and 5 D, which are directed to commercial manufacturers of COVID-19 test kits, specifically state that 6 “this policy does not apply to at home testing.” 7 65. The FDA has updated its website with a “Frequently Asked Questions” page, 8 where, in response to the question of, “Are there any tests that I can purchase to test myself at 9 home for COVID-19?,” states: 10 “At this time, the FDA has not authorized any COVID-19 test to be completely used and 11 processed at home. However, the FDA has authorized certain COVID-19 tests for home 12 collection of specimens to be sent to a laboratory for processing and test reporting. 13 Please note that these authorizations are specific only to the home collection kit and test 14 pairs identified in those EUA letters of authorization. Any COVID-19 test intended for 15 at-home testing, including self-collection of a specimen at home, with or without the use 16 of telemedicine, requires an authorized EUA. All tests that have received an authorized 17 EUA, including any authorizations for home collection of a specimen, can be found on 18 our Emergency Use Authorizations page. The FDA sees the public health value in 19 expanding the availability of COVID-19 testing through safe and accurate tests that may 20 include home collection, and we are actively working with test developers in this space.” 21 66. On April 20, 2020, the FDA authorized the first diagnostic test with a home 22 collection option for COVID-19: the Laboratory Corporation of America (LabCorp) COVID-19 23 RT-PCR Test, to permit testing of nasal samples self-collected by patients at home using 24 LabCorp’s Pixel by LabCorp COVID-19 Test home collection kit. Defendants do not offer this 25 test kit for sale. 26 67. On May 7, 2020, the FDA authorized the Rutgers Clinical Genomics Laboratory 27 TaqPath SARS-CoV-2 Assay Test for home collection of saliva samples to be sent to a 28 laboratory for processing and test reporting. The test must be ordered by a physician or 13 COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTION, CIVIL PENALTIES, AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF 1 healthcare professional. Defendants do not offer this test kit for sale. 2 68. On May 16, 2020, the FDA authorized the Everlywell COVID-19 Test Home 3 Collection Kit for home collection of nasal samples to be sent to a laboratory for processing and 4 test reporting. The test is only authorized for use by individuals who have been screened using 5 a questionnaire that has been reviewed by a healthcare provider. Defendants do not offer this 6 kit for sale. 7 69. Defendants’ test kit is not any of the at-home tests approved by the FDA, nor does 8 it bear any resemblance to them. The approved LabCorp’s COVID-19 RT-PCR Test and 9 Everlywell COVID-19 Test Home Collection Kit allow consumers to use a nasal swab to collect 10 samples at home and the Rutgers Clinical Genomics Laboratory TaqPath SARS-CoV-2 Assay 11 Test allows consumers to collect saliva samples at home. The samples from all tests are then 12 mailed to an outside laboratory for testing. Unlike Defendants’ test, a professional technician, 13 not the consumer, tests the samples under lab conditions, not a residence, to diagnosis COVID14 19. Moreover, the approved tests examine saliva and nasal tissue—not blood, as Defendants’ 15 test does—to test for COVID-19. 16 70. In fact, the FDA has specifically warned that “serological” testing—i.e., blood 17 tests for COVID-19 antibodies, the type of testing at issue in this case—should not be used alone 18 without other tests or diagnostic tools: 19 “Serological tests measure the amount of antibodies or proteins present in the 20 blood when the body is responding to a specific infection, like COVID-19. In 21 other words, the test detects the body’s immune response to the infection caused 22 by the virus rather than detecting the virus itself. In the early days of an infection 23 when the body’s immune response is still building, antibodies may not be 24 detected. This limits the test’s effectiveness for diagnosing COVID-19 and why it 25 should not be used as the sole basis to diagnose COVID-19.” 26 71. Defendants’ test kits are not authorized for “at-home” testing or collection. 27 // 28 // 14 COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTION, CIVIL PENALTIES, AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF 1 DEFENDANTS’ CORONASTOP DISINFECTANTS ARE NOT REGISTERED WITH 2 THE EPA OR THE CDPR 3 72. The EPA registers pesticide and disinfectant products. Before a disinfectant can 4 be lawfully sold in California, it must be registered with both the EPA and the CDPR. 5 73. Defendants claim that their products are EPA “approved” and “certified.” But 6 this claim is false or misleading because the EPA does not “approve” pesticides or disinfectants, 7 or have any other sort of endorsement program for disinfectants. 8 74. Defendants also specifically claim that their products are EPA-approved and 9 effective against “Coronavirus.” Defendants’ CoronaStop Disinfectants (defined infra), 10 however, do not appear on List N, which lists products that meet the EPA’s criteria for use 11 against SARS-CoV-2. 12 75. Defendants further claim that “[t]he principal active component in the 13 [Coronastop28] formulation is an EPA-registered biocidal agent,” and claim that the CoronaStop 14 Disinfectants are “EPA approved (Reg #HQ-OPP-2013-0220-0008).” But the EPA registers 15 products, not ingredients, and the EPA “Reg #” used by Defendants in conjunction with their 16 advertising and sale of CoronaStop Disinfectants is not a valid EPA registration number for any 17 product. 18 76. CoronaStop Disinfectants are not registered with the EPA and do not appear on 19 List N as a registered disinfectant product meeting the EPA’s criteria for use against SARS-CoV20 2. 21 77. 22 23 CoronaStop Disinfectants are also not registered with the CDPR. DEFENDANTS’ UNLAWFUL BUSINESS PRACTICES 78. In late February 2020, Defendants began their scheme to market two separate 24 product lines, “at-home” test kits and disinfectants, as follows: 25 26 A. CoronaCide At-Home Test Kit: Certain SARS-CoV-2 antibody serology test kits marketed as the CoronaCide-COVID-19 IgM/IgG Rapid Test (“CoronaCide 27 28 15 COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTION, CIVIL PENALTIES, AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF At-Home Test Kit”)2; and 1 2 B. CoronaStop Disinfectants: A group of disinfectants, marketed under the name 3 CoronaStop or CoronaStop 28, including but not limited to: 4 i. CoronaStop28/ CS-28 Disinfectant Protectorants (2 oz/ “Personal”) 5 ii. CoronaStop28/ CS-28 Disinfectant Protectorants (1 gallon/ bulk) 6 iii. CoronaStop28 Disinfectant Sanitizer (1 gallon, bulk) (collectively, the 7 “CoronaStop Disinfectants”) 8 79. The CoronaCide At-Home Test Kit is a “device” and a “home medical device” 9 under Health and Safety Code sections 109920 and 109948.1, because, among other reasons, it is 10 designed for the diagnosis of a disease or other condition, and intended for home use as an in 11 vitro diagnostic test related to a respiratory disease or condition. 12 80. At no time relevant to this action were any of the CoronaCide At-Home Test Kits 13 approved or authorized by the FDA for home use. 14 81. The CoronaStop Disinfectants are “pesticides” under FIFRA and the Food and 15 Agriculture Code because Defendants claim they are designed to mitigate viruses outside of the 16 human body (7 U.S.C. §§ 136(u), 136(t); Food & Agr. Code §§ 12753 (a)-(b), 12754.5), except 17 for the occasions identified below when the CoronaStop Disinfectants are being marketed or 18 advertised for use on human skin, in which case Defendants are making a claim that the 19 CoronaStop Disinfectants are a “drug” under the federal Food and Drug Act and the Sherman 20 Law. (Health & Saf. Code § 109925.) 21 82. At no time relevant to this action were any of the CoronaStop Disinfectants 22 registered with the EPA or registered with the CDPR. 23 83. CoronaStop Disinfectants also do not appear on List N. 24 84. At no time relevant to this action were any of the CoronaStop Disinfectants FDA- 25 approved for use as a “drug.” 26 27 28 2 The CoronaCide At-Home Test Kit was also sometimes labeled as a “Stop Corona At-Home Kit”. 16 COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTION, CIVIL PENALTIES, AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF 1 I. CREATING AND OPERATING FRAUDULENT WEBSITES 2 85. In addition to advertising and posting links on the main WMGR company 3 website, Defendants set up a series of related websites to advertise the CoronaCide At-Home 4 Test Kit and the CoronaStop Disinfectants, including but not limited to www.stopcorona28.com, 5 www.coronastop28.com, www.cs-28.com, and www.virastop28.com (“Fraudulent Websites”) 6 and posted advertisements on various social media sites, including Twitter. 7 86. Todt, his agent and/or agents for the other Defendants registered all of the 8 Fraudulent Websites. The Stopcorona28 Website, Coronastop28 Website, CS-28 Website, and 9 Virastop28 Website (all defined infra) frequently provide a phone number that directs to a 10 WMGR phone answering service. 11 87. WMGR, or agents acting on its behalf, set up the phone number and answering 12 service associated with Defendants’ Fraudulent Websites. 13 A. Stopcorona28 Website 14 88. On February 20, 2020, Defendants, or agents on Defendants’ behalf, registered 15 the domain “stopcorona28.com” (“Stopcorona28 Website”). 