Federal Trade Commission v. Precision Patient Outcomes, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Case No. 22-cv-07307-VC

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

v. DISMISS

PRECISION PATIENT OUTCOMES, Re: Dkt. No. 21 INC., et al., Defendants.

The motion to dismiss is denied. This ruling assumes the reader is familiar with the facts and the arguments made by both parties. 1. FTC’s Constitutional Authority. The defendants argue that the FTC cannot constitutionally bring this action because FTC Commissioners are only removable for cause. That argument is clearly foreclosed by Supreme Court precedent. Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 602, 632 (1935); see also FTC v. Roomster, No. 22-cv-7389-CM, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17138, at *21–26 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 1, 2023). 2. FTC’s Authority Over Dietary Supplements. The defendants next argue that the FTC does not have the authority to challenge the advertising of dietary supplements because the FDA has the exclusive power to regulate dietary supplements. The defendants cite to no authority suggesting that the FDA’s regulation of dietary supplements is exclusive. And Congress has clearly given the FTC the…