16 89. On the Stopcorona28 Website, Defendants sold a CoronaCide-COVID-19 17 IgM/IgG Rapid Test (“CoronaCide At-Home Test Kit”).3 Defendants offered the product for 18 $49.95 and claimed: 19 A. “Testing is easy- just like diabetics use (tiny/pain-free) ‘stick tests’ to check their 20 blood sugar, this works in a similar manner. Just apply your blood into the test 21 cassette as described in the instructions.” 22 B. “You’ll have your results in 10 minutes, without a prescription and no special 23 equipment needed. Best of all, it’s in the privacy of your own home.” 24 C. “COVID-19 IgG/IgM Rapid Test is very accurate. The IgG test is 99.6% 25 accurate. The IgM test is 97.8% accurate.” 26 27 28 3 The CoronaCide At-Home Test Kit was also sometimes labeled as a “Stop Corona At-Home Kit.” 17 COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTION, CIVIL PENALTIES, AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF 1 90. 2 The Stopcorona28 Website also featured the following CoronaStop Disinfectants: A. CS-28 Disinfectant Protectorant was offered for $25.00 per 2-ounce bottle and 3 $500.00 per one-gallon container with a claim that it “Kills Corona On Contact.” 4 B. CS-28 Disinfectant Sanitizer was offered for $500.00 with a claim that it is “Safe 5 on Skin.” 6 B. Coronastop28.com Website 7 91. On February 20, 2020, Defendants registered the domain “coronastop28.com” 8 (“Coronastop28 Website”). Defendant Todt is the individual registrant for the domain and the 9 website’s registered phone number is the phone number for WMGR, as listed on the WMGR 10 website and in its filings with the SEC. 11 92. The top of the home page of WMGR’s company website contained a link to the 12 Coronastop28 Website, referring to the CoronaStop Disinfectants. 13 93. On the CoronaStop28 Website, Defendants advertised the same CoronaCide At- 14 Home Test Kit that appears on the Stopcorona28 Website. Defendants offered the CoronaCide 15 At-Home Test Kit for $49.95 and claimed: 16 A. In a section titled “COVID-19 Test Comparison” the IgM/IgG Rapid Test 17 Section stated: “Results in: 10 minutes; no special facilities needed; test can be 18 used anywhere; no specialized training required; results are clear and easy to 19 read; Clinical Value: Highly specific.” 20 B. “Testing is easy- just like diabetics use (tiny/pain-free) ‘stick tests’ to check their 21 blood sugar, this test works in a similar manner. Just apply your blood into the 22 test cassette as described in the instructions.” 23 C. “Absolutely, our tests have been validated and registered with the U.S. Food & 24 Drug Association (FDA) as is outlined in in Section IV.D of the Policy for 25 Diagnostic Tests for Coronavirus Disease-2019.” 26 D. The Coronastop28 website also stated that “Test Accuracy: IgG: 99.6% IgM- 27 28 97.8%.” 94. The Coronastop28 Website featured the following CoronaStop Disinfectants, all 18 COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTION, CIVIL PENALTIES, AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF 1 advertised as effective for use against coronavirus “for 28 days or more” on both hard and soft 2 surfaces: 3 A. CS-28 Disinfectant Protectorant was offered for $25.00 per 2-ounce bottle and 4 $500.00 per one-gallon container; 5 B. CS-28 Disinfectant Sanitizer was offered for $500.00. 6 C. CS-28 Website 7 95. On March 13, 2020, Defendants registered the domain “cs-28.com” (“CS-28 8 Website”). Defendant Todt is the individual registrant for the domain. 9 96. On the CS-28 Website, Defendants advertised the same CoronaCide At-Home 10 Test Kit that appears on the Stopcorona28 Website and Coronastop28 Website. Defendants 11 offered the CoronaCide At-Home Test Kit for $49.95 and claimed: 12 A. In a section titled “COVID-19 Test Comparison” the IgM/IgG Rapid Test 13 Section stated: “Results in: 10 minutes; no special facilities needed; test can be 14 used anywhere; no specialized training required; results are clear and easy to 15 read: Clinical Value: Highly specific.” 16 B. “Testing is easy- just like diabetics us (tiny/pain-free) ‘stick tests’ to check their 17 blood sugar, this test works in a similar manner. Just apply your blood into the 18 test cassette as described in the instructions.” 19 C. “Absolutely, our tests have been validated and registered with the U.S. Food & 20 Drug Association (FDA) as is outlined in in Section IV.D of the Policy for 21 Diagnostic Tests for Coronavirus Disease-2019.” 22 97. Following news reports questioning Defendants’ sale of unapproved test kits, 23 Defendants modified their CS-28 Website to state: “If customers inadvertently purchased test 24 kits without access to a healthcare provider or telemedicine services, we are offering two 25 options: They can be given an immediate refund on their purchase or we can provide 26 telemedicine services to them so that they may appropriately use the test as directed and 27 approved by their healthcare provider.” 28 98. Despite Defendants’ claim on their CS-28 Website that they would give 19 COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTION, CIVIL PENALTIES, AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF 1 immediate refunds, Defendants regularly failed to make timely refunds to consumers. 2 Defendants also had a practice of accepting payments for their falsely advertised and 3 unauthorized kits and failing to initiate refunds to victims who never received these products. 4 5 99. The CS-28 Website also advertised and offered for sale the following CoronaStop Disinfectants: 6 A. CS-28 Disinfectant Protectorant was offered for $25.00 per 2-ounce bottle and 7 $500.00 per one-gallon container with a claim that it “Kills Corona On Contact.” 8 B. CS-28 Disinfectant Sanitizer was offered for $500.00 with a claim that it is “Safe 9 10 on Skin.” 100. As recently as April 23, 2020, the CS-28 Website contained an operable link 11 labeled “purchase.” 12 101. The operable link for “purchase” led to a contact page which gave as options 13 under the Reason of Inquiry “product,” “bulk,” “support,” and “other.” 14 D. ViraStop28.com Website 15 102. On March 19, 2020, a Twitter account @gatcard, purporting to be George Todt 16 (“Todt Twitter”), tweeted a link to ViraStop28.com (“Virastop28 Website”). This website was 17 registered on February 20, 2020 with the same registrant information as the Stopcorona28 18 Website. In addition to the link, the tweet included the text “Home test kits now! Fda [sic] 19 approved” and an image identifying CoronaStop28 as “a WMGR Product” with the same logo as 20 appeared on the Coronastop28 Website. The website also described a CoronaStop Disinfectant 21 as “a WMGR product” and included a number of claims, including the following: 22 A. “KILLS CORONA ON CONTACT” 23 B. “STOPS COVID-19 FROM LATCHING ONTO SURFACES AND 24 SPREADING” 25 C. “SAFE” 26 D. “EPA APPROVED (REG #HQ-OPP-2013-0220-0008)” 27 E. “ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY” 28 F. “NON-TOXIC” 20 COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTION, CIVIL PENALTIES, AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF 1 G. “GENERALLY REGARDED AS SAFE (GRAS CLASS, FDA)” 2 H. “DOES NOT IRRITATE SKIN” 3 I. “DISINFECTS” 4 J. “LONG LASTING” 5 K. “LASTS FOR 28 DAYS OR MORE” 6 E. 7 103. Other Social Media Defendants actively promoted the CoronaCide At-Home Test Kit and the 8 CoronaStop Disinfectants on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram. Defendants replicated many of 9 the false and misleading claims about the CoronaCide At-Home Test Kit and the CoronaStop 10 Disinfectants on these social media platforms through accounts Defendants controlled. 11 104. Defendants’ twitter account @CoronaStop28’s claim that “CoronaStop28 can 12 convert ready-made nonwoven masks into truly antiviral protective devices” is false and 13 misleading. The CoronaStop Disinfectants are not listed on List N and are not authorized to 14 claim they can be used on porous surfaces such as fabrics. 15 105. Defendants also made available on CouponBirds.com a $5 coupon for 16 StopCorona28 products and a 10% off coupon for the CoronaCide At-Home Test Kit. These 17 coupons are advertised as valid until May 21, 2020. 18 II. FALSELY ADVERTISING THE PURPORTED “AT-HOME” TEST KITS 19 106. 20 21 On the Stopcorona28 Website, Defendants advertised the CoronaCide At-Home Test Kit as an “At-Home Kit.” 107. On the Stopcorona28 Website and Coronastop28 Website, Defendants linked to a 22 Rapid Test Product Insert titled: “At Home COVID-19 Ig0/Ig* Rapid Test Cassette (Whole 23 Blood/Serum/Plasma) Package Insert.” On the Stopcorona28 Website, Defendants offered the 24 CoronaCide At-Home Test Kit for purchase, and in a disclaimer stated “Please only order if you 25 are in a high-risk environment, over 60 years of age or are vulnerable with a pre-existing 26 condition. If you already have symptoms, isolate yourself and seek immediate medical 27 assistance.” 28 108. On March 31, 2020, Defendants’ Instagram account Coronastop28 21 COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTION, CIVIL PENALTIES, AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF 1 (“Coronastop28 Instagram”) devoted a post to the CoronaCide At-Home Test Kit which falsely 2 stated that Coronacide is “authorized to be distributed pursuant to FDA EUA guidance” and that 3 there is “no special equipment needed.” 4 III. FALSELY CLAIMING TO SELL CORONACIDE AT-HOME TEST KITS 5 109. In addition, Defendants’ test kit manufacturer claims that Defendants are offering 6 for sale “at home” test kits without a license or authorization from the manufacturer to sell or 7 distribute them. As noted above, Defendants have widely advertised for sale the “CoronaCide” 8 test kits. CoronaCide is a separate entity not affiliated with Defendants. While CoronaCide 9 purports to sell its testing kits to health care practitioners, it has acknowledged that it does not 10 have FDA authorization to sell “at home” testing kits. Recognizing that Defendants and 11 possibly others are marketing and selling CoronaCide test kits as “at home” kits, the 12 CoronaCide company has stated: 13 IMPORTANT: There are unscrupulous individuals and entities unlawfully and without 14 permission linking to and/or using this website and images to represent that they have or 15 can get / distribute CoronaCide’s Test Kits. They may even falsely suggest that they may 16 be purchased as home test kits. In addition they are NOT AUTHORIZED to utilize any 17 technical accuracy information or clinical trial information or to refer to or use the 18 CoronaCide FDA submission number or FDA listing number in any manner. 19 They do not have our permission or authorization to utilize CoronaCide’s 20 copyrighted images or content in any manner from the CoronaCide website 21 whatsoever. . . To date, those unauthorized individuals and entities [include]: 22 “Wellness Matrix Group.” 23 110. Defendants have not delivered most, if any, CoronaCide At-Home Test Kits to 24 end-use customers who purchased the kits through Defendants’ websites and distribution 25 channels. 26 111. Residents in the City of Los Angeles purchased CoronaCide At-Home Test Kits 27 from Defendants. 28 112. WMGR is listed on the consumers’ credit card statements as the company 22 COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTION, CIVIL PENALTIES, AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF 1 responsible for charging consumers for their purchase of the CoronaCide At-Home Test Kits. 2 The phone number associated with WMGR on the credit card statements appears on the WMGR 3 website, in WMGR filings with the SEC, and in the registration for the Coronastop28 Website. 4 113. Defendants did not deliver CoronaCide At-Home Test Kits to the Los Angeles 5 residents who were charged for the kits. When certain residents asked for a refund, Defendants, 6 including defendant Todt, represented that the purchases would be refunded, but not all 7 customers received the refunds they requested from Defendants. 8 114. On April 8, 2020, the SEC temporarily suspended trading of WMGR stock 9 “because of questions that have been raised about the accuracy and adequacy of information in 10 the marketplace relating to WMGR common stock” related “to statements WMGR made through 11 affiliated websites and a company consultant about selling at home COVID-19 testing kits that 12 had been approved by the FDA.” 13 115. On April 10, WMGR filed an amended Form 10 in which it stated that it 14 “expect[s] to sell FDA compliant COVID-19 test kits directly to medical and governmental 15 agencies” and plans to provide “FDA compliant POC rapid COVID-19 tests.” 16 116. Defendants continue to market COVID-19 test kits. On April 7, 2020, Todt 17 and/or an agent for Defendants registered www.virasafezone.com (“ViraSafeZone Website”). 18 The ViraZone Website has a post on the homepage allegedly authored by Todt and lists the 19 same phone number associated with WMGR on the credit card statements, on the WMGR 20 website, in WMGR filings with the SEC, and in the registration for the Coronastop28 Website. 21 117. On the ViraSafeZone Website, Defendants advertise that they are working with 22 Ohana Capital Financial, Pleasant Grove, California (an unincorporated community), Maxwell 23 Telecare, and Heuro Healthcare to distribute disinfectants and hand-sanitizers throughout the 24 State of California that Defendants claim are safe to be used on one’s hands, face, lips, and 25 nostrils. In addition, Defendants also advertise that they will sell COVID-19 antibody test kits to 26 every resident of California and collect data on all California residents to share with the State of 27 California and the Centers for Disease Control (“CDC”). Another post on the ViraSafeZone 28 Website claims that WMGR has current projects in Military facilities, prisons, and nursing 23 COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTION, CIVIL PENALTIES, AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF 1 homes. 2 IV. FALSELY ADVERTISING CORONASTOP DISINFECTANTS 3 118. Through the same websites identified above—www.stopcorona28.com, 4 www.coronastop28.com, www.cs-28.com, and www.virastop28.com—which are falsely 5 advertising and offering for sale CoronaCide At-Home Test Kits, as well as other websites, 6 Defendants have also falsely advertised the CoronaStop Disinfectants. 7 A. The Fraudulent White Paper 8 119. On most of these websites, including the Coronastop28 Website and other 9 locations, Defendants offered a “white paper” titled “CoronaStop28 White Paper February 12, 10 2020,” (“CoronaStop28 White Paper”) which includes an article titled “Persistence of the 11 CoronaStop28 antimicrobial coating on a hard surface substrate” (“Fraudulent White Paper”). 12 Defendants use this white paper to support claims that the CoronaStop Disinfectants somehow 13 provide persistent protection against coronavirus, even up to 28 days after application. This 14 white paper is a fraud. 15 120. The CoronaStop28 White Paper makes the following claims: 16 A. “Transmission by touching deposits of the virus and transferring these to 17 the face is one of the most common means of acquiring infection. If excreted 18 viruses in droplets land on CoronaStop28 -treated surfaces that continue to 19 display germ-killing amounts of Cl for weeks after a single application there is a 20 high likelihood of virus inactivation to a useful degree in preventing contagion.” 21 B. 22 infectious germs of all kinds---bacteria, viruses, yeasts, fungi, spores---up to two 23 months after one disinfecting treatment demonstrate that levels of kill are 24 maintained at a high level across the board.” 25 C. 26 CoronaStop28 persistent disinfectant protection into current infection control 27 efforts not only for 2019 -nCov, but for all the germs, old or emerging, that 28 continue to plague at-risk populations everywhere, both human and animal (e.g., “Data from experiments involving challenge of treated surfaces with “Scientific data collectively provide a solid basis for incorporating 24 COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTION, CIVIL PENALTIES, AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF 1 influenza, COVID-19, ASF, norovirus).” 2 D. 3 Donskey, MD, and representing that its contents are true, accurate, and based on 4 scientific study. 5 121. Representing that the Fraudulent White Paper was authored by Curtis One of the alleged authors of the Fraudulent White Paper—Dr. Curtis Donskey, a 6 professor of medicine at Case Western Reserve University and an infectious disease specialist in 7 Cleveland, Ohio—has confirmed he did not write the Fraudulent White Paper, and has never 8 performed any testing on any CoronaStop Disinfectants or related products. 9 122. Dr. Donskey has no information about how CoronaStop Disinfectants perform 10 against viruses, such as SARS-CoV-2. 11 123. Dr. Donskey did write a paper, with the same named co-author and with a similar 12 analysis, approximately 10 years ago for a different product, mPale with AEGIS Microbeshield 13 (“AEGIS White Paper”), which may have some similar charts as those used in the Fraudulent 14 White Paper. The AEGIS White Paper was testing a different product, and the targeted 15 microorganisms were bacteria such as Staphylococcus aureus (“MRSA”), not SARS-CoV-2 16 (which was not even identified until recently). 17 124. The AEGIS White Paper also contained a section, missing from the Fraudulent 18 White Paper, stating that any persistent anti-microbial effect of mPale with AEGIS 19 Microbeshield, which is not a CoronaStop Disinfectant, was lost with any routine cleaning of a 20 surface. 21 125. Based on a review of the EPA-approved label for the mPale with AEGIS 22 Microbeshield and the CoronaStop28 Material Safety Data Sheet, Dr. Donskey has confirmed 23 that the mPale with AEGIS Microbeshield product and CoronaStop Disinfectants are different 24 and unrelated products. 25 B. Defendants’ False Advertising Claims 26 126. Defendants have made the following false advertising claims regarding 27 Coronastop28/ CS-28 Protectorants (2 oz. “personal”) (“CS-28 Personal”), and the 28 CoronaStop28 Disinfectant Sanitizer (1 gallon, bulk) (“CS-28 Disinfectant”), which are both 25 COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTION, CIVIL PENALTIES, AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF 1 identified as a “WMGR product” on their labels: 2 1. False Label Claims 3 a. 4 5 CoronaStop28/ CS-28 Disinfectant Protectorants (2 oz/ “Personal”) 127. The CS-28 Personal label claims this product offers “[p]ersistent virucidal 6 protection.” This claim is false or misleading because this product is a disinfectant designed to 7 mitigate viruses not registered with the EPA or the CDPR. It is therefore unlawful to sell this 8 product because it is unregistered or misbranded. (7 U.S.C. § 136j; Food & Agr. Code § 12881.) 9 128. The CS-28 Personal label claims this product “[k]ills CoronaVirus.” This claim is 10 false or misleading because this product is a disinfectant designed to mitigate viruses not 11 registered with the EPA or the CDPR or on List N. It is therefore unlawful to sell this product 12 because it is unregistered or misbranded. (7 U.S.C. § 136j; Food & Agr. Code § 12881.) This 13 claim is also false and misleading because the product has not been evaluated for registration by 14 EPA, does not appear on List N, and therefore cannot be advertised as effective at “killing,” 15 “stopping,” or “eliminating” any virus, including the novel coronavirus. 16 129. The CS-28 Personal label claims this product is “[s]cientifically tested and 17 proven to kill the CoronaVirus on contact.” This claim is false or misleading because this 18 product is a disinfectant designed to mitigate viruses not registered with the EPA or the CDPR or 19 on List N. It is therefore unlawful to sell this product because it is unregistered or misbranded. 20 Moreover, to the extent the “scientific” claim offered by the Defendants is based on the 21 Fraudulent White Paper, it is false and unsupported by reliable evidence. (7 U.S.C. § 136j; Food 22 & Agr. Code § 12881.) This claim is also false and misleading because the product has not been 23 evaluated for registration by EPA, does not appear on List N, and therefore cannot be advertised 24 as effective at “killing,” “stopping,” or “eliminating” any virus, including the novel coronavirus. 25 130. The CS-28 Personal label claims this product’s “USE” is “to sanitize hard and 26 soft surfaces.” This claim is false or misleading because this product is a disinfectant designed 27 to mitigate viruses not registered with the EPA or the CDPR or on List N. It is therefore 28 unlawful to sell this product because it is unregistered or misbranded. Moreover, no relevant 26 COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTION, CIVIL PENALTIES, AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF 1 product on List N is registered for use on porous surfaces, such as fabrics, and it is false to 2 advertise CS-28 Personal for that use. (7 U.S.C. § 136j; Food & Agr. Code § 12881.) 3 131. The CS-28 Personal label claims “[e]ither spray or use with a fogging machine.” 4 This claim is false or misleading because this product is a disinfectant designed to mitigate 5 viruses not registered with the EPA or the CDPR or on List N. It is therefore unlawful to sell 6 this product because it is an unregistered or misbranded product. (7 U.S.C. § 136); Food & Agr. 7 Code § 12881.) Moreover, this label claim is false and misleading because neither the EPA nor 8 the CDC recommend the use of fumigation or wide-area spraying to control COVID-19, but 9 rather recommend that contaminated surfaces be cleaned with liquid products, such as those 10 provided on List N, to prevent the spread of disease. Fumigation and wide-area spraying are not 11 appropriate tools for cleaning surfaces contaminated with SARS-CoV-2. 12 b. 13 14 CoronaStop28/ CS-28 Disinfectant Protectorants (1 gallon/ bulk) 132. The CS-28 Protectorants’ label claims this product offers “[p]ersistent virucidal 15 protection.” This claim is false or misleading because this product is a disinfectant designed to 16 mitigate viruses not registered with the EPA or the CDPR, or on List N. It is therefore deceptive 17 and unlawful to sell this product because it is unregistered or misbranded. (7 U.S.C. § 136j; 18 Food & Agr. Code § 12881.) 19 133. The CS-28 Protectorants’ label claims this product “[k]ills CoronaVirus.” This 20 claim is false or misleading because this product is a disinfectant designed to mitigate viruses not 21 registered with the EPA or the CDPR or on List N. It is therefore unlawful to sell this product 22 because it is unregistered or misbranded. (7 U.S.C. § 136j; Food & Agr. Code § 12881.) This 23 claim is also false and misleading because the product has not been evaluated for registration by 24 EPA, does not appear on List N, and therefore cannot be advertised as effective at “killing,” 25 “stopping,” or “eliminating” any virus, including the novel coronavirus. 26 134. The CS-28 Protectorants’ label claims this product is “[s]cientifically tested and 27 proven to kill the CoronaVirus on contact.” This claim is false or misleading because this 28 product is a disinfectant designed to mitigate viruses not registered with the EPA or the CDPR or 27 COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTION, CIVIL PENALTIES, AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF 1 on List N. It is therefore unlawful to sell this product because it is unregistered or misbranded. 2 Moreover, to the extent the “scientific” claim offered by Defendants is based on the Fraudulent 3 White Paper, it is false and unsupported by reliable evidence. (7 U.S.C. § 136j; Food & Agr. 4 Code § 12881.) This claim is also false and misleading because the product has not been 5 evaluated for registration by EPA, does not appear on List N, and therefore cannot be advertised 6 as effective at “killing,” “stopping,” or “eliminating” any virus, including the novel coronavirus. 7 135. The CS-28 Protectorants’ label claims this product’s “USE” is “to sanitize hard 8 and soft surfaces.” This claim is false or misleading because this product is a disinfectant 9 designed to mitigate viruses not registered with the EPA or the CDPR or on List N. It is 10 therefore unlawful to sell this product because it is unregistered or misbranded. Moreover, no 11 relevant product on List N is registered for use on porous surfaces, such as fabrics. (7 U.S.C. § 12 136j; Food & Agr. Code, § 12881.) 13 136. The CS-28 Protectorants’ label claims “[e]ither spray or use with a fogging 14 machine.” This claim is false or misleading because this product is a disinfectant designed to 15 mitigate viruses not registered with the EPA or the CDPR or on List N. It is therefore unlawful 16 to sell this product because it is unregistered or misbranded. (7 U.S.C. § 136j; Food & Agr. 17 Code § 12881.) Moreover, this label claim is false and misleading because neither the EPA nor 18 the CDC recommend the use of fumigation or wide-area spraying to control COVID-19, but 19 rather recommend that contaminated surfaces be cleaned with liquid products, such as those 20 provided on List N, to prevent the spread of disease. Fumigation and wide-area spraying are not 21 appropriate tools for cleaning surfaces contaminated with SARS-CoV-2. 22 23 c. 137. CoronaStop28 Disinfectant Sanitizer (1 gallon, bulk) The CS-28 Disinfectant’s label claims this product is a “Sanitizer.” This claim is 24 false or misleading because this product is a disinfectant designed to mitigate viruses not 25 registered with the EPA or the CDPR. It is therefore deceptive and unlawful to sell this product 26 because it is unregistered or misbranded. (7 U.S.C. § 136j; Food & Agr. Code § 12881.) 27 138. The CS-28 Disinfectant’s label claims this product “[k]ills CoronaVirus.” This 28 claim is false or misleading because this product is a disinfectant designed to mitigate viruses not 28 COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTION, CIVIL PENALTIES, AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF 1 registered with the EPA or the CDPR or List N. It is therefore unlawful to sell this product 2 because it is unregistered or misbranded. (7 U.S.C. § 136j; Food & Agr. Code § 12881.) This 3 claim is also false and misleading because the product has not been evaluated for registration by 4 EPA, does not appear on List N, and therefore cannot be advertised as effective at “killing,” 5 “stopping,” or “eliminating” any virus, including the novel coronavirus. 6 139. The CS-28 Disinfectant’s label claims this product is “[s]cientifically tested and 7 proven to kill the CoronaVirus on contact.” This claim is false or misleading because this 8 product is a disinfectant designed to mitigate viruses not registered with the EPA or the CDPR or 9 on List N. It is therefore unlawful to sell this product because it is unregistered or misbranded. 10 Moreover, to the extent the “scientific” claim offered by Defendants is based on the Fraudulent 11 White Paper, it is false and unsupported by reliable evidence. (7 U.S.C. § 136j; Food & Agr. 12 Code § 12881.) This claim is also false and misleading because the product has not been 13 evaluated for registration by EPA, does not appear on List N, and therefore cannot be advertised 14 as effective at “killing,” “stopping,” or “eliminating” any virus, including the novel coronavirus. 15 140. The CS-28 Disinfectant’s label claims this product’s “USE” is “to sanitize hard 16 and soft surfaces.” This claim is false or misleading because this product is a disinfectant 17 designed to mitigate viruses not registered with the EPA or the CDPR or on List N. It is 18 therefore unlawful to sell this product because it is unregistered or misbranded. Moreover, no 19 relevant product on List N is registered for use on porous surfaces, such as fabrics. (7 U.S.C. § 20 136j; Food & Agr. Code § 12881.) 21 22 2. False Advertising Claims – CoronaStop Disinfectants 141. On the Fraudulent Websites and in many other similar advertisements, 23 Defendants make the following false advertising claims for the CoronaStop Disinfectants, along 24 with related similar false claims: 25 26 a. 142. False Pesticide-Related Claims The following pesticide-related claims are all false or misleading because (1) 27 the CoronaStop Disinfectants are not an EPA or CDPR-registered pesticide and therefore 28 cannot legally make public health claims as defined by FIFRA, and (2) the CoronaStop 29 COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTION, CIVIL PENALTIES, AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF 1 Disinfectants do not appear on EPA’s List N, and cannot be advertised as effective for use 2 against SARS-CoV-2. (7 U.S.C. § 136j; 40 CFR § 158.2220; Food & Agr. Code § 12881.): 3 A. 4 Disinfectant is an “Antimicrobial Disinfectant Protectorant Coating” and a 5 “POWERFUL ANTI-MICROBIAL/VIRAL FORMULA” that “DISINFECTS.” 6 B. 7 Disinfectant “Kills Corona on contact,” and “STOPS COVID-19 FROM 8 LATCHING ONTO SURFACES AND SPREADING.” 9 143. Claims made at the Coronastop28 Website that the CoronaStop Claims made at the Coronastop28 Website that the CoronaStop The following porous-surface use claims are all false or misleading because the 10 EPA has not authorized this product for use on porous or non-porous surfaces. 11 A. 12 published “CoronaStop28” documents, which identify “Coronastop28” as “a 13 WMGR product,” including but not limited to claims that “[o]ur research 14 proved the persistence of CoronaStop28 to be superior on all types of 15 surfaces, porous and non-porous alike. We tested our product on hard-surface 16 substrates, non-woven textiles, Formica, and human skin.” 17 B. 18 “CoronaStop28 can convert ready-made nonwoven masks into truly antiviral 19 protective devices.” 20 21 Defendants made or caused to be made certain claims on widely On their Twitter account @CoronaStop28, Defendants claimed that b. 144. False Persistence-Related Claims The following persistence-related claims are all false or misleading because the 22 EPA has not evaluated and accepted a residual claim for pathogens, meaning that the 23 CoronaStop Disinfectants cannot make claims about residual activity regarding viruses, 24 including SARS-CoV-2. These claims are also false because they are based on the Fraudulent 25 White Paper. 26 A. Defendants stated on the Coronastop28 Website that the CoronaStop 27 Disinfectant “LASTS FOR 28 DAYS OR MORE,” and that “[d]ata from 28 experiments involving the challenge of treated surfaces with infectious germs of 30 COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTION, CIVIL PENALTIES, AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF 1 all kinds- --bacteria, viruses, yeasts, fungi, spores---up to two months after one 2 disinfecting treatment demonstrate that levels of kill are maintained at a high level 3 across the board”; 4 B. 5 stated in a post that “Our disinfectant kills corona-virus for up to 28 days!” 6 C. 7 and published documents that “[s]tudies show that COVID-19 remains on 8 surfaces for multiple days! This product is a necessity to assist in the protection of 9 people from catching the dangerous COVID-19 from contaminated surfaces,” and On April 6, 2020, the StopCorona28 (@stopcorona38) Facebook page Defendants also made or caused to be made certain claims on websites 10 “CoronaStop28 persists on coated surfaces for 28 days without noticeable 11 decline.” 12 c. 13 145. False EPA-Approval Related Claims The following “EPA Approved” and related claims, published on Defendants’ 14 websites, product labels, and/or advertisements, are false or misleading because the 15 advertisement provides a false registration number, the product is not registered with the EPA, 16 and the EPA does not “approve” or endorse products. In addition, such false claims of 17 independent-third party approval are prohibited under California’s Greenwashing Law. (Bus. & 18 Prof. Code § 17580.5; 16 C.F.R. § 260.6 (a)-(b); 16 C.F.R. §§ 255.0, 255.4.) 19 A. “EPA APPROVED (REG #HQ-OPP-2013-0220-0008)” 20 B. “The principal active component in the formulation is an EPA-registered biocidal 21 agent.” 22 23 d. 146. False Environmental Claims The following “environmentally friendly” and related claims, published on 24 Defendants’ websites, product labels, and/or advertisements, are false and misleading because 25 the CoronaStop Disinfectants are pesticides that contain toxins. Such false claims of 26 “environmental friendliness” and non-toxicity, when the product in fact contains a pesticide, are 27 generally prohibited under California’s Greenwashing Law. (Bus. & Prof. Code § 17580.5; 16 28 C.F.R. § 260.10 (a)-(b).) Defendants made the following environmentally friendly and related 31 COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTION, CIVIL PENALTIES, AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF 1 claims: 2 A. “ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY” 3 B. “NON-TOXIC” 4 5 e. 147. False Drug-related and human body claims “Drug” related claims, i.e., claims related to the effects of the product on 6 coronavirus on the human body, published on Defendants’ websites, product labels, and/or 7 advertisements, are all false and misleading because EPA-registered antimicrobial pesticides are 8 not authorized for use on living humans, and the EPA does not register antimicrobial pesticides 9 intended for use on human skin. Also, to the extent Defendants are making specific “skin” 10 claims, Defendants are in fact advertising this product as a drug. This also false and unlawful 11 because CoronaStop Disinfectants are not FDA-approved drugs and cannot be sold with such 12 claims. (Health & Saf. Code §§ 109925 (defining “drug”), 110390, 110395, 110398, 111440, 13 111550). Such claims are also false and misleading because the product is classified as a 14 pesticide and, as such, cannot be used on human skin or characterized as GRAS or safe. 15 Defendants made the following drug-related claims: 16 A. “DOES NOT IRRITATE SKIN” 17 B. GENERALLY REGARDED AS SAFE (GRAS CLASS, FDA) 18 C. “We tested our product on . . . human skin.” 19 D. “The active ingredients in the MACS formulation are safe for prolonged 20 skin contact, and do not cause irritation or sensitization.” 21 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: 22 VIOLATIONS OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE SECTION 17500 23 (UNTRUE OR MISLEADING REPRESENTATIONS) 24 (Against All Defendants) 25 26 27 28 148. The People restate and incorporate herein each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1–147 above, as though fully alleged herein. 149. Beginning no later than February 20, 2020, and continuing to the present, Defendants, and each of them, with each other or with other unknown persons, have engaged in 32 COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTION, CIVIL PENALTIES, AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF 1 and continue to engage in, aided and abetted and continue to aid and abet, and conspired to and 2 continue to conspire to violate Business and Professions Code section 17500 by making or 3 disseminating untrue or misleading statements, or causing untrue or misleading statements to be 4 made in the in the City and County of Los Angeles, with the intent to induce the purchase of at- 5 home test kits, when they knew or by the exercise of reasonable care should have known the 6 statements were untrue, misleading, and unsubstantiated. Defendants’ untrue or misleading 7 representations include, but are not limited to, the following: 8 A. Representing the CoronaCide At-Home Test Kit as an “At-Home Kit.” 9 Such statements are untrue and misleading because the FDA has not authorized 10 the use of any serological in-home testing kits for COVID-19, including the 11 CoronaCide At-Home Test Kit; 12 B. 13 “[t]esting is easy- just like diabetics use (tiny/pain-free) “stick tests” to check their 14 blood sugar, this works in a similar manner. Just apply your blood into the test 15 cassette as described in the instructions.” Such statements are untrue and/or 16 misleading because the FDA has not authorized the direct sale to consumers by a 17 non-physician of any serological in-home testing kits for COVID-19, including 18 the CoronaCide At-Home Test Kit; 19 C. 20 registered with the U.S. Food & Drug Association (FDA) as is outlined in in 21 Section IV.D of the Policy for Diagnostic Tests for Coronavirus Disease-2019.” 22 Such statements are untrue and/or misleading because the FDA has not authorized 23 the use of any in-home serological testing kits for COVID-19, including the 24 CoronaCide At-Home Test Kit; 25 D. 26 statements are untrue and/or misleading because the FDA has not validated the 27 accuracy of any in-home testing kits for COVID-19, including the CoronaCide 28 At-Home Test Kit; Representing, with respect to the CoronaCide At-Home Test Kit, that Representing that “Absolutely, our tests have been validated and Representing that “Test Accuracy: IgG: 99.6% IgM- 97.8%.” Such 33 COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTION, CIVIL PENALTIES, AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF 1 E. Representing that “[y]ou’ll have your results in 10 minutes, without a 2 prescription and no special equipment needed. Best of all, it’s in the privacy of 3 your own home.” Such statements are untrue and/or misleading because the FDA 4 has not authorized the use of any in-home serological testing kits for COVID-19, 5 including the CoronaCide At-Home Test Kit; 6 F. 7 in: 10 minutes;” and that “no special facilities needed; test can be used anywhere; 8 no specialized training required; results are clear and easy to read.” Such 9 statements are untrue and/or misleading because the FDA has not authorized the Representing that the CoronaCide At-Home Test kits could give: “results 10 use of any in-home serological testing kits for COVID-19, including the 11 CoronaCide At-Home Test Kit; and 12 G. 13 as an in-home testing kit by labeling a Package Insert for the product the: “At 14 Home COVID-19 Ig0/Ig* Rapid Test Cassette (Whole Blood/Serum/Plasma) 15 Package Insert.” Such statements are untrue and/or misleading because the FDA 16 has not authorized the use of any in-home serological testing kits for COVID-19, 17 including the CoronaCide At-Home Test Kit. 18 150. Representing that Defendants’ CoronaCide At-Home Test Kit can be used Beginning no later than February 20, 2020, and continuing to the present, 19 Defendants, and each of them, with each other or with other unknown persons, have engaged in 20 and continue to engage in, aided and abetted and continue to aid and abet, and conspired to and 21 continue to conspire to violate Business and Professions Code section 17500 by making or 22 disseminating untrue or misleading statements, or causing untrue or misleading statements to be 23 made in the in the City and County of Los Angeles, with the intent to induce the purchase of 24 CoronaStop Disinfectants, when they knew or by the exercise of reasonable care should have 25 known the statements were untrue, misleading, and unsubstantiated. Defendants’ untrue or 26 misleading representations include, but are not limited to, the following: 27 28 151. False or misleading advertising claims on labels: A. CoronaStop28/ CS-28 Disinfectant Protectorants (2 oz/ “Personal”) 34 COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTION, CIVIL PENALTIES, AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF 1 i. The label claims this product offers “[p]ersistent virucidal protection.” 2 This claim is false or misleading because this product is a disinfectant 3 designed to mitigate viruses not registered with the EPA or the CDPR. It is 4 therefore unlawful to sell this product because it is unregistered or 5 misbranded. (7 U.S.C. § 136j; 40 C.F.R. § 168.22; Food & Agr. Code § 6 12881.) 7 ii. The label claims this product “[k]ills CoronaVirus.” This claim is false or 8 misleading because this product is a disinfectant designed to mitigate 9 viruses not registered with the EPA or the CDPR or on List N. It is 10 therefore unlawful to sell this product because it is unregistered or 11 misbranded. (7 U.S.C. § 136j; 40 C.F.R. § 168.22; Food & Agr. Code § 12 12881.) This claim is also false and misleading because the product has 13 not been evaluated for registration by EPA, does not appear on List N, and 14 therefore cannot be advertised as effective at “killing,” “stopping,” or 15 “eliminating” any virus, including the novel coronavirus. 16 iii. The label claims this product is “[s]cientifically tested and proven to kill 17 the CoronaVirus on contact.” This claim is false or misleading because this 18 product is a disinfectant designed to mitigate viruses not registered with the 19 EPA or the CDPR or on List N. It is therefore unlawful to sell this product 20 because it is unregistered or misbranded. Moreover, to the extent the 21 “scientific” claim offered by the Defendants is based on the Fraudulent 22 White Paper, the claim false and unsupported by reliable evidence. (7 23 U.S.C. § 136j; 40 C.F.R. § 168.22; Food & Agr. Code § 12881.) This 24 claim is also false and misleading because the product has not been 25 evaluated for registration by EPA, does not appear on List N, and therefore 26 cannot be advertised as effective at “killing,” “stopping,” or “eliminating” 27 any virus, including the novel coronavirus. 28 iv. The label claims this product’s “USE” is “to sanitize hard and soft 35 COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTION, CIVIL PENALTIES, AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF 1 surfaces.” This claim is false or misleading because this product is a 2 disinfectant designed to mitigate viruses not registered with the EPA or the 3 CDPR or on List N. It is therefore unlawful to sell this product because it 4 is unregistered or misbranded. Moreover, no relevant product on List N is 5 registered for use on porous surfaces, such as fabrics, and therefore, it is 6 false for Defendants to advertise CS-28 Disinfectant Protectorants for that 7 use. (7 U.S.C. § 136j; 40 C.F.R. § 168.22; Food & Agr. Code § 12881.) 8 v. The label claims “[e]ither spray or use with a fogging machine.” This 9 claim is false or misleading because this product is a disinfectant designed 10 to mitigate viruses not registered with the EPA or the CDPR or on List N. 11 It is therefore unlawful to sell this product because it is unregistered or 12 misbranded. (7 U.S.C. § 136j; 40 C.F.R. § 168.22; Food & Agr. Code § 13 12881.) Moreover, this label claim is false and misleading because neither 14 the EPA nor the CDC recommend the use of fumigation or wide-area 15 spraying to control COVID-19, but rather recommend that contaminated 16 surfaces be cleaned with liquid products, such as those provided on List N, 17 to prevent the spread of disease. Fumigation and wide-area spraying are 18 not appropriate tools for cleaning surfaces contaminated with SARS-CoV- 19 2. 20 B. CoronaStop28/ CS-28 Disinfectant Protectorants (1 gallon/ bulk) 21 i. The label claims this product offers “[p]ersistent virucidal protection.” 22 This claim is false or misleading because this product is a disinfectant 23 designed to mitigate viruses not registered with the EPA or the CDPR or 24 on List N. It is therefore unlawful to sell this product because it is 25 unregistered or misbranded. (7 U.S.C. § 136j; 40 C.F.R. § 168.22; Food 26 & Agr. Code § 12881.) 27 ii. The label claims this product “Kills CoronaVirus.” This claim is false or 28 misleading because this product is a disinfectant designed to mitigate 36 COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTION, CIVIL PENALTIES, AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF 1 viruses not registered with the EPA or the CDPR or on List N. It is 2 therefore unlawful to sell this product because it is unregistered or 3 misbranded. (7 U.S.C. § 136j; 40 C.F.R. § 168.22; Food & Agr. Code § 4 12881.) This claim is also false and misleading because the product has 5 not been evaluated for registration by EPA, does not appear on List N, and 6 therefore cannot be advertised as effective at “killing,” “stopping,” or 7 “eliminating” any virus, including the novel coronavirus. 8 iii. The label claims this product is “[s]cientifically tested and proven to kill 9 the CoronaVirus on contact.” This claim is false or misleading because 10 this product is a disinfectant designed to mitigate viruses not registered 11 with the EPA or the CDPR or on List N. It is therefore unlawful to sell 12 this product because it is unregistered or misbranded. Moreover, to the 13 extent the “scientific” claim offered by the Defendants is based on the 14 Fraudulent White Paper, the claim is false and unsubstantiated by reliable 15 evidence. (7 U.S.C. § 136j; 40 C.F.R. § 168.22; Food & Agr. Code § 16 12881.) This claim is also false and misleading because the product has 17 not been evaluated for registration by EPA, does not appear on List N, and 18 therefore cannot be advertised as effective at “killing,” “stopping,” or 19 “eliminating” any virus, including the novel coronavirus. 20 iv. The label claims this product’s “USE” is “to sanitize hard and soft 21 surfaces.” This claim is false or misleading because this product is a 22 disinfectant designed to mitigate viruses not registered with the EPA or 23 the CDPR or on List N. It is therefore unlawful to sell this product 24 because it is unregistered or misbranded. Moreover, no relevant product 25 on List N is registered for use on porous surfaces, such as fabrics. (7 26 U.S.C. § 136j; 40 C.F.R. § 168.22; Food & Agr. Code § 12881.) 27 28 v. The label claims “[e]ither spray or use with a fogging machine.” This claim is false or misleading because this product is a disinfectant designed 37 COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTION, CIVIL PENALTIES, AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF 1 to mitigate viruses not registered with the EPA or the CDPR or on List N. 2 It is therefore unlawful to sell this product because it is unregistered or 3 misbranded. (7 U.S.C. § 136j; 40 C.F.R. § 168.22; Food & Agr. Code § 4 12881.) Moreover, this label claim is false and misleading because 5 neither the EPA nor the CDC recommend the use of fumigation or wide- 6 area spraying to control COVID-19, but rather recommend that 7 contaminated surfaces be cleaned with liquid products, such as those 8 provided on List N, to prevent the spread of disease. Fumigation and 9 wide-area spraying are not appropriate tools for cleaning surfaces 10 11 12 contaminated with SARS-CoV-2. C. CoronaStop28 Disinfectant Sanitizer (1 gallon, bulk). i. The label claims this product is a “Sanitizer.” This claim is false or 13 misleading because if this product is a disinfectant designed to mitigate 14 viruses not registered with the EPA or the CDPR. It is therefore deceptive 15 and unlawful to sell this product because it is unregistered or misbranded. 16 (7 U.S.C. § 136j; 40 C.F.R. § 168.22; Food & Agr. Code § 12881.) 17 ii. The label claims this product “[k]ills CoronaVirus.” This claim is false or 18 misleading because this product is a disinfectant designed to mitigate 19 viruses not registered with the EPA or the CDPR or on List N. It is 20 therefore unlawful to sell this product because it is unregistered or 21 misbranded. (7 U.S.C. § 136j; 40 C.F.R. § 168.22; Food & Agr. Code § 22 12881.) This claim is also false and misleading because the product has 23 not been evaluated for registration by EPA, does not appear on List N, and 24 therefore cannot be advertised as effective at “killing,” “stopping,” or 25 “eliminating” any virus, including the novel coronavirus. 26 iii. The label claims this product is “[s]cientifically tested and proven to kill 27 the CoronaVirus on contact.” This claim is false or misleading because 28 this product is a disinfectant designed to mitigate viruses not registered 38 COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTION, CIVIL PENALTIES, AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF 1 with the EPA or the CDPR or on List N. It is therefore unlawful to sell 2 this product because it is unregistered or misbranded. Moreover, to the 3 extent the “scientific” claim offered by the Defendants is based on the 4 Fraudulent White Paper, the claim is false and unsubstantiated by reliable 5 evidence. (7 U.S.C. § 136j; Food & Agr. Code § 12881.) This claim is 6 also false and misleading because the product has not been evaluated for 7 registration by EPA, does not appear on List N, and therefore cannot be 8 advertised as effective at “killing,” “stopping,” or “eliminating” any virus, 9 including the novel coronavirus. 10 iv. The label claims this product’s “USE” is “to sanitize hard and soft 11 surfaces.” This claim is false or misleading because this product is a 12 disinfectant designed to mitigate viruses not registered with EPA or the 13 CDPR or on List N. It is therefore unlawful to sell this product because it 14 is unregistered or misbranded. Moreover, no relevant product on List N is 15 registered for use on porous surfaces, such as fabrics. (7 U.S.C. § 136j; 40 16 C.F.R. § 168.22; Food & Agr. Code § 12881.) 17 18 152. Other false advertising claims: A. Representing that Defendants’ CoronaStop Disinfectants are pesticides 19 registered with the EPA for use against SARS-CoV-2. These claims are all 20 false or misleading because these claims are made for an unregistered 21 disinfectant that is not on List N. (7 U.S.C. § 136j; 40 C.F.R. § 168.22; Food 22 & Agr. Code § 12881.) These claims are also false and misleading because 23 the product has not been evaluated for registration by EPA, does not appear 24 on List N, and therefore cannot be advertised as effective at “killing,” 25 “stopping,” or “eliminating” any virus, including the novel coronavirus. 26 These claims include but are not limited to the following: 27 i. “Kills Corona on contact” 28 ii. “Antimicrobial Disinfectant Protectorant Coating” 39 COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTION, CIVIL PENALTIES, AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF 1 iii. “POWERFUL ANTI-MICROBIAL/VIRAL FORMULA” 2 iv. “STOPS COVID-19 FROM LATCHING ONTO SURFACES AND 3 4 5 SPREADING,” and v. “DISINFECTS.” B. Representing that Defendants’ CoronaStop Disinfectants are pesticides 6 registered with the EPA for use against SARS-CoV-2 on “soft” or “porous” 7 surfaces. These claims are all false or misleading because these claims are 8 made for an unregistered disinfectant that is not on List N, and no relevant 9 product on List N is approved for use on porous surfaces. (7 U.S.C. § 136j; 10 40 C.F.R. § 168.22; Food & Agr. Code § 12881.) These claims are also false 11 and misleading to the extent they rely upon claims included in the Fraudulent 12 White Paper. These claims include but are not limited to the following: 13 i. “CoronaStop28 can be used on nearly any type of surface. Our 14 research proved the persistence of CoronaStop28 to be superior on all 15 types of surfaces, porous and non-porous alike. We tested our product 16 on hard-surface substrates, non-woven textiles, Formica, and human 17 skin.” 18 19 20 ii. “Our research proved the persistence of CoronaStop28 to be superior on all types of surfaces, porous and non-porous alike.” C. Representing that Defendants’ CoronaStop Disinfectants persist on a surface for a 21 significant duration of time of up to 28 days. These claims are all false or 22 misleading because the EPA has not evaluated and accepted a residual claim for 23 pathogens, and because they are based on the Fraudulent White Paper. These 24 claims include but are not limited to the following: 25 i. “LASTS FOR 28 DAYS OR MORE” 26 ii. “Data from experiments involving the challenge of treated surfaces with 27 infectious germs of all kinds---bacteria, viruses, yeasts, fungi, spores---up 28 to two months after one disinfecting treatment demonstrate that levels of 40 COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTION, CIVIL PENALTIES, AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF 1 kill are maintained at a high level across the board.” 2 iii. “Our disinfectant kills corona-virus for up to 28 days!” 3 iv. “Studies show that COVID-19 remains on surfaces for multiple days! This 4 product is a necessity to assist in the protection of people from catching 5 the dangerous COVID-19 from contaminated surfaces.” 6 7 8 9 10 v. “CoronaStop28 persists on coated surfaces for 28 days without noticeable decline.” vi. “Our research proved the persistence of CoronaStop28 to be superior on all types of surfaces, porous and non-porous alike.” D. Representing that Defendants’ CoronaStop Disinfectants are “EPA Approved” or 11 endorsed by the EPA in any way, and other false claims regarding the EPA 12 registration status of these products. These claims are all false or misleading 13 because Defendants provided a false registration number for the CoronaStop 14 Disinfectants, which are not registered with the EPA, and the EPA does not 15 “approve” or endorse products. These claims include but are not limited to the 16 following: 17 i. “EPA APPROVED (REG #HQ-OPP-2013-0220-0008)” 18 ii. “The principal active component in the formulation is an EPA-registered 19 biocidal agent.” 20 E. Representing that Defendants’ CoronaStop Disinfectants are “environmentally 21 friendly” and/or non-toxic. These claims are also false and misleading because 22 the EPA does not allow products it regulates under FIFRA to be advertised as 23 “safe” or “non-toxic.” The EPA does not characterize products that it regulates 24 under FIFRA as “Generally Regarded as Safe” or “GRAS.” The Material Safety 25 Data Sheet provided by Defendants includes warnings for, among other things, 26 skin irritation. These claims include but are not limited to the following: 27 i. “ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY” 28 ii. “NON-TOXIC” 41 COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTION, CIVIL PENALTIES, AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF 1 F. Representing that Defendants’ CoronaStop Disinfectants meet certain drug- 2 related standards and can be effectively used on the human body. These claims 3 are all false or misleading because none of Defendants’ CoronaStop Disinfectants 4 are FDA-approved drugs. To the extent Defendants are claiming their product 5 has anti-microbial properties on human skin, they are making a drug claim about 6 an unapproved product in violation of California law. (Health & Saf. Code §§ 7 109925 (defining “drug”), 110390, 110395, 110398, 111440, 111550). The claims 8 are also false and misleading because the EPA does not allow products it 9 regulates under FIFRA to be advertised as “safe” or “non-toxic.” The EPA does 10 not characterize products that it regulates under FIFRA as “Generally Regarded as 11 Safe” or “GRAS.” The EPA also does not approve the use of pesticides on 12 human skin. These claims include but are not limited to the following: 13 i. "DOES NOT IRRITATE SKIN" 14 ii. GENERALLY REGARDED AS SAFE (GRAS CLASS, FDA) 15 iii. "We tested our product on . . . human skin." 16 "The active ingredients in the MACS formulation are safe for prolonged skin 17 contact, and do not cause irritation or sensitization." 18 153. Defendants knew, or by the exercise of reasonable care should have known at the 19 time of making the statements, or causing the statements to be made, that the statements set forth 20 in Paragraphs 149.A. through 149.G., 151.A. through 151.C., and 152.A. through 152.F. were 21 untrue or misleading. 22 154. These violations render each Defendant liable to the People for civil remedies of 23 up to $2,500 for each violation under Business and Professions Code section 17536 and provide 24 the basis for other remedies. 25 155. Defendants continue to market their “28-day” disinfectant and “8-hour” sanitizer. 26 On the ViraSafeZone Website, Defendants claim to have devised a phased plan for “a safe return 27 to work” featuring Defendants’ products. As noted above, this plan includes Defendants’ at28 home COVID-19 test kits. This plan also purportedly includes the use of 28-day disinfectants to 42 COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTION, CIVIL PENALTIES, AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF 1 “[s]etup a viral-repellent, high impact facility (i.e., City Hall) to create a virus free work 2 environment.” 3 156. Defendants are further marketing the use of their “28-Day” disinfectant “to 4 disinfect from floor to ceiling, all furniture, face masks, clothing, equipment, etc., for all surfaces 5 of the facility. 6 157. Defendants’ conduct, which began no later than February 20, 2020, is in 7 continuing violation of the False Advertising Law and has occurred within four years of the 8 filing of this Complaint. 9 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION: 10 VIOLATIONS OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE SECTION 17580.5 11 (Untrue, Deceptive or Misleading Environmental Marketing Claims) 12 (Against All Defendants) 13 158. The People restate and incorporate herein each and every allegation set forth in 14 paragraphs 1–157 above, as though fully alleged herein. 15 159. Beginning on or about February 20, 2020, if not earlier, and continuing to the 16 present, Defendants, and each of them, with each other or with other unknown persons, have 17 engaged in and continue to engage in, aided and abetted and continue to aid and abet, and 18 conspired to and continue to conspire to violate Business and Professions Code section 17580.5 19 by making untruthful, deceptive, or misleading environmental marketing claims in the City and 20 County of Los Angeles. Defendants’ untrue or misleading representations include, but are not 21 limited to, the following: 22 A. Representing that Defendants’ CoronaStop Disinfectants are 23 “environmentally friendly” and/or non-toxic. These claims are also false or 24 misleading because antimicrobial pesticides are necessarily toxic. These claims 25 include, but are not limited to, the following: 26 i. “ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY” 27 ii. “NON-TOXIC” 28 B. Representing that Defendants’ CoronaStop Disinfectants are “EPA 43 COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTION, CIVIL PENALTIES, AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF 1 Approved” or endorsed by the EPA in any way, and other false claims regarding 2 EPA registration status. These claims are all false or misleading because the 3 Defendants provide a false registration number, the CoronaStop Disinfectants are 4 not registered with the EPA, and the EPA does not “approve” or endorse products 5 and has not “approved” or endorsed the CoronaStop Disinfectants. These claims 6 include but are not limited to the following: 7 i. “EPA APPROVED (REG #HQ-OPP-2013-0220-0008)” 8 ii. “The principal active component in the formulation is an EPA-registered 9 10 biocidal agent.” 160. These violations render each Defendant liable to the People for civil remedies of 11 up to $2,500 for each violation under Business and Professions Code section 17536 and provide 12 the basis for other remedies. 13 161. Defendants’ conduct, which began not later than February 20, 2020, is in 14 continuing violation of Business and Professions Code section 17580.5 and has occurred within 15 four years of the filing of this Complaint. 16 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 17 VIOLATION OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE 17200 18 (UNFAIR COMPETITION) 19 (Against All Defendants) 20 162. The People restate and incorporate herein each and every allegation set forth in 21 paragraphs 1 through 161 above, as though fully alleged herein. 22 163. Beginning no later than February 20, 2020 and continuing to the present, 23 Defendants, and each of them, with each other or other unknown persons, have engaged in and 24 continue to engage in, aided and abetted and continue to aid and abet, and conspired to and 25 continue to conspire to engage in acts or practices that constitute unfair competition as defined 26 by Business and Professions Code section 17200 by engaging in unfair, unlawful and/or 27 fraudulent conduct as described in this complaint. Such acts or practices include, but are not 28 limited to, the following: 44 COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTION, CIVIL PENALTIES, AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF 1 A. Violating Business and Professions Code section 17500, by making or 2 disseminating, or causing to be made or disseminated, statements before the 3 public with respect to the effectiveness that Defendants knew were untrue 4 and misleading and which were and are known by Defendants to be untrue 5 and misleading, as described above, including in paragraphs 148-157; 6 B. Violating Business and Professions Code section 17580.5, by making 7 untruthful, deceptive, or misleading environmental marketing claims as 8 described above, including in paragraphs 158-161; 9 C. Violating Health and Safety Code section 111440, as described above, by 10 selling, delivering, holding, or offering for sale a drug or device that is 11 misbranded as described above, including in paragraphs 88-93, 95-98, 106- 12 17, 147, and 148-50; 13 D. Violating Health and Safety Code section 111550, as described above, by 14 selling or offering for sale a new drug or device that does not satisfy relevant 15 federal or state requirements, as described above, including in paragraphs 88- 16 99, 102, 106-17, and 126-61; 17 E. Violating Health and Safety Code section 110390, by disseminating false 18 advertisements for devices and drugs, as described above, including in 19 paragraphs 88-99, 102, 106-17, and 126-61, which advertisements are false 20 or misleading in any particular; 21 F. Violating Health and Safety Code section 110395, as described above, 22 including in paragraphs 88-99, 102, 106-17, and 126-61, by manufacturing, 23 selling, delivering, holding, or offering for sale any drug or device that is 24 falsely advertised; 25 G. Violating Health and Safety Code section 110398, as described above, 26 including in paragraphs 88-99, 102, 106-17, and 126-61, by advertising any 27 drug or device that is misbranded; 28 H. Violating Food and Agricultural Code section 12993, which prohibits the 45 COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTION, CIVIL PENALTIES, AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF 1 manufacture, sale or distribution of “…any pesticide or any substance or 2 mixture of substances that is represented to be a pesticide…which is not 3 registered pursuant to this chapter…,” by selling and/or distributing 4 unregistered products as described above, including in paragraphs 91-99, 5 102, 116-17, 126-47, 151-53, and 158-61; 6 I. Violating Food and Agricultural Code section 12881, which prohibits the 7 sale of misbranded pesticides, and states that a pesticide is misbranded if 8 “(a) the package or label bears any false or misleading statement, design, or 9 device regarding the article or any ingredient or substance that is contained in 10 it” or if “(d) it is labeled or branded so as to deceive or mislead the 11 purchaser,” by selling products that bear false and misleading statements 12 and/or are labeled to mislead the purchaser as described above, including in 13 paragraphs 91-99, 102, 116-17, 126-47, 151-53, and 158-61; 14 J. Violating FIFRA, 7 U.S.C. section 136j, by selling or distributing pesticides 15 that are unregistered and/or the sale or distribution of registered pesticides 16 with claims that substantially differ from those allowed under the terms of 17 their registration as described above, including in paragraphs 91-99, 102, 18 116-17, 126-47, 151-53, and 158-61; and 19 K. Violating FIFRA, 7 U.S.C. section 136j, by selling or distributing pesticides 20 that are misbranded, including, among other things, pesticides where the 21 “labeling bears any statement, design, or graphic representation relative 22 thereto or to its ingredients which is false or misleading in any particular;” or 23 the pesticide “is an imitation of, or is offered for sale under the name of, 24 another pesticide,” (7 U.S.C. § 136(q)), as described above, including in 25 paragraphs 91-99, 102, 116-17, 126-47, 151-53, and 158-61. 26 164. By committing the acts alleged above, at all times material to this complaint, each 27 Defendant has engaged in unlawful business practices that constitute unfair competition within 28 the meaning of Business and Professions Code section 17200. 46 COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTION, CIVIL PENALTIES, AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF 1 165. By committing the acts alleged above, Defendants are liable to the People for civil 2 penalties of up to $2,500 for each violation. 3 166. Defendants’ unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business acts or practices, as 4 described above, present a continuing threat to members of the public. 5 167. Defendants’ conduct, which began not later than February 20, 2020, is in 6 continuing violation of the Unfair Competition Law and has occurred within four years of the 7 filing of this Complaint. 8 9 10 PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, the People pray for judgment as follows: 1. That pursuant to Business and Professions Code sections 17203 and 17204 and 11 the equitable powers of the Court, Defendants, and their successors, agents, representatives, 12 employees, and all persons who act in concert with Defendants be permanently enjoined from 13 engaging in unfair competition as defined in Business and Professions Code section 17200 et 14 seq., including, but not limited to, the acts and practices alleged in this Complaint. 15 2. That pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 17535, Defendants, their 16 successors, agents, representatives, employees, and all persons who act in concert with 17 Defendants be permanently enjoined from making any untrue or misleading statements in 18 violation of Business and Professions Code section 17500 et seq., including but not limited to, 19 the untrue or misleading statements alleged in the Complaint. 20 3. That pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 17206, Defendants be 21 assessed a civil penalty of $2,500 for each violation of Business and Professions Code section 22 17200 et seq. that they committed, caused, aided and abetted or conspired to commit, as proved 23 at trial, but in an amount not less than $1,000,000. 24 4. That pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 17536, Defendants be 25 accessed a civil penalty of $2,500 for each violation of Business and Professions Code sections 26 17500 et seq. that they committed, caused, aided and abetted, or conspired to commit, as proved 27 at trial, but in an amount not less than $1,000,000. 28 5. That Defendants be ordered to make direct restitution of any money or other 47 COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTION, CIVIL PENALTIES, AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF 1 property that may have been acquired by the violations of Business and Professions Code section 2 17200 et seq. and 17500 et seq. 3 6. That the People recover the costs of this action. 4 7. Such other relief that the Court deems just and proper. 5 6 Dated: May 26, 2020 Respectfully Submitted, 7 MICHAEL N. FEUER Los Angeles City Attorney 8 9 10 11 By: _________________________________ CHRISTINA V. TUSAN Supervising Deputy City Attorney 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 48 COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTION, CIVIL PENALTIES, AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF