{"cached_at":"2026-11-03T11:43:45.059981+00:00","cl_docket_id":"18719211","docket":{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/18719211/","id":18719211,"court":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/courts/mdd/","court_id":"mdd","original_court_info":null,"idb_data":null,"clusters":["https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/9741579/"],"audio_files":[],"assigned_to":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/people/2808/","referred_to":null,"bankruptcy_information":null,"absolute_url":"/docket/18719211/federal-trade-commission-v-dennis/","date_created":"2020-12-07T07:10:46.053714-08:00","date_modified":"2025-05-02T22:39:24.167284-07:00","source":1,"appeal_from_str":"","assigned_to_str":"George Levi Russell, III","referred_to_str":"","panel_str":"","date_last_index":"2024-03-31T03:32:44.902347-07:00","date_cert_granted":null,"date_cert_denied":null,"date_argued":null,"date_reargued":null,"date_reargument_denied":null,"date_filed":"2020-12-07","date_terminated":"2024-01-01","date_last_filing":"2023-12-13","case_name_short":"Dennis","case_name":"Federal Trade Commission v. Dennis","case_name_full":"","slug":"federal-trade-commission-v-dennis","docket_number":"1:20-cv-03538","docket_number_core":"2003538","docket_number_raw":"1:20-cv-03538","docket_number_source":0,"federal_dn_office_code":"1","federal_dn_case_type":"cv","federal_dn_judge_initials_assigned":"GLR","federal_dn_judge_initials_referred":"","federal_defendant_number":null,"pacer_case_id":"487710","cause":"15:41 Federal Trade Commission Act","nature_of_suit":"Other Statutory Actions","jury_demand":"None","jurisdiction_type":"Federal Question","appellate_fee_status":"","appellate_case_type_information":"","mdl_status":"","filepath_ia":"","filepath_ia_json":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"ia_needs_upload":true,"ia_date_first_change":"2020-12-07T07:10:46.038265-08:00","date_blocked":null,"blocked":false,"appeal_from":null,"parent_docket":null,"tags":[],"panel":[]},"parties":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/10858589/","id":10858589,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7102423/","attorney_id":7102423,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/18719211/","docket_id":18719211,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/18719211/","docket_id":18719211,"name":"Interested Party","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2021-06-25T07:11:53.829700-07:00","date_modified":"2021-06-25T07:11:53.829730-07:00","name":"Independent Monitor, Affiliated Monitors, Inc.","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/10548830/","id":10548830,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6912703/","attorney_id":6912703,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/18719211/","docket_id":18719211,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6912703/","attorney_id":6912703,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/18719211/","docket_id":18719211,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7419542/","attorney_id":7419542,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/18719211/","docket_id":18719211,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6912704/","attorney_id":6912704,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/18719211/","docket_id":18719211,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6912704/","attorney_id":6912704,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/18719211/","docket_id":18719211,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/18719211/","docket_id":18719211,"name":"Interested Party","date_terminated":"2022-03-15","extra_info":"TERMINATED: 03/15/2022","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2021-03-08T08:12:13.210568-08:00","date_modified":"2021-03-08T08:12:13.210607-08:00","name":"STRIPE, INC.","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/10548829/","id":10548829,"attorneys":[],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/18719211/","docket_id":18719211,"name":"Garnishee","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2021-03-08T08:12:13.202004-08:00","date_modified":"2021-03-08T08:12:13.202057-08:00","name":"E*Trade Securities LLC","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/10218903/","id":10218903,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6697110/","attorney_id":6697110,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/18719211/","docket_id":18719211,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6697110/","attorney_id":6697110,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/18719211/","docket_id":18719211,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6705551/","attorney_id":6705551,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/18719211/","docket_id":18719211,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/18719211/","docket_id":18719211,"name":"Receiver","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2020-12-11T07:35:52.077573-08:00","date_modified":"2020-12-11T07:35:52.077611-08:00","name":"Peter Keith, Esq.","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/10205973/","id":10205973,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6691089/","attorney_id":6691089,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/18719211/","docket_id":18719211,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6691089/","attorney_id":6691089,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/18719211/","docket_id":18719211,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6912697/","attorney_id":6912697,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/18719211/","docket_id":18719211,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6912697/","attorney_id":6912697,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/18719211/","docket_id":18719211,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6912698/","attorney_id":6912698,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/18719211/","docket_id":18719211,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6912698/","attorney_id":6912698,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/18719211/","docket_id":18719211,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6912699/","attorney_id":6912699,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/18719211/","docket_id":18719211,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6912699/","attorney_id":6912699,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/18719211/","docket_id":18719211,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6912700/","attorney_id":6912700,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/18719211/","docket_id":18719211,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/18719211/","docket_id":18719211,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":"2022-03-15","extra_info":"TERMINATED: 03/15/2022","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2020-12-08T08:11:39.500288-08:00","date_modified":"2020-12-08T08:11:39.500322-08:00","name":"Sherwood Ventures, LLC","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/10205972/","id":10205972,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6691089/","attorney_id":6691089,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/18719211/","docket_id":18719211,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6691089/","attorney_id":6691089,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/18719211/","docket_id":18719211,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6912698/","attorney_id":6912698,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/18719211/","docket_id":18719211,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6912698/","attorney_id":6912698,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/18719211/","docket_id":18719211,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6912699/","attorney_id":6912699,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/18719211/","docket_id":18719211,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6912699/","attorney_id":6912699,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/18719211/","docket_id":18719211,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6912700/","attorney_id":6912700,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/18719211/","docket_id":18719211,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/18719211/","docket_id":18719211,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":"2022-03-15","extra_info":"a Delaware corporation\nTERMINATED: 03/15/2022","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2020-12-08T08:11:39.464270-08:00","date_modified":"2020-12-08T08:11:39.464309-08:00","name":"Jason Bond, LLC","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/10205971/","id":10205971,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6912701/","attorney_id":6912701,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/18719211/","docket_id":18719211,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6912701/","attorney_id":6912701,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/18719211/","docket_id":18719211,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6710646/","attorney_id":6710646,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/18719211/","docket_id":18719211,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6710646/","attorney_id":6710646,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/18719211/","docket_id":18719211,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6699073/","attorney_id":6699073,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/18719211/","docket_id":18719211,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6710647/","attorney_id":6710647,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/18719211/","docket_id":18719211,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6710647/","attorney_id":6710647,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/18719211/","docket_id":18719211,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6710648/","attorney_id":6710648,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/18719211/","docket_id":18719211,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6710648/","attorney_id":6710648,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/18719211/","docket_id":18719211,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/18719211/","docket_id":18719211,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"individually and as an officer and/or member of Winston Research Inc. and Winston Corp.","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2020-12-08T08:11:39.436535-08:00","date_modified":"2020-12-08T08:11:39.436574-08:00","name":"Kyle W. Dennis","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/10205970/","id":10205970,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6691089/","attorney_id":6691089,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/18719211/","docket_id":18719211,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6691089/","attorney_id":6691089,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/18719211/","docket_id":18719211,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6912697/","attorney_id":6912697,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/18719211/","docket_id":18719211,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6912697/","attorney_id":6912697,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/18719211/","docket_id":18719211,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6912698/","attorney_id":6912698,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/18719211/","docket_id":18719211,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6912698/","attorney_id":6912698,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/18719211/","docket_id":18719211,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6912699/","attorney_id":6912699,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/18719211/","docket_id":18719211,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6912699/","attorney_id":6912699,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/18719211/","docket_id":18719211,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6912700/","attorney_id":6912700,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/18719211/","docket_id":18719211,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/18719211/","docket_id":18719211,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":"2022-03-15","extra_info":"individually and as an officer and/or member of RagingBull.com, LLC, and Sherwood Ventures, LLC\nTERMINATED: 03/15/2022","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2020-12-08T08:11:39.427045-08:00","date_modified":"2020-12-08T08:11:39.427084-08:00","name":"Jeffrey M. Bishop","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/10202078/","id":10202078,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6691089/","attorney_id":6691089,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/18719211/","docket_id":18719211,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6691089/","attorney_id":6691089,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/18719211/","docket_id":18719211,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6912701/","attorney_id":6912701,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/18719211/","docket_id":18719211,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6912701/","attorney_id":6912701,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/18719211/","docket_id":18719211,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6710646/","attorney_id":6710646,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/18719211/","docket_id":18719211,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6710646/","attorney_id":6710646,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/18719211/","docket_id":18719211,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6699073/","attorney_id":6699073,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/18719211/","docket_id":18719211,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6710647/","attorney_id":6710647,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/18719211/","docket_id":18719211,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6710647/","attorney_id":6710647,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/18719211/","docket_id":18719211,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6912699/","attorney_id":6912699,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/18719211/","docket_id":18719211,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6912699/","attorney_id":6912699,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/18719211/","docket_id":18719211,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6710648/","attorney_id":6710648,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/18719211/","docket_id":18719211,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6710648/","attorney_id":6710648,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/18719211/","docket_id":18719211,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6912700/","attorney_id":6912700,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/18719211/","docket_id":18719211,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/18719211/","docket_id":18719211,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":"2021-05-18","extra_info":"a Delaware corporation\nTERMINATED: 05/18/2021","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2020-12-07T07:10:46.338752-08:00","date_modified":"2020-12-07T07:10:46.338770-08:00","name":"Winston Research Inc.","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/10202077/","id":10202077,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6691089/","attorney_id":6691089,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/18719211/","docket_id":18719211,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6691089/","attorney_id":6691089,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/18719211/","docket_id":18719211,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6912697/","attorney_id":6912697,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/18719211/","docket_id":18719211,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6912697/","attorney_id":6912697,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/18719211/","docket_id":18719211,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6912701/","attorney_id":6912701,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/18719211/","docket_id":18719211,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6912701/","attorney_id":6912701,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/18719211/","docket_id":18719211,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6710646/","attorney_id":6710646,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/18719211/","docket_id":18719211,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6710646/","attorney_id":6710646,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/18719211/","docket_id":18719211,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6699073/","attorney_id":6699073,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/18719211/","docket_id":18719211,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6710647/","attorney_id":6710647,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/18719211/","docket_id":18719211,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6710647/","attorney_id":6710647,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/18719211/","docket_id":18719211,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6912699/","attorney_id":6912699,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/18719211/","docket_id":18719211,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6912699/","attorney_id":6912699,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/18719211/","docket_id":18719211,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6710648/","attorney_id":6710648,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/18719211/","docket_id":18719211,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6710648/","attorney_id":6710648,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/18719211/","docket_id":18719211,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6912700/","attorney_id":6912700,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/18719211/","docket_id":18719211,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/18719211/","docket_id":18719211,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":"2021-05-18","extra_info":"a California corporation\nTERMINATED: 05/18/2021","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2020-12-07T07:10:46.334080-08:00","date_modified":"2020-12-07T07:10:46.334103-08:00","name":"Winston Corp.","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/10202075/","id":10202075,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6699074/","attorney_id":6699074,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/18719211/","docket_id":18719211,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6699074/","attorney_id":6699074,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/18719211/","docket_id":18719211,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6912702/","attorney_id":6912702,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/18719211/","docket_id":18719211,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/18719211/","docket_id":18719211,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":"2021-02-04","extra_info":"a Florida corporation\nTERMINATED: 02/04/2021","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2020-12-07T07:10:46.320800-08:00","date_modified":"2020-12-07T07:10:46.320834-08:00","name":"MFA Holdings Corp.","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/10202074/","id":10202074,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6691089/","attorney_id":6691089,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/18719211/","docket_id":18719211,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6691089/","attorney_id":6691089,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/18719211/","docket_id":18719211,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6912697/","attorney_id":6912697,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/18719211/","docket_id":18719211,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6912697/","attorney_id":6912697,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/18719211/","docket_id":18719211,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6912698/","attorney_id":6912698,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/18719211/","docket_id":18719211,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6912698/","attorney_id":6912698,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/18719211/","docket_id":18719211,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6912699/","attorney_id":6912699,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/18719211/","docket_id":18719211,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6912699/","attorney_id":6912699,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/18719211/","docket_id":18719211,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6912700/","attorney_id":6912700,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/18719211/","docket_id":18719211,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/18719211/","docket_id":18719211,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":"2022-03-15","extra_info":"individually and as an officer and/or member of RagingBull.com, LLC and Jason Bond, LLC\nTERMINATED: 03/15/2022\nformerly known as\nJason P. Kowalik\nTERMINATED: 03/15/2022","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2020-12-07T07:10:46.312921-08:00","date_modified":"2020-12-07T07:10:46.312961-08:00","name":"Jason Bond","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/10202071/","id":10202071,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6691089/","attorney_id":6691089,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/18719211/","docket_id":18719211,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6691089/","attorney_id":6691089,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/18719211/","docket_id":18719211,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6912697/","attorney_id":6912697,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/18719211/","docket_id":18719211,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6912697/","attorney_id":6912697,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/18719211/","docket_id":18719211,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6912698/","attorney_id":6912698,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/18719211/","docket_id":18719211,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6912698/","attorney_id":6912698,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/18719211/","docket_id":18719211,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6912699/","attorney_id":6912699,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/18719211/","docket_id":18719211,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6912699/","attorney_id":6912699,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/18719211/","docket_id":18719211,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6912700/","attorney_id":6912700,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/18719211/","docket_id":18719211,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/18719211/","docket_id":18719211,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":"2022-03-15","extra_info":"a Delaware corporation\nTERMINATED: 03/15/2022\nformerly known as\nLighthouse Media LLC\nTERMINATED: 03/15/2022","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2020-12-07T07:10:46.284383-08:00","date_modified":"2020-12-07T07:10:46.284424-08:00","name":"RagingBull.com, LLC","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/10202070/","id":10202070,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6688693/","attorney_id":6688693,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/18719211/","docket_id":18719211,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6688693/","attorney_id":6688693,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/18719211/","docket_id":18719211,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7855885/","attorney_id":7855885,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/18719211/","docket_id":18719211,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6912696/","attorney_id":6912696,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/18719211/","docket_id":18719211,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6688695/","attorney_id":6688695,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/18719211/","docket_id":18719211,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6688295/","attorney_id":6688295,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/18719211/","docket_id":18719211,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/18719211/","docket_id":18719211,"name":"Plaintiff","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2020-12-07T07:10:46.248199-08:00","date_modified":"2020-12-07T07:10:46.248237-08:00","name":"Federal Trade Commission","extra_info":""}],"entries":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/241282438/","id":241282438,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/18719211/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/247443344/","id":247443344,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/18719211/311/federal-trade-commission-v-dennis/","date_created":"2023-03-16T01:26:49.580277-07:00","date_modified":"2024-11-14T15:17:32.410610-08:00","sha1":"7091049d634993c7b2df63725799196d7c4676dc","page_count":16,"file_size":219305,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.487710/gov.uscourts.mdd.487710.311.0_1.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.mdd.487710/gov.uscourts.mdd.487710.311.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":"recap-thumbnails/gov.uscourts.mdd.487710/247443344.thumb.1068.png","thumbnail_status":1,"plain_text":"       Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 311 Filed 03/15/23 Page 1 of 16\n\n\n\n                        IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND\n\n FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,                  *\n\n          Plaintiff,                        *\n\n v.                                         *      Civil Action No. GLR-20-3538\n\n RAGINGBULL.COM, LLC, et al.,               *\n\n          Defendants.                       *\n\n                                     ***\n                              MEMORANDUM OPINION\n\n      THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant Kyle Dennis\u2019s Motion to Dismiss.\n\n(ECF Nos. 308). The Motion is ripe for disposition, and no hearing is necessary. See Local\n\nRule 105.6 (D.Md. 2021). For the reasons set forth below, the Court will deny the Motion.\n\n                                I.   BACKGROUND 1\n\nA.    Factual Background\n\n      On December 7, 2020, the Federal Trade Commission (\u201cFTC\u201d) commenced the\n\nabove-captioned matter alleging that RagingBull.com (\u201cRaging Bull\u201d), a provider of\n\nsubscription-based investment training, as well as five corporate Defendants and three\n\nindividual Defendants connected to Raging Bull, defrauded consumers of more than $137\n\nmillion by misrepresenting how much money Raging Bull\u2019s subscribers could make using\n\nits online stock and options trading services. (See generally 2d Am. Compl., ECF No. 304).\n\n\n\n      1\n         Unless otherwise noted, the Court takes the following facts from the Second\nAmended Complaint (ECF No. 304) and accepts them as true. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551\nU.S. 89, 94 (2007).\n\f         Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 311 Filed 03/15/23 Page 2 of 16\n\n\n\n         All other claims and defendants having been dismissed from this action, (see\n\ngenerally Mar. 15, 2022 Stipulated Order for Fees, ECF No. 301), the two remaining claims\n\nin this case are brought under Section 5(a) of the FTC Act against Defendant Kyle Dennis.\n\n(2d Am. Compl. \u00b6\u00b6 1, 121\u201328). Dennis is a \u201csalesman and trading instructor\u201d who offers\n\nseveral products and services through Raging Bull. (Id. \u00b6\u00b6 2, 14). Dennis joined Raging\n\nBull as a salesman and instructor in 2016. (Id. \u00b6 20).\n\n         Raging Bull \u201cadvertises that consumers who sign up for [its] programs will\n\nlearn . . . simple-to-follow strategies for beating the market or will be able to copy\u201d the\n\nstock trades of Raging Bull\u2019s instructors, including Dennis, to generate profits. (Id. \u00b6 3).\n\nRaging Bull also advertises that Dennis and other instructors \u201cmade their own millions\n\ntrading stocks and then joined Raging Bull as instructors to teach their methods.\u201d (Id. \u00b6 48).\n\nThe FTC alleges that Dennis uses \u201chigh pressure tactics\u201d to induce customers to purchase\n\nRaging Bull\u2019s products, and that he has the ability to \u201capprove or reject any advertisement\n\nor marketing material bearing his name, image, or likeness, which includes all the\n\nmarketing material used to promote\u201d his products and services. (Id. \u00b6\u00b6 61\u201362).\n\n         1.    Allegations Regarding False or Unsubstantiated Earnings Claims\n\n         In Count I of the Second Amended Complaint, the FTC claims that Dennis violated\n\nSection 5(a) of the FTC Act by \u201crepresent[ing], directly or indirectly, expressly or by\n\nimplication, that consumers who purchase Raging Bull\u2019s services will earn or are likely to\n\nearn substantial income.\u201d (Id. \u00b6 123). The FTC alleges that Dennis made multiple\n\nrepresentations regarding consumers\u2019 earnings potential, which the Court condenses\n\nbelow:\n\n                                              2\n\fCase 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 311 Filed 03/15/23 Page 3 of 16\n\n\n\n     \u2022 In a promotion for a product called \u201cFast Five Trades,\u201d\n       Dennis states that he intends to \u201cshow people how they can\n       hit the ground running and begin to add an extra 250, 500,\n       even 2,000 dollars or more to their account each and every\n       week\u201d and that he will \u201cenable consumers to generate \u2018fast\n       profits\u2019 in \u2018five days\u2019 or less,\u201d (id. \u00b6 51);\n\n     \u2022 In a promotion for a product called \u201cDollar Ace,\u201d Dennis\n       states that consumers will be able to \u201cgrow their small\n       accounts from \u20181,000 to 5,000 to 10,000 to 25,000 in a\n       matter of months,\u2019\u201d and that subscribers to this product will\n       \u201creceive access to trades that will generate 100% or more\n       in trading profits in just \u2018one to three days,\u2019\u201d (id. \u00b6 52);\n\n     \u2022 In a promotional video entitled \u201cKyle Dennis presents the\n       $100K Heist!\u201d Dennis states that he will \u201cshow [customers]\n       how to systematically build\u201d a $10,000 trading account into\n       a $100,000 trading account, (id. \u00b6 53);\n\n     \u2022 Dennis states, in a sales video for a product called \u201cBlack\n       Optics,\u201d that he will \u201cshow [consumers] how to 10X [their]\n       account by mastering [his] simple system and then\n       introducing new profit buckets so that the cash flow never\n       dries up,\u201d (id. \u00b6 54);\n\n     \u2022 Dennis \u201crepeatedly made claims\u201d in live webinar\n       presentations that consumers who enrolled in Raging Bull\u2019s\n       services were \u201clikely to generate substantial income and\n       consistent trading profits,\u201d (id. \u00b6 55);\n\n     \u2022 In a promotional video for a service called \u201cOption\n       Rocket,\u201d Dennis states that customers stand a 95 percent\n       chance of doubling their investment using the service, (id.\n       \u00b6 56);\n\n     \u2022 Dennis states, in an another promotion for \u201cOption\n       Rocket,\u201d that customers who purchase the service will\n       potentially \u201cgenerate \u2018500, 600, 1,000, [and] 2,000 percent\u2019\n       returns,\u201d and that if customers do not make more than\n       $1,997 using the service, he will give them $1,977 of value\n       for another year of service for free, (id. \u00b6 57);\n\n\n\n                                   3\n\f       Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 311 Filed 03/15/23 Page 4 of 16\n\n\n\n              \u2022 In a promotional webinar entitled \u201cFortune Forecaster, the\n                9-to-5 Killer,\u201d Dennis states that customers can create\n                \u201creliable,\u201d \u201crepeatable,\u201d and \u201creproducible\u201d trading profits\n                by using a strategy that \u201canybody can use\u201d to \u201cquickly\n                generate trading profits like Dennis,\u201d (id. \u00b6 59);\n\n              \u2022 In a webinar entitled \u201cThe Resolution,\u201d which advertises\n                Raging Bull\u2019s services, Dennis states that customers can\n                grow their trading accounts from \u201c$5,000 to $50,000 using\n                the services offered\u201d in the webinar, (id. \u00b6 60);\n\n              \u2022 Dennis markets a newsletter entitled \u201cSniper Report\u201d which\n                contains trading strategies \u201cstrategically developed\u201d to\n                deliver returns of between 100 and 300 percent on each\n                trade, (id. \u00b6 69);\n\n              \u2022 Dennis stated in a May 2020 advertisement for a service\n                entitled \u201cTrade With Kyle\u201d that he had found an \u201cexciting\n                opportunity\u201d to make money on stock trades during the\n                COVID-19 pandemic, (id. \u00b6 70).\n\n       In essence, the FTC alleges that, despite the income-related representations made in\n\nDennis\u2019s videos and webinars, Dennis lacks substantiation for any claims that consumers\n\nare likely to earn substantial income using Raging Bull\u2019s products. (Id. \u00b6 67). Indeed, the\n\nFTC claims that a \u201csubstantial number\u201d of Raging Bull\u2019s customers have lost money while\n\nattempting to invest based upon the trading advice provided by instructors like Dennis in\n\nRaging Bull\u2019s products. (Id. \u00b6 73).\n\n       2.     Allegations Regarding Other Misrepresentations\n\n       In Count II of the Second Amended Complaint, the FTC claims that Dennis violated\n\nSection 5(a) of the FTC Act by representing that consumers will earn, or are likely to earn,\n\nsubstantial income using Raging Bull\u2019s services even if they: (1) have little to no\n\nexperience in securities trading; (2) \u201cspend only a short amount of time each day using the\n\n\n                                             4\n\f        Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 311 Filed 03/15/23 Page 5 of 16\n\n\n\nservice[s]\u201d; and (3) \u201cstart with a very small balance in their brokerage account.\u201d (Id. \u00b6 126).\n\nThe FTC alleges that Dennis made multiple representations regarding Raging Bull\u2019s\n\nservices, which the Court condenses below:\n\n                  \u2022 In a sales video entitled \u201cFast Five Trades,\u201d Dennis\n                    describes his trading system to customers as such: \u201cI\n                    call these my fast five trades. In on Monday, out by\n                    Friday, five days, fast profits. Just like that,\u201d (id. \u00b6 85);\n\n                  \u2022 Dennis claims in a sales video for a product called\n                    \u201cDollar Ace\u201d that the product \u201crequires just \u2018minutes\n                    per day\u2019 to implement\u2019\u201d and that it \u201cfinds those big\n                    returns in a one to three-day period so you can grow and\n                    it works in no matter what market condition is thrown\n                    at us . . . ,\u201d (id. \u00b6 86);\n\n                  \u2022 Dennis claims, in a sales webinar for a product called\n                    \u201cMortal Lock\u201d: \u201cI make it easy. . . . Schedule your\n                    paycheck. Collect your cash. . . . There\u2019s little time\n                    commitment on this . . . . With this strategy, it doesn\u2019t\n                    matter if you have the smallest account in the world and\n                    it doesn\u2019t matter if you have the largest account in the\n                    world. You can make money doing this,\u201d (id. \u00b6 87).\n\n       The FTC alleges that \u201c[n]umerous consumers\u201d have found Dennis\u2019s claims \u201cabout\n\nthe level of experience, account size, and time investment\u201d needed to gain income with his\n\n\u201cservices to be inconsistent with their experiences.\u201d (Id. \u00b6 89). The FTC also alleges that\n\nDennis continues to commit the alleged violations outlined above. (Id. \u00b6 120). As relief,\n\nthe FTC seeks, among other things, a permanent injunction to prevent Dennis from\n\ncommitting future violations of the FTC Act. (Id. at 41).\n\nB.     Procedural History\n\n       The FTC filed this action on December 7, 2020, against Dennis, Raging Bull, and\n\nmultiple other Defendants. (ECF No. 1). On December 8, 2020, the Court entered a\n\n                                              5\n\f        Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 311 Filed 03/15/23 Page 6 of 16\n\n\n\nTemporary Restraining Order against Dennis and other Defendants that, among other\n\nthings, enjoined Dennis from making misrepresentations and engaging in other acts in\n\nviolation of the FTC Act. (Dec. 8, 2020 TRO at 3, ECF No. 21).\n\n        The FTC filed an Amended Complaint on February 4, 2021. (ECF No. 164). On\n\nJanuary 21, 2022, all parties except for Dennis filed a Notice of Proposed Settlement in\n\nPrinciple. (ECF No. 286). On March 15, 2022, the Court entered another Stipulated Order\n\nthat, among other things, resolved all matters in dispute in this action between the FTC and\n\nall Defendants except for Dennis. (Stipulated Inj. Order at 1\u20132, 4, ECF No. 303). By leave\n\nof the Court, the FTC filed a Second Amended Complaint on March 15, 2022. (ECF No.\n\n304).\n\n        On April 5, 2022, Dennis filed a Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended\n\nComplaint. (ECF No. 308). The FTC filed an Opposition on April 19, 2022, (ECF No.\n\n309), and Dennis filed a Reply on May 5, 2022, (ECF No. 310).\n\n                                   II.    DISCUSSION\n\nA.      Standard of Review\n\n        The purpose of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion is to \u201ctest[] the sufficiency of a complaint,\u201d\n\nnot to \u201cresolve contests surrounding the facts, the merits of a claim, or the applicability of\n\ndefenses.\u201d King v. Rubenstein, 825 F.3d 206, 214 (4th Cir. 2016) (quoting Edwards v. City\n\nof Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 243 (4th Cir. 1999)). A complaint fails to state a claim if it\n\ndoes not contain \u201ca short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is\n\nentitled to relief,\u201d Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2), or does not \u201cstate a claim to relief that is plausible\n\non its face,\u201d Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v.\n\n                                               6\n\f        Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 311 Filed 03/15/23 Page 7 of 16\n\n\n\nTwombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is facially plausible \u201cwhen the plaintiff\n\npleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the\n\ndefendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.\u201d Id. \u201cThreadbare recitals of the elements of\n\na cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.\u201d Id. Though\n\nthe plaintiff is not required to forecast evidence to prove the elements of the claim, the\n\ncomplaint must allege sufficient facts to establish each element. Goss v. Bank of Am.,\n\nN.A., 917 F.Supp.2d 445, 449 (D.Md. 2013) (quoting Walters v. McMahen, 684 F.3d 435,\n\n439 (4th Cir. 2012)), aff\u2019d, 546 F.App\u2019x 165 (4th Cir. 2013).\n\n       In considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a court must examine the complaint as a\n\nwhole, accept the factual allegations in the complaint as true, and construe the factual\n\nallegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266,\n\n268 (1994); Lambeth v. Bd. of Comm\u2019rs of Davidson Cnty., 407 F.3d 266, 268 (4th Cir.\n\n2005). But the court need not accept unsupported or conclusory factual allegations devoid\n\nof any reference to actual events, United Black Firefighters v. Hirst, 604 F.2d 844, 847 (4th\n\nCir. 1979), or legal conclusions couched as factual allegations, Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678\n\n(quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).\n\nB.     Analysis\n\n       The FTC brings claims against Dennis under Sections 5(a) and 13 of the FTC Act.\n\nSection 5(a) prohibits engaging in \u201c[u]nfair methods of competition in or affecting\n\ncommerce, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce.\u201d 15 U.S.C.\n\n\u00a7 45(a)(1). Under Section 13 of the FTC Act, the FTC is empowered to sue in federal\n\ndistrict court if the FTC \u201chas reason to believe . . . that any person, partnership, or\n\n                                              7\n\f        Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 311 Filed 03/15/23 Page 8 of 16\n\n\n\ncorporation is violating, or is about to violate, any provision of law enforced by the Federal\n\nTrade Commission.\u201d 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 53(b)(1).\n\n       To succeed in demonstrating an unfair or deceptive act or practice under Section\n\n5(a), the FTC must prove \u201c(1) that there was a representation; (2) that the representation\n\nwas likely to mislead consumers; and (3) that the misleading representation was material.\u201d\n\nFTC v. Innovative Mktg., 654 F.Supp.2d 378, 385 (D.Md. 2009) (citing FTC v. Tashman,\n\n318 F.3d. 1273, 1277 (11th Cir. 2003). After establishing corporate liability, individual\n\ndefendants may be held liable under the FTC Act if they \u201c(1) participated directly in the\n\ndeceptive practices or had authority to control those practices, and (2) had or should have\n\nhad knowledge of the deceptive practices.\u201d FTC v. Ross, 743 F.3d 886, 892 (4th Cir. 2014).\n\n\u201cThe second prong of the analysis may be established by showing that the individual had\n\nactual knowledge of the deceptive conduct, was recklessly indifferent to its deceptiveness,\n\nor had an awareness of a high probability of deceptiveness and intentionally avoided\n\nlearning the truth.\u201d Id.\n\n       Here, the FTC alleges that Dennis (along with other defendants previously\n\ndismissed from this action) violated Section 5(a) of the FTC Act by: (1) representing that\n\nconsumers who purchase Raging Bull\u2019s services will earn or are likely to earn substantial\n\nincome and (2) representing that consumers will or are likely to earn substantial income\n\nusing Raging Bull\u2019s services even if they have little to no experience in securities trading,\n\nspend only a short amount of time each day using the services, and start with only a small\n\nbalance in their brokerage account. (2d Am. Compl. \u00b6\u00b6 123, 126).\n\n\n\n                                              8\n\f        Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 311 Filed 03/15/23 Page 9 of 16\n\n\n\n       Dennis offers two principal reasons for dismissing the FTC\u2019s claims against him.\n\nFirst, Dennis argues that the FTC fails to plausibly allege in the Second Amended\n\nComplaint that he made any deceptive statements. (Mot. Dismiss [\u201cMot.\u201d] at 10\u201315, ECF\n\nNo. 308). Second, Dennis contends that the FTC fails to plausibly allege that he is jointly\n\nand severally liable for statements which he is not alleged to have made. (Id. at 16\u201320).\n\nAdditionally, Dennis argues that the Court should apply the pleading standard of Federal\n\nRule 9(b) to the FTC\u2019s claims against him. (Id. at 7\u201310). Because it is necessary to first\n\ndetermine the pleading standard relevant to the FTC\u2019s claims in this case, the Court begins\n\nits analysis of Dennis\u2019s Motion by examining whether Rule 9(b) governs the FTC\u2019s claims.\n\n       1.     Relevant Pleading Standard\n\n       Dennis argues that the Court should apply the heightened pleading standard of Rule\n\n9(b) to the FTC\u2019s claims against him in this case. (Mot. at 7\u201310). Under Rule 9(b), a party\n\nalleging fraud or mistake must \u201cstate with particularity the circumstances surrounding\n\nfraud or mistake.\u201d Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(b). Specifically, Dennis argues that because \u201c[o]ther\n\ncourts have found that the FTC\u2019s allegations of deceptive schemes similar to the one\n\nalleged here sound in fraud such that Rule 9(b) applies,\u201d this Court apply the standard of\n\nRule 9(b) to the claims in this case. (Mot. at 8).\n\n       Dennis\u2019s position is unpersuasive. Although no binding precedent exists on the\n\nissue, this Court previously addressed the question of whether Rule 9(b) applies to claims\n\nbrought under Section 5(a) of the FTC Act. See Innovative, 654 F.Supp.2d at 388\n\n(recognizing that a plaintiff\u2019s Section 5(a) claims were not subject to the \u201cunduly stringent\n\npleading standard of\u201d Rule 9(b)). Dennis correctly points out that Innovative (the only case\n\n                                              9\n\f       Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 311 Filed 03/15/23 Page 10 of 16\n\n\n\nin which this Court has provided guidance on the issue) lacks extensive analysis of the\n\napplicability of Rule 9(b) to Section 5(a) claims. (Mot. at 8). Nonetheless, the decision\n\nadopts, through citation, the reasoning of two other courts that have considered the issue\n\nand rejected the application of Rule 9(b) to Section 5(a) claims. See Innovative, 654\n\nF.Supp.2d at 388 (first citing FTC v. Freecom Commc\u2019ns, Inc., 401 F.3d 1192, 1203 n.7\n\n(10th Cir. 2005); and then citing FTC v. Med. Billers Network, Inc., 543 F.Supp.2d 283,\n\n314\u201315 (S.D.N.Y. 2008)).\n\n       Because Innovative is this Court\u2019s only relevant case law on the issue, and absent\n\ncontrary direction from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, the Court\n\ndeclines to apply the \u201cunduly stringent\u201d standard of Rule 9(b) to the FTC\u2019s Section 5(a)\n\nclaims in this case. See id. As such, the Court considers whether dismissal of the FTC\u2019s\n\nclaims is warranted under Rule 12(b)(6) without the heightened Rule 9(b) requirements.\n\n       2.     Count I (False or Unsubstantiated Earnings Claims)\n\n       Having determined that the FTC\u2019s claims are governed by the pleading standard of\n\nRule 12(b)(6), the Court turns its analysis to whether the FTC has plausibly alleged a\n\nviolation of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act in Count I of the Second Amended Complaint. To\n\nprove the existence of an unfair or deceptive act or practice under Section 5(a), the FTC\n\nmust prove \u201c(1) that there was a representation; (2) that the representation was likely to\n\nmislead consumers; and (3) that the misleading representation was material.\u201d Innovative,\n\n654 F.Supp.2d at 385 (citing Tashman, 318 F.3d at 1277).\n\n       A careful review of the allegations in the Second Amended Complaint makes clear\n\nthat the FTC has plausibly alleged that Dennis made misleading and material\n\n                                            10\n\f       Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 311 Filed 03/15/23 Page 11 of 16\n\n\n\nrepresentations regarding customers\u2019 potential earnings from Raging Bull\u2019s products. First,\n\nthe FTC plausibly alleges that Dennis made income-related \u201crepresentations\u201d through\n\nelectronic means which were directed at consumers. (2d Am. Compl. \u00b6\u00b6 19\u201387, 123).\n\n       Second, the FTC plausibly alleges that Dennis\u2019s income-related representations\n\nwould mislead a reasonable consumer into believing that they are \u201clikely to earn substantial\n\nincome\u201d by using Raging Bull\u2019s products. (Id. \u00b6 123). In determining whether a\n\nrepresentation is \u201cmisleading\u201d under Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, the Court considers\n\nwhether the representation \u201cis likely to mislead a reasonable consumer by viewing the\n\nrepresentation as a whole and focusing on the impression created, not its literal truth or\n\nfalsity.\u201d FTC v. Loma Int\u2019l Bus. Grp. Inc., No. MJG-11-1483, 2013 WL 2455986, at *5\n\n(D.Md. June 5, 2013) (citing FTC v. Patriot Alcohol Testers, Inc., 798 F.Supp. 851, 855\n\n(D.Mass. 1992). In making this determination, \u201cit is appropriate to look not to the most\n\nsophisticated, but the least sophisticated consumer.\u201d Id. (citing FTC v. Five\u2013Star Auto\n\nClub, Inc., 97 F.Supp.2d 502, 532 (S.D.N.Y. 2000)).\n\n       Here, many of Dennis\u2019s statements, taken as true, would plausibly lead an\n\nunsophisticated consumer to believe that he or she would likely earn substantial income by\n\npurchasing and using Raging Bull\u2019s products. For example, two of Dennis\u2019s alleged\n\npromotional statements contain representations that Dennis will \u201cgrow\u201d consumers\u2019\n\naccounts and will \u201cshow\u201d consumers how to \u201csystemically build\u201d their trading accounts.\n\n(2d Am. Compl. \u00b6\u00b6 52\u201353). Both statements put forth specific dollar amounts in connection\n\nwith these claims. (See id.). Indeed, the FTC alleges that Dennis, in promoting Raging\n\nBull\u2019s \u201cDollar Ace\u201d product, stated that subscribers will \u201creceive access to trades that will\n\n                                             11\n\f       Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 311 Filed 03/15/23 Page 12 of 16\n\n\n\ngenerate 100% or more in trading profits in just \u2018one to three days.\u2019\u201d (Id. \u00b6 52). Even a\n\ngenerous reading of these statements would suggest to the unsophisticated consumer that\n\nRaging Bull\u2019s products would likely generate the income specified.\n\n       Dennis\u2019s other alleged statements regarding income are even more specific. For\n\nexample, Dennis allegedly states in a promotional campaign for \u201cBlack Optics\u201d that he will\n\n\u201cshow [consumers] how to 10X [their] account by mastering [his] simple system and then\n\nintroducing new profit buckets so that the cash flow never dries up.\u201d (Id. \u00b6 54). The\n\nimpression created by phrases such as \u201ccash flow [that] never dries up,\u201d \u201csimple system,\u201d\n\nand \u201cprofit buckets,\u201d would plausibly lead the unsophisticated consumer to believe that\n\nsubstantial income would follow from the purchase and use of this product. Additionally,\n\nthe FTC alleges that multiple consumers lost money attempting to invest based upon the\n\nmethods provided or advertised by Dennis. (Id. \u00b6 73). As such, the FTC plausibly alleges\n\nsufficient facts to show that Dennis\u2019s income-related statements are misleading. 2\n\n       Third, the FTC plausibly alleges that Dennis\u2019s income-related representations were\n\nmaterial. \u201cA material representation is one that involves information that is important to\n\nconsumers such that it is likely to affect their decisions or actions.\u201d Loma Int\u2019l Bus. Grp.\n\nInc., 2013 WL 2455986, at *6 (citing Patriot Alcohol Testers, Inc., 798 F.Supp. at 855;\n\n\n       2\n         Dennis argues that dismissal of the Second Amended Complaint is nonetheless\nwarranted because many of his alleged statements are about \u201cpotential\u201d trading returns, as\nopposed to actual projections of income. (Mot. at 12). This argument is unavailing. The\nSecond Amended Complaint makes clear that several of Dennis\u2019s alleged representations\npurport to deliver a specific result. For example, Dennis states that he will show customers\nhow to \u201c10X\u201d their accounts and how to \u201csystematically build\u201d their trading accounts to\n$100,000 in earnings. (2d Am. Compl. \u00b6\u00b6 52\u201354). Neither statement appears to refer to\nmere \u201cpotential\u201d results, as Dennis suggests.\n\n                                            12\n\f       Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 311 Filed 03/15/23 Page 13 of 16\n\n\n\nFTC v. Cyberspace.Com LLC, 453 F.3d 1196, 1201 (9th Cir. 2006)). In addition,\n\n\u201c[m]isrepresentations concerning anticipated income from a business opportunity\n\ngenerally are material . . . because such misrepresentations strike at the heart of a\n\nconsumer\u2019s purchasing decision.\u201d Freecom Commc\u2019ns, Inc., 401 F.3d at 1203 (citing FTC\n\nv. Kitco of Nevada, Inc., 612 F.Supp. 1282, 1292 (D.Minn. 1985)). Here, Dennis\u2019s\n\nstatements include descriptions of how using the strategies included in Raging Bull\u2019s\n\nproducts will generate income. As such, Dennis\u2019s alleged statements would be highly\n\nrelevant to a customer\u2019s decision to purchase Raging Bull\u2019s services and are thus material.\n\n       Because these alleged misrepresentations would be relevant to the purchase\n\ndecisions of Raging Bull\u2019s customers, Dennis\u2019s argument that some of these statements are\n\ninactionable \u201cpuffery\u201d is without merit. (Mot. at 12). Puffery is defined as \u201cexaggerated\n\nadvertising, blustering, and boasting upon which no reasonable buyer would rely,\u201d and is\n\nnot actionable under Section 5(a) of the FTC Act. In re Sanctuary Belize Litig., 482\n\nF.Supp.3d 373, 422 (D.Md. 2020) aff\u2019d in part, vacated on other grounds, and remanded\n\nin part on other grounds, 53 F.4th 80 (4th Cir. 2022). However, \u201cspecific and measurable\n\nclaims and claims that may be literally true or false are not puffery and may be the subject\n\nof deceptive advertising claims.\u201d Id. As discussed above, several of Dennis\u2019s alleged\n\nmisrepresentations contained specific claims, as opposed to exaggerated or vague claims,\n\nupon which Raging Bull\u2019s customers could have reasonably relied. Indeed, Dennis himself\n\nacknowledges that \u201cthe statements attributed to [him] are fact-based.\u201d (Mot. at 13 n.5). As\n\nsuch, these statements do not constitute puffery.\n\n\n\n                                            13\n\f       Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 311 Filed 03/15/23 Page 14 of 16\n\n\n\n       3.     Count II (Other Misrepresentations Regarding Raging Bull\u2019s Services)\n\n       The FTC also plausibly alleges in Count II that Dennis made material\n\nrepresentations regarding Raging Bull\u2019s services that were likely to mislead consumers.\n\nBecause of these plausible allegations, the Court will deny Dennis\u2019s Motion as to Count II.\n\n       First, the FTC plausibly alleges that Dennis made services-related \u201crepresentations\u201d\n\nthrough electronic means which were directed at consumers. (2d Am. Compl. \u00b6\u00b6 82\u201393).\n\nSecond, the FTC has plausibly alleged that Dennis\u2019s claims would mislead a reasonable\n\nconsumer into believing that he or she could earn substantial income using Raging Bull\u2019s\n\nservices even if the customer (1) did not possess trading experience, (2) did not spend more\n\nthan a short amount of time each day using the service, or (3) started with only minimal\n\nfunds in their brokerage account. (Id. \u00b6 126). Dennis\u2019s services-related representations\n\ncontain specific language\u2014specifically, \u201cminutes per day\u201d and \u201cSchedule your paycheck.\n\nCollect your cash.\u201d\u2014suggesting that customers can utilize the services to earn profits with\n\nvery little time or effort. (Id. \u00b6\u00b6 84, 87). Indeed, Dennis emphasizes that the services will\n\ngenerate profit regardless of a customer\u2019s account size or the stock market\u2019s condition. (Id.\n\n\u00b6 87). In addition, phrases such as \u201cno matter what market condition\u201d and \u201cYou can make\n\nmoney doing this\u201d create an impression that these services are extremely likely (if not\n\ncertain) to generate income for users. (Id. \u00b6\u00b6 86, 87). Further, as stated above, the FTC\n\nalleges that multiple consumers lost money attempting to invest based upon the methods\n\nprovided or advertised by Dennis. (Id. \u00b6 73). Because of the definiteness of these\n\nstatements, Dennis\u2019s argument that they are inactionable \u201con their face\u201d because they\n\n\n\n                                             14\n\f       Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 311 Filed 03/15/23 Page 15 of 16\n\n\n\n\u201csimply utilize commonplace terms that are used in advertising . . . for nearly every\n\nconceivable product\u201d is without merit. (Mot. at 14).\n\n       Third, the FTC has plausibly alleged that Dennis\u2019s services-related claims are\n\nmaterial because his alleged statements \u201cinvolve[] information that is important to\n\nconsumers such that [they are] likely to affect their decisions or actions.\u201d Loma, 2013 WL\n\n2455986, at *6 (citation omitted). Taking these factual allegations as true, it is reasonable\n\nto infer that Dennis\u2019s statements regarding the probability of generating income through\n\nRaging Bull\u2019s services would inform a reasonable consumer\u2019s purchase decision.\n\n       In sum, Counts I and II of the Second Amended Complaint contain \u201cfactual content\n\nthat allows the [C]ourt to draw the reasonable inference\u201d that Dennis\u2019s statements violated\n\nSection 5(a) of the FTC Act. Ashcroft, 556 U.S. at 663 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).\n\nAccordingly, the FTC has adequately stated claims to survive the 12(b)(6) stage.\n\n       4.     Dennis\u2019s Individual Liability Under Section 5(a)\n\n       As a final matter, the Court addresses Dennis\u2019s argument that dismissal of the\n\nSecond Amended Complaint is warranted due to the FTC\u2019s failure to \u201callege any plausible\n\nfactual basis to infer that\u201d Dennis \u201cparticipated in or had the authority to control the\n\nmarketing of any of Raging Bull\u2019s services, other than the inactionable statements he\n\nhimself made during sales videos.\u201d (Mot. at 16). Dennis\u2019s argument is unavailing. As the\n\nFTC points out in its Opposition, and as the Second Amended Complaint makes clear, the\n\nFTC seeks to hold Dennis liable solely for his own statements. (Resp\u2019t\u2019s Resp. Opp\u2019n Mot.\n\nDismiss at 14\u201315, ECF No. 309). To establish Dennis\u2019s liability, the FTC need only show\n\nthat Dennis \u201c(1) participated directly in the deceptive practices or had authority to control\n\n                                             15\n\f       Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 311 Filed 03/15/23 Page 16 of 16\n\n\n\nthose practices, and (2) had or should have had knowledge of the deceptive practices.\u201d\n\nRoss, 743 F.3d at 892. As discussed above, the Second Amended Complaint is replete with\n\nallegations that Dennis himself made deceptive statements which are the subject of the\n\nremaining claims in this case. Thus, the FTC has sufficiently alleged Dennis\u2019s individual\n\nliability under Section 5(a) of the FTC Act.\n\n                               III.     CONCLUSION\n\n       For the foregoing reasons, the Court will deny Defendant Kyle Dennis\u2019s Motion to\n\nDismiss. (ECF No. 308). A separate Order follows.\n\nEntered this 15th day of March, 2023.\n\n\n                                                      /s/\n                                          George L. Russell, III\n                                          United States District Judge\n\n\n\n\n                                               16\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2023-03-22T06:09:25.226334-07:00","document_number":"311","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"093013118993","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":true,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2023-03-16T01:26:49.572993-07:00","date_modified":"2024-11-14T15:17:32.400714-08:00","date_filed":"2023-03-15","time_filed":null,"entry_number":311,"recap_sequence_number":"2023-03-15.001","pacer_sequence_number":877,"description":"MEMORANDUM OPINION.  Signed by Judge George Levi Russell, III on 3/15/2023. (kb3s, Deputy Clerk)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/203459931/","id":203459931,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/18719211/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/209266488/","id":209266488,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2022-08-14T07:12:30.215728-07:00","date_modified":"2022-08-14T07:12:30.218614-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2022-08-14T07:12:30.210453-07:00","date_modified":"2022-08-14T07:12:30.210475-07:00","date_filed":"2021-03-17","time_filed":null,"entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2021-03-17.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"Telephone Conference re: 3/19 hearing held on 3/17/2021 before Judge George Levi Russell, III. (kmts, Deputy Clerk)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/203459930/","id":203459930,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/18719211/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/209266487/","id":209266487,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2022-08-14T07:12:29.870253-07:00","date_modified":"2022-08-14T07:12:29.876033-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2022-08-14T07:12:29.862720-07:00","date_modified":"2022-08-14T07:12:29.862734-07:00","date_filed":"2021-04-13","time_filed":null,"entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2021-04-13.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"Telephone Conference Re: Status of Inquiries Concerning Refunds held on 4/13/2021 before Judge George Levi Russell, III. (kmts, Deputy Clerk)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/203459929/","id":203459929,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/18719211/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/209266486/","id":209266486,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/18719211/305/federal-trade-commission-v-dennis/","date_created":"2022-08-14T07:12:28.411723-07:00","date_modified":"2022-09-09T16:32:49.596070-07:00","sha1":"c375a04e76eb8a699c00a5b612aa8efe7a51dfd2","page_count":2,"file_size":56504,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.487710/gov.uscourts.mdd.487710.305.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.mdd.487710/gov.uscourts.mdd.487710.305.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"            Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 305 Filed 03/15/22 Page 1 of 2\n\n\n\n                                UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n                                   DISTRICT OF MARYLAND\n        Chambers of                                                          101 West Lombard Street\n   George L. Russell, III                                                    Baltimore, Maryland 21201\n United States District Judge                                                      410-962-4055\n\n                                            March 15, 2022\n\nMEMORANDUM TO COUNSEL RE:                               Federal Trade Commission v.\n                                                        RagingBull.com, LLC et al\n                                                        Civil Action No. GLR-20-3538\n\nDear Counsel:\n\n       Pending before the Court is non-party Stripe Inc.\u2019s (\u201cStripe\u201d) Motion to Intervene for the\nLimited Purpose of Clarification of the Court\u2019s March 26, 2021 Order and for Such Clarification.\n(ECF No. 280). 1 The Motion is ripe for disposition, and no hearing is necessary. See Local Rule\n105.6 (D.Md. 2021).\n\n       In its Motion, Stripe argues that the Court should allow it to intervene as of right or\nintervene permissively and asks the Court to \u201cclarify\u201d its March 26, 2021 Order. (Mem. Law Supp.\nMot. Intervene [\u201cMot.\u201d] at 1, ECF No. 280-1). Specifically, Stripe \u201casks that the Court clarify that\nfunds Stripe transferred to the Temporary Receiver under the Court\u2019s temporary restraining order\nshould now be returned to Stripe\u201d under the Court\u2019s Order. (Id.).\n\n         The Court will deny the Motion as untimely. \u201cBoth intervention of right and permissive\nintervention require \u2018timely application.\u2019\u201d Gould v. Alleco, Inc., 883 F.2d 281, 286 (4th Cir. 1989);\nsee Scott v. Bond, 734 F.App\u2019x 188, 191 (4th Cir. 2018). Intervention as of right requires the filing\nof a timely motion in which the non-party \u201cclaims an interest relating to the property or transaction\nthat is the subject of the action, and is so situated that disposing of the action may as a practical\nmatter impair or impede the movant\u2019s ability to protect its interest, unless existing parties\nadequately represent that interest.\u201d Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(a); Scott, 734 F.App\u2019x at 191. Permissive\nintervention requires a party to show:\n                 (1) that its motion is \u2018timely\u2019; (2) that its \u2018claim or defense and the\n                 main action have a question of law or fact in common,\u2019 as required\n                 by Rule 24(b); (3) that there exists an independent ground of subject\n                 matter jurisdiction; and, (4) that \u2018intervention will [not] unduly\n                 delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the original\n                 parties,\u2019 as directed in the rule.\u201d\n\n\n        1\n         On January 3, 2022, the Federal Trade Commission filed a Response indicating that it\ndoes not oppose the Motion. (ECF No. 281). That same day, Defendants RagingBull.com, LLC,\nJeffrey M. Bishop, and Jason Bond (\u201cRaging Bull Defendants\u201d) filed an Opposition. (ECF No.\n282). On January 19, 2022, Stripe filed its Reply. (ECF No. 285).\n\f           Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 305 Filed 03/15/22 Page 2 of 2\n\n\n\nShanghai Meihao Elec., Inc. v. Leviton Mfg. Co., 223 F.R.D. 386, 387 (D.Md. 2004) (citations\nomitted).\n\n         \u201cTimeliness is a central consideration when deciding a motion to intervene, and a movant\u2019s\nfailure to seek intervention in a timely manner is sufficient to justify denial of such motion.\u201d Scott,\n734 F.App\u2019x at 191. District courts have \u201cwide\u201d discretion in deciding the timeliness of a motion\nto intervene. See id.; Alt v. U.S. E.P.A., 758 F.3d 588 (4th Cir. 2014). A prospective intervenor\n\u201cshould move to intervene as soon as it becomes clear that his interests \u2018would no longer be\nprotected by the named class representatives.\u2019\u201d Scott, 734 F.App\u2019x at 191 (quoting Hill v. W. Elec.\nCo., 672 F.2d 381, 386 (4th Cir. 1982)). \u201cWhen assessing the timeliness of a motion to intervene,\nwe consider (1) how far the case has progressed, (2) the prejudice to other parties caused by any\ntardiness in filing the motion, and (3) the reason for any tardiness.\u201d Id.\n\n         Here, the Court filed its Order dissolving the receivership on March 26, 2021 and Stripe\ndid not file its Motion until December 20, 2021, nearly nine months later. (See ECF Nos. 214,\n280). At the time of filing, the case was at an advanced stage. Indeed, earlier today the Court\napproved a Stipulated Order resolving claims between nearly all parties after several months of\nsettlement negotiations. (See ECF No. 303). As to the second factor, Stripe\u2019s intervention would\ncause delay. Raging Bull Defendants have been dismissed from the case, but, were the Court to\ngrant Stripe\u2019s Motion, would need to remain before this Court pending a decision on the relief\nStripe seeks. Finally, Stripe has failed to adequately explain its nine-month delay in filing its\nMotion. Stripe suggests generally that it \u201chas attempted to negotiate with Raging Bull over to\nwhom the Receiver should return [the] funds.\u201d (Mot. at 3). But Stripe does not explain when those\nnegotiations failed or why it did not seek intervention earlier, leaving the Court with insufficient\njustification for its rather tardy filing. As a result, the Court will DENY Stripe\u2019s Motion as\nuntimely. 2\n\n       Despite the informal nature of this memorandum, it shall constitute an Order of this Court,\nand the Clerk is directed to docket it accordingly.\n\n                                                                      /s/\n                                                       George L. Russell, III\n                                                       United States District Judge\n\n\n       2\n          The Court notes that the Temporary Receiver indicated in its April 10, 2021 Status Report\nthat it \u201cagrees that all Assets must be returned to their owners\u201d and that \u201c[t]he parties agree that\nthe present disputes regarding the ownership of certain Assets require the Temporary Receiver to\nmaintain the funds in escrow until the disputes are resolved.\u201d (Status Report at 7, ECF No. 221).\nTo the extent Stripe and Raging Bull dispute who is the proper owner of these funds under their\ncontract, the Court encourages them to resolve that dispute before an appropriate tribunal. This\nCourt, as Stripe and Raging Bull agree, does not have jurisdiction to weigh in on that matter. (See\nMot. at 6 n.4 (\u201cTo the extent Raging Bull believes it is entitled to these funds under its contract\nwith Stripe, that is a separate issue, and one over which this Court lacks jurisdiction.\u201d); Defs.\u2019\nResp. Stripe Inc.\u2019s Mot Intervene [\u201cOpp\u2019n\u201d] at 6, ECF No. 382 (\u201cIndeed, the interest in the\nFunds . . . is a question under the parties\u2019 contract.\u201d)). Thus, Stripe has an avenue for redress\u2014it\nis just not in this Court.\n                                                  2\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2022-08-14T07:14:16.555209-07:00","document_number":"305","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"093012332253","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2022-08-14T07:12:28.402547-07:00","date_modified":"2022-08-14T07:12:28.405512-07:00","date_filed":"2022-03-15","time_filed":null,"entry_number":305,"recap_sequence_number":"2022-03-15.003","pacer_sequence_number":859,"description":"ORDER denying 280 Stripe Inc.'s Motion to Intervene for the Limited Purpose of Clarification of the Court's 3/26/2021 Order and for Such Clarification. Signed by Judge George Levi Russell, III on 3/15/2022. (kk5s, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/15/2022)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/203459928/","id":203459928,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/18719211/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/209266485/","id":209266485,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/18719211/306/federal-trade-commission-v-dennis/","date_created":"2022-08-14T07:12:28.392822-07:00","date_modified":"2022-08-14T07:12:28.398673-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"306","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"093012332839","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2022-08-14T07:12:28.369427-07:00","date_modified":"2022-08-14T07:12:28.372456-07:00","date_filed":"2022-03-15","time_filed":null,"entry_number":306,"recap_sequence_number":"2022-03-15.002","pacer_sequence_number":861,"description":"Correspondence re: Joint Notice of Federal Trade Commission and Raging Bull Defendants Regarding Withdrawal or Mootness of Docket Entries (ECF No. 224) and (ECF No. 256) (Doran, Brett) (Entered: 03/15/2022)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/203459927/","id":203459927,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/18719211/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/209266484/","id":209266484,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2022-08-14T07:12:28.357598-07:00","date_modified":"2022-08-14T07:12:28.365769-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2022-08-14T07:12:28.350427-07:00","date_modified":"2022-08-14T07:12:28.350443-07:00","date_filed":"2022-03-15","time_filed":null,"entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2022-03-15.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"Telephone Conference held on 3/15/2022 before Judge George Levi Russell, III. (jh2s, Deputy Clerk)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/203459926/","id":203459926,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/18719211/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/209266483/","id":209266483,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/18719211/307/federal-trade-commission-v-dennis/","date_created":"2022-08-14T07:12:28.341180-07:00","date_modified":"2022-08-14T07:12:28.346254-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"307","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"093012334116","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2022-08-14T07:12:28.331995-07:00","date_modified":"2022-08-14T07:12:28.334783-07:00","date_filed":"2022-03-16","time_filed":null,"entry_number":307,"recap_sequence_number":"2022-03-16.001","pacer_sequence_number":863,"description":"MARGINAL ORDER approving 306 Correspondence re: Joint Notice of Federal Trade Commission and Raging Bull Defendants Regarding Withdrawal or Mootness of Docket Entries; and denying as moot 224 256 . Signed by Judge George Levi Russell, III on 3/16/2022. (bmhs, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/16/2022)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/203459925/","id":203459925,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/18719211/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/209266482/","id":209266482,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/18719211/308/federal-trade-commission-v-dennis/","date_created":"2022-08-14T07:12:28.322735-07:00","date_modified":"2023-01-16T09:19:35.023017-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"308","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"093012376531","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/209266506/","id":209266506,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/18719211/308/1/federal-trade-commission-v-dennis/","date_created":"2022-08-14T07:15:36.255920-07:00","date_modified":"2022-08-15T12:53:04.517148-07:00","sha1":"c64fda92adcccd5587402efab42dd3681e6a94e7","page_count":24,"file_size":731036,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.487710/gov.uscourts.mdd.487710.308.1.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.mdd.487710/gov.uscourts.mdd.487710.308.1.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"     Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 308-1 Filed 04/05/22 Page 1 of 24\n\n\n\n                     UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n                        DISTRICT OF MARYLAND\n\n\nFEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,                   Case No. 1:20-cv-3538-GLR\n\n       Plaintiff,\n\nv.\n\nRAGINGBULL.COM, LLC, et al.,\n\n       Defendants.\n\n\n\n\nDEFENDANT KYLE W. DENNIS\u2019S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF HIS\n       MOTION TO DISMISS THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT\n\f           Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 308-1 Filed 04/05/22 Page 2 of 24\n\n\n\n                                                   TABLE OF CONTENTS\n\n\nINTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1\n\nRELEVANT BACKGROUND ...................................................................................................... 1\n\n     I.         The Second Amended Complaint\u2019s Allegations ........................................................... 1\n\n     II.        Procedural History ........................................................................................................ 3\n\nLEGAL STANDARD ..................................................................................................................... 4\n\nARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................. 5\n\n     I.         Rule 9(b) Applies to the FTC Act Claims Against Mr. Dennis. ................................... 7\n\n     II.        The Amended Complaint Does Not Allege that Any Statements Mr. Dennis Made Are\n                Deceptive. ................................................................................................................... 10\n\n                A. The Second Amended Complaint Does Not Allege that Any Statements Mr.\n                   Dennis Made Are Deceptive. ................................................................................ 10\n\n                B. The Second Amended Complaint Fails to Allege that Mr. Dennis is Jointly\n                   and Severally Liable for Statements He Did Not Make. ...................................... 16\n\nCONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 20\n\n\n\n\n                                                                             i\n\f        Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 308-1 Filed 04/05/22 Page 3 of 24\n\n\n\n        Defendant Kyle W. Dennis hereby moves this Court to dismiss the claims against him in\n\nthe Federal Trade Commission\u2019s Second Amended Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the\n\nFederal Rules of Civil Procedure.\n\n                                        INTRODUCTION\n        The Second Amended Complaint concedes that Kyle Dennis was only a trading instructor\n\nat Ragingbull.com, LLC (\u201cRaging Bull\u201d) and not an owner, executive, or officer of the company.\n\nNonetheless, the FTC has filled its Second Amended Complaint with conclusory allegations and\n\nimproper \u201cgroup pleading\u201d in a misguided effort to assert that Mr. Dennis participated in or had\n\nthe authority to control the practices the FTC contends may have been deceptive. Like the FTC\u2019s\n\ntwo prior complaints in this matter, what is missing from the Second Amended Complaint are any\n\nspecific, well-pleaded allegations relating to Mr. Dennis to support the FTC\u2019s accusation that he\n\nhad any role in deceptive conduct that would make him personally liable.\n\n                                 RELEVANT BACKGROUND\n   I.      The Second Amended Complaint\u2019s Allegations\n        Raging Bull sells online subscription-based services related to stock and options trading.\n\n[Second Amended Complaint (\u201cSAC\u201d) \u00b6 19, ECF No. 304.] These services consist of, among\n\nother things, online videos and supplemental materials in which instructors provide educational\n\ncontent concerning stock trading fundamentals, various strategic approaches to trading, trade\n\nalerts, and other features. [Id. \u00b6\u00b6 21, 30.] Raging Bull directly markets these services through\n\nsearch engine advertisements, social media, and e-mail marketing. [Id. \u00b6 27.] In addition to\n\ndescribing the various services it offers, Raging Bull\u2019s advertisements contain conspicuous\n\ndisclaimers warning consumers that they should conduct their own research before making\n\ninvestment decisions, that Raging Bull\u2019s services are for educational purposes only, that trading is\n\nrisky, and that subscribers\u2019 trading results will vary based on a variety of factors. [Id. \u00b6\u00b6 94\u2013103.]\n                                                   1\n\f       Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 308-1 Filed 04/05/22 Page 4 of 24\n\n\n\n       Jeffrey M. Bishop and Jason Bond co-founded Raging Bull in 2014. [Id. \u00b6 20.] Bishop is\n\nRaging Bull\u2019s CEO, leads some of Raging Bull\u2019s educational services, and owns 65% of Raging\n\nBull through Defendant Sherwood Ventures, LLC, which he owns and controls. [Id. \u00b6\u00b6 12, 15.]\n\nBond is Raging Bull\u2019s President, leads some of Raging Bull\u2019s educational services, and owns 25%\n\nof Raging Bull through Jason Bond, LLC. [Id. \u00b6\u00b6 13, 16.]1 The FTC\u2019s initial complaint also sued\n\nMFA Holdings Corp., which owns the remaining 10% of Raging Bull, but the FTC voluntarily\n\nwithdrew its claims against MFA in its First Amended Complaint. [ECF No. 164-2 at 6\u20137.]\n\n       In addition to the Raging Bull Defendants, the FTC also decided to sue Kyle Dennis. [ECF\n\nNo. 1.] Mr. Dennis was Bond\u2019s student and has made millions of dollars in profit through his own\n\npersonal trading. [SAC \u00b6\u00b6 14, 48.] He joined Raging Bull as a trading instructor in 2016 and\n\nprovided educational content to Raging Bull\u2019s subscribers. [Id. \u00b6\u00b6 14, 20.] In the Second\n\nAmended Complaint, the FTC does not allege that Mr. Dennis is an owner, officer, or executive\n\nof Raging Bull, that he had any other corporate title or managerial role, or that he conducted Raging\n\nBull\u2019s business in any way other than as one of many instructors the company employed.\n\n       The FTC alleges that Raging Bull violated Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 45(a),\n\nby making false or unsubstantiated earnings claims in advertising its services that \u201crepresent,\n\ndirectly or indirectly, expressly or by implication, that consumers who purchase Raging Bull\u2019s\n\nservices will earn or are likely to earn substantial income.\u201d [Id. \u00b6\u00b6 65\u201373, 123\u201325.] The FTC\n\nfurther alleges that Raging Bull made other misrepresentations in its advertising concerning the\n\ntrading experience required to earn substantial income using Raging Bull\u2019s services, the amount\n\n\n\n\n1\n         Raging Bull, Bishop, Bond, Sherwood Ventures, LLC, and Jason Bond, LLC are referred\nto in this brief as the \u201cRaging Bull Defendants.\u201d\n                                                  2\n\f          Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 308-1 Filed 04/05/22 Page 5 of 24\n\n\n\nof time required to earn substantial income using Raging Bull\u2019s services, and the amount of money\n\na subscriber would need in a brokerage account to earn substantial income using Raging Bull\u2019s\n\nservices. [Id. \u00b6\u00b6 82\u201393, 126\u201328.] Finally, the FTC contends that Raging Bull violated Section 4\n\nof ROSCA, 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 8403, for charging consumers for its services using a \u201cnegative option\n\nfeature\u201d \u2013 or \u201ca provision under which the consumer\u2019s silence or failure to take an affirmative\n\naction to reject goods or services or to cancel the agreement is interpreted by the seller as\n\nacceptance of the offer\u201d \u2013 without providing a simple cancellation method to consumers. [Id.\n\n\u00b6\u00b6 110\u201316.] The FTC does not allege the Mr. Dennis violated ROSCA or otherwise had anything\n\nto do with the decision-making concerning how customers were billed; it has only brought claims\n\nagainst him under the FTC Act. [Id. \u00b6\u00b6 123\u201334.]\n\n    II.      Procedural History\n          The FTC filed this action on December 7, 2020, seeking a permanent injunction and\n\nmonetary relief based on Raging Bull\u2019s alleged violations of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act and\n\nSection 4 of ROSCA. [Complaint, ECF No. 1.] In addition to naming Mr. Dennis, the Raging\n\nBull Defendants, and MFA Holdings, the FTC also originally named two entities Mr. Dennis\n\ncontrols (the \u201cWinston Entities\u201d), which it has since dismissed. The FTC also sought a preliminary\n\ninjunction that would have, among other things, placed Raging Bull into receivership and frozen\n\nall of the assets of all of the defendants, corporate and personal. [ECF No. 2.]\n\n          Following a hearing, in an Order dated March 26, 2021, the Court denied the FTC\u2019s motion\n\nfor a preliminary injunction, holding that regardless of liability, the equities weighed against any\n\npreliminary injunctive relief. [ECF No. 214.] As to Mr. Dennis, the Court held \u201cthe FTC has not\n\nsatisfied its burden of demonstrating that the equities weigh in favor of its requested preliminary\n\ninjunctive relief.\u201d [Id. at 3-4.]\n\n                                                 3\n\f       Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 308-1 Filed 04/05/22 Page 6 of 24\n\n\n\n       On June 11, 2021, while Mr. Dennis and the Winston Entities\u2019 motion to dismiss the First\n\nAmended Complaint was pending, the FTC sought leave to file a Second Amended Complaint\n\nthat, among other things, dropped the Winston Entities as defendants, dropped the ROSCA claim\n\nagainst Mr. Dennis, and dropped all claims to monetary relief against Mr. Dennis. [ECF No. 241.]\n\nThe Court granted the FTC leave to file that Complaint on March 15, 2022. [ECF No. 302.] On\n\nthe same day, the Court also approved a proposed consent judgment against the Raging Bull\n\nDefendants that involved the company\u2019s payment of a fine, but otherwise allowed Raging Bull to\n\ncontinue operating under its existing management (i.e., Bond and Bishop). When it sought\n\napproval for that settlement, the FTC announced that it intended to continue pursuing its case\n\nagainst Mr. Dennis, the (now former) Raging Bull employee from whom it seeks no monetary\n\nrelief and principally only an obey-the-law injunction that has little meaning to the FTC but would\n\nlabel Mr. Dennis a scofflaw for the rest of his life. Accordingly, Mr. Dennis is the only remaining\n\ndefendant in this action.\n\n                                      LEGAL STANDARD\n       Under Rule 8(a), a complaint must contain \u201ca short and plain statement of the claim\n\nshowing that the pleader is entitled to relief.\u201d Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). To survive a motion to\n\ndismiss, a complaint must contain \u201csufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to\n\nrelief that is plausible on its face.\u201d Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotation\n\nomitted). But this standard requires \u201cmore than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted\n\nunlawfully.\u201d Id. While a court must accept well-pled facts as true, it need not assume the truth of\n\nconclusory allegations. See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (\u201clabels and\n\nconclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action\u201d are insufficient to\n\nsurvive a motion to dismiss). A complaint containing \u201c\u2018naked assertion[s]\u2019 devoid of \u2018further\n\n                                                  4\n\f        Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 308-1 Filed 04/05/22 Page 7 of 24\n\n\n\nfactual enhancement\u2019\u201d cannot survive a motion to dismiss.           Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting\n\nTwombly, 550 U.S. at 557); see also id. (explaining that a well-pled complaint \u201cdemands more\n\nthan an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation\u201d).\n\n        Rule 9(b) requires even more: when a party alleges fraud or mistake, it \u201cmust state with\n\nparticularity the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake.\u201d Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b). A plaintiff\n\nalleging claims that sound in fraud \u201cmust, at a minimum, describe the time, place, and contents of\n\nthe false representations, as well as the identity of the person making the misrepresentation and\n\nwhat he obtained thereby.\u201d U.S. ex rel. Owens v. First Kuwaiti Gen. Trading & Contracting Co.,\n\n612 F.3d 724, 731 (4th Cir. 2010).\n\n                                            ARGUMENT\n        The FTC\u2019s Second Amended Complaint suffers from the same basic problems as its prior\n\npleadings, though the FTC had access to all of the arguments in Mr. Dennis\u2019s motion to dismiss at\n\nthe time it drafted it. It is clear that the FTC lacks a basis on which to plausibly allege Mr. Dennis\u2019s\n\nliability.\n\n        Section 5 of the FTC Act bars \u201cunfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting\n\ncommerce.\u201d 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 45(a). \u201cTo succeed under section 5(a), the FTC must prove (1) that there\n\nwas a representation; (2) that the representation was likely to mislead consumers; and (3) that the\n\nmisleading representation was material.\u201d FTC v. Ross, 897 F. Supp. 2d 369, 381 (D. Md. 2012),\n\naff\u2019d, 743 F.3d 886 (4th Cir. 2014) (quoting FTC v. Tashman, 318 F.3d 1273, 1277 (11th Cir.\n\n2003)). As to the second requirement, \u201cthe Court must consider whether a representation is likely\n\nto mislead a reasonable consumer by viewing the representation as a whole and focusing on the\n\nimpression created, not its literal truth or falsity\u201d and \u201cwhether the consumer\u2019s interpretation or\n\nreaction is reasonable.\u201d In re Sanctuary Belize Litig., 482 F. Supp. 3d 373, 397 (D. Md. 2020).\n\n                                                   5\n\f       Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 308-1 Filed 04/05/22 Page 8 of 24\n\n\n\n\u201cPuffery, that is \u2018exaggerated advertising, blustering, and boasting upon which no reasonable\n\nbuyer would rely,\u2019 is not actionable under the FTC Act.\u201d Id. at 422 (quoting FTC v. Direct Mktg.\n\nConcepts, Inc., 624 F.3d 1, 11\u201312 (1st Cir. 2010)). \u201cPuffery includes promises of a great\n\ninvestment or an amazing return on . . . money.\u201d Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).\n\n       Even if a deceptive act or practice is alleged, however, an individual may only be found\n\nliable for that practice under Section 5 of the FTC Act if he: \u201c(1) participated directly in the\n\ndeceptive practices or had authority to control those practices, and (2) had or should have had\n\nknowledge of the deceptive practices.\u201d FTC v. Ross, 743 F.3d 886, 892 (4th Cir. 2014) (emphasis\n\nadded). \u201cAuthority to control is evidenced by an individual\u2019s ability to review and approve\n\nadvertisements as well as his or her ability to issue checks, make hiring decisions and personally\n\nfinance or pay for corporate expenses, whereas direct participation can be demonstrated through\n\nevidence that the defendant developed or created, reviewed, altered and disseminated the deceptive\n\nmarketing materials\u201d or by demonstrating \u201c[a]ctive supervision of employees as well as the review\n\nof sales and marketing reports related to the deceptive scheme.\u201d In re Sanctuary Belize, 482 F.\n\nSupp. at 398.\n\n       On its face, the FTC\u2019s Second Amended Complaint provides no basis to hold Mr. Dennis\n\nliable for Raging Bull\u2019s alleged conduct. The FTC states that Bishop and Bond \u2013 not Mr. Dennis\n\n\u2013 \u201cdirect\u201d Raging Bull and that Mr. Dennis is simply one of Raging Bull\u2019s many trading instructors\n\nwho provides subscribers with educational content relating to trading strategy. [SAC \u00b6 3.] The\n\nFTC alleges that Mr. Dennis \u201cis a salesman and trading instructor who offers and promotes a\n\nnumber of widely advertised services through Raging Bull,\u201d and that Mr. Dennis \u201cappears in sales\n\nand marketing materials.\u201d [Id. \u00b6 14.] But the FTC cannot allege Mr. Dennis\u2019s control over Raging\n\nBull\u2019s marketing, and the Second Amended Complaint relies entirely on boilerplate, conclusory\n                                                6\n\f        Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 308-1 Filed 04/05/22 Page 9 of 24\n\n\n\nallegations of control. [Id. (\u201cAt all times material to this Complaint, acting alone or in concert\n\nwith others, Dennis has formulated, directed, controlled, had authority to control, or participated\n\nin the acts and practices set forth in this Complaint.\u201d)].\n\n        The Second Amended Complaint does not allege any specific facts demonstrating that Mr.\n\nDennis had any actual or implicit authority or control over Raging Bull\u2019s advertising strategies\n\nand/or internal policies, or how he is any different from the other (uncharged) instructors who\n\nprovide similar content. Rather, the FTC seeks to hold Mr. Dennis liable for Raging Bull\u2019s\n\nallegedly fraudulent advertising based on his appearances in Raging Bull\u2019s advertising of products\n\nor services. [Id. \u00b6\u00b6 50\u201360.] The Second Amended Complaint tries to imply that Mr. Dennis has\n\ncontrol over sales materials because he has described one of Raging Bull\u2019s copywriters as his\n\n\u201cright hand man\u201d; but that selective quotation is shorn of all context and meaningless on its own.\n\nAnd even if Mr. Dennis did have direct control over the Raging Bull materials in which he is\n\nfeatured, the FTC has failed to establish that any of that marketing constitutes material\n\nmisrepresentations or deceptive content.\n\n   I.      Rule 9(b) Applies to the FTC Act Claims Against Mr. Dennis.\n        The Court should apply Rule 9(b)\u2019s heightened pleading standard to the FTC Act claims\n\nagainst Mr. Dennis. Rule 9(b) applies to allegations in a complaint that \u201csound in fraud.\u201d In re\n\nMarriott Int\u2019l, Inc., Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig., 440 F. Supp. 3d 447, 455 (D. Md. 2020);\n\nsee also Cozzarelli v. Inspire Pharm. Inc., 549 F.3d 618, 629 (4th Cir. 2008) (explaining that \u201cRule\n\n9(b) refers to \u2018alleging fraud,\u2019 not to causes of action or elements of fraud\u201d). Here, the FTC makes\n\nspecific allegations of fraud in alleging that the Defendants, by using misrepresentations in\n\nmarketing materials, have \u201cdefrauded consumers of more than $197 million\u201d and \u201cconcerted and\n\ncoordinated\u201d to further \u201cRaging Bull\u2019s fraudulent enterprise.\u201d [SAC \u00b6\u00b6 7, 17.]\n\n                                                  7\n\f      Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 308-1 Filed 04/05/22 Page 10 of 24\n\n\n\n       Other courts have found that the FTC\u2019s allegations of deceptive schemes similar to the one\n\nalleged here sound in fraud such that Rule 9(b) applies, even though (unlike here) the word \u201cfraud\u201d\n\nwas absent from the FTC\u2019s claims in those cases. FTC v. Ivy Capital, Inc., No. 2:11-CV-283 JCM\n\nGWF, 2011 WL 2118626, at *3 (D. Nev. May 25, 2011) (\u201cThe instant action \u2018sounds in fraud,\u2019 in\n\nthat the FTC has alleged that the defendants collectively engaged in a unified course of fraudulent\n\nconduct.\u201d); FTC v. Lights of Am., Inc., 760 F. Supp. 2d 848, 853 (C.D. Cal. 2010) (\u201cThe gravamen\n\nof these allegations is that [the defendants] engaged in a unified course of fraudulent conduct. The\n\nFTC\u2019s omission of the \u2018magic word\u2019\u2014fraud\u2014from its Complaint does not detract from the\n\napparently fraudulent nature of the allegations.\u201d); see also Myers v. Lee, 1:10CV131, 2010 WL\n\n2757115, at *6 (E.D. Va. July 12, 2010) (finding that Rule 9(b) applies to claims under Virginia\n\nconsumer protection laws).\n\n       Although the Fourth Circuit has not expressly held that Rule 9(b) applies to claims under\n\nthe FTC Act sounding in fraud,2 several lines of Fourth Circuit cases demonstrate that the Court\n\nshould apply Rule 9(b) here. First, the Fourth Circuit and district courts within the Fourth Circuit\n\nhave held that analogous state-law consumer protection claims sounding in fraud are subject to\n\nRule 9(b). Murphy v. Capella Educ. Co., 589 F. App\u2019x 646, 658 (4th Cir. 2014) (applying Rule\n\n9(b) to Virginia Consumer Protection Act claims); Jones v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 301 F. App\u2019x\n\n276, 287 (4th Cir. 2008) (applying Rule 9(b) to West Virginia\u2019s Consumer Credit and Protection\n\nAct claims); Lombel v. Flagstar Bank F.S.B., No. PWG-13-704, 2013 WL 5604543, at *6 (D. Md.\n\n\n\n\n2\n        One court in this District stated in 2009 that Rule 9(b) does not apply to Section 5(a) claims\nunder the FTC Act. FTC v. Innovative Mktg., Inc., 654 F. Supp. 2d 378, 388 (D. Md. 2009). That\ndecision, however, lacks any analysis of the issue, has not been adopted or endorsed by other courts\nin this District for that proposition, and is not binding on the Court.\n                                                    8\n\f      Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 308-1 Filed 04/05/22 Page 11 of 24\n\n\n\nOct. 11, 2013) (applying Rule 9(b) to Maryland Consumer Protection Act claims). For example,\n\nin Topshelf Management, Inc. v. Campbell-Ewald Co., 117 F. Supp. 3d 722 (M.D.N.C. 2015), the\n\ncourt determined that Rule 9(b) applied to claims for unfair or deceptive trade practices under\n\nNorth Carolina law, N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 75-1.1, noting that \u201cNorth Carolina\u2019s statute is based on\n\nsection 5\u201d of the FTC Act; \u201cSection 5 shares its substantive language with section 75-1.1\u201d; and\n\n\u201cand North Carolina courts consider federal interpretations of section 5 in construing section 75-\n\n1.1.\u201d Id. at 729 n.4, 731\u201332. The court also pointed out that \u201ccourts frequently require that section\n\n5 claims involving misrepresentations be pleaded with particularity\u201d and, consequently, \u201cRule 9(b)\n\nalso applies to state-law equivalents.\u201d Id. at 729 n.4 (citations omitted).\n\n       Second, the Fourth Circuit has held that Rule 9(b) applied to allegations under Sections 11\n\nand 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act relating to false or misleading prospectuses that were allegedly\n\n\u201cpart of a single, coordinated scheme to defraud investors,\u201d even though the claims did not have\n\nfraud as an element. Cozzarelli, 549 F.3d at 629; see also Driver Opportunity Partners I, LP v.\n\nFirst United Corp., No. CV RDB-20-2575, 2021 WL 82864, at *5 & n.2 (D. Md. Jan. 8, 2021)\n\n(applying Rule 9(b) to breach of fiduciary duty claim alleging that defendants\u2019 actions were done\n\n\u201cwith intent to defraud\u201d and unfair competition claim alleging that defendant damaged plaintiff\u2019s\n\nbusiness \u201cby fraud, deceit, trickery or unfair methods\u201d); In re Under Armour Sec. Litig., 342 F.\n\nSupp. 3d 658, 675 (D. Md. 2018) (holding that Rule 9(b) applies to allegations of misleading\n\nstatements where plaintiffs alleged that statements were knowingly misleading, not merely\n\nnegligent).\n\n       These cases compel the conclusion that the FTC\u2019s claims sounding in fraud must be alleged\n\nwith particularity under Rule 9(b), just like their state-law and securities-law analogs. Because the\n\nSecond Amended Complaint alleges that Mr. Dennis was part of and is responsible for a\n                                                  9\n\f           Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 308-1 Filed 04/05/22 Page 12 of 24\n\n\n\n\u201cfraudulent enterprise\u201d that \u201cdefrauded\u201d consumers with intentionally false or misleading\n\nstatements, Rule 9(b)\u2019s heightened pleading standard applies.\n\n     II.      The Amended Complaint Does Not Allege that Any Statements Mr. Dennis Made\n              Are Deceptive.\n           The Second Amended Complaint fails to allege that Mr. Dennis is responsible for any\n\nallegedly deceptive advertising practices. It alleges three broad categories of allegedly actionable\n\nadvertising practices: (1) statements that Mr. Dennis allegedly made himself in sales videos;\n\n(2) statements that other Defendants made; and (3) statements attributed generally to\n\n\u201cDefendants.\u201d None of the statements in the first category \u2013 either taken on their own or in context\n\n\u2013 are actionable as a matter of law, and the Second Amended Complaint is devoid of any\n\nnon-conclusory allegations that would make Mr. Dennis liable for any statements in the latter two\n\ncategories.\n\nA.         The Second Amended Complaint Does Not Allege that Any Statements Mr. Dennis\n           Made Are Deceptive.\n\n           All of the statements or claims that the Second Amended Complaint alleges are attributable\n\nto Mr. Dennis are either not actionable as a matter of law, or else not false or deceptive. Instead,\n\neach of the statements is either about Mr. Dennis\u2019s own trading performance \u2013 which is neither\n\nabout a consumer\u2019s expected performance nor alleged to be false \u2013 or is inactionable puffery.\n\n           As explained above, the FTC must allege that a representation was likely to mislead\n\nconsumers and was material to state a claim under Section 5(a). Ross, 897 F. Supp. 2d at 381.\n\n\u201c[T]here is a category of advertising themes, in the nature of puffing or other hyperbole, which do\n\nnot amount to the type of affirmative product claims for which either the Commission or the\n\n\n\n\n                                                   10\n\f      Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 308-1 Filed 04/05/22 Page 13 of 24\n\n\n\nconsumer would expect documentation.\u201d In Re Pfizer Inc., 81 F.T.C. 23, 30 (1972).3 These\n\nstatements of opinion, hyperbole, or possibilities are nonactionable \u201cpuffery.\u201d FTC v. Direct Mktg.\n\nConcepts, Inc., 624 F.3d 1, 11 (1st Cir. 2010) (\u201cexaggerated advertising, blustering, and boasting\n\nupon which no reasonable buyer would rely\u201d is not actionable under the FTC Act).\n\n       \u201c[P]uffery lacks, as a matter of law, the materiality to be actionable.\u201d See Raab v. Gen.\n\nPhysics Corp., 4 F.3d 286, 289 n.1 (4th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, courts routinely dismiss claims\n\nor complaints that do not contain allegations of any actionable misstatements or misrepresentations\n\nat the motion to dismiss stage. See, e.g., Hillson Partners Ltd. P\u2019ship v. Adage, Inc., 42 F.3d 204,\n\n220 (4th Cir. 1994) (affirming dismissal of securities fraud claims based on predictions of future\n\ngrowth at motion to dismiss stage); In re Under Armour Sec. Litig., 342 F. Supp. 3d at 676 (D.\n\nMd. 2018) (granting motion to dismiss on the basis that statements of optimism are not actionable\n\nunder the securities laws); see also Cook, Perkiss & Liehe, Inc. v. N. California Collection Serv.\n\nInc., 911 F.2d 242, 245 (9th Cir. 1990) (\u201cDistrict courts often resolve whether a statement is\n\npuffery when considering a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\n\nand we can think of no sound reason why they should not do so.\u201d).\n\n       In its Second Amended Complaint, the FTC highlights statements that Mr. Dennis\n\nallegedly made during sales videos about potential returns or his own substantiated past successes,\n\ncontending that these statements were actually promises or guarantees that consumers would\n\nimmediately be as successful at trading as Mr. Dennis with little or no effort. But the statements\n\n\n\n3\n       The FTC has defined \u201cpuffing\u201d as \u201cexpressions that the consumer clearly understands to\nbe pure sales rhetoric on which he should not rely in deciding whether to purchase the seller\u2019s\nproduct.\u201d Statement of Basis and Purpose of Trade Regulation Rule, Unfair or Deceptive\nAdvertising and Labeling of Cigarettes in Relation to the Health Hazards of Smoking, 29 Fed.\nReg. 8324, 8351 (1964).\n                                              11\n\f      Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 308-1 Filed 04/05/22 Page 14 of 24\n\n\n\nthe FTC cites in the Second Amended Complaint are all inactionable puffery, statements of\n\nopinion, or true statements about Mr. Dennis\u2019s own substantiated past performance.\n\n       First, many of the statements by Mr. Dennis that the FTC highlights in the Second\n\nAmended Complaint are about \u201cpotential\u201d trading returns. [See, e.g., SAC \u00b6 56 (\u201cAnd the target\n\nis always 100 percent.\u201d (emphasis added)); \u00b6 574 (\u201cDennis then claims that consumers who sign\n\nup now for this service will get access to his \u2018Mortal Lock\u2019 trade alerts, which have the potential\n\nto generate \u2018500, 600, 1,000, 2,000 percent\u2019 returns, and that Dennis has \u2018hundreds\u2019 of trade alerts\n\nwith the potential to generate 1000% or more in trading profits.\u201d (emphasis added)); \u00b6 59 (\u201cDennis\n\nclaims that his annual goal for the Fortune Forecaster portfolio is at least 100% growth.\u201d (emphasis\n\nadded))].    Such statements about potential return on an investment cannot constitute\n\nmisrepresentations as a matter of law. See Wilson v. Popp Yarn Corp., 680 F. Supp. 208, 214-15\n\n(W.D.N.C. 1988) (describing promises of \u201cpotential\u201d sales as statements of opinion and\n\nnonactionable puffery). To the extent that these statements can be interpreted as actual projections\n\nof investment returns (which they cannot plausibly be), they are clearly the sort of \u201cexaggerated\n\nadvertising, blustering, and boasting\u201d that constitutes puffery and are not actionable as a matter of\n\nlaw. Verisign, Inc. v. XYZ.COM LLC, 848 F.3d 292, 302 (4th Cir. 2017); see also ECA, Loc. 134\n\nIBEW Joint Pension Tr. of Chicago v. JP Morgan Chase Co., 553 F.3d 187, 206 (2d Cir. 2009)\n\n(\u201cThe statements are too general to cause a reasonable investor to rely upon them.\u201d); Dunn v.\n\nBorta, 369 F.3d 421, 431 (4th Cir. 2004) (puffery includes promises of \u201ca great investment or an\n\n\n\n4\n        As to this video, the FTC also alleges that Mr. Dennis \u201c\u2018guarantees\u2019 that his Mortal Lock\ntrades will generate at least $1997 in trading profits on a single trade (approximately a 400% return\non a $500 investment), as illustrated in Figure 6B below.\u201d [SAC \u00b6 57.] But as is evident from\nFigure 6B itself, the guarantee was that the trade would be successful or that Raging Bull would\ngive consumers a free year of the service \u2013 the FTC has not alleged that either did not happen. [Id.]\n                                                  12\n\f        Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 308-1 Filed 04/05/22 Page 15 of 24\n\n\n\namazing return on . . . money\u201d); In re Sanctuary Belize Litig., 482 F. Supp. 3d 373, 421\u201322 (D.\n\nMd. 2020) (property developer\u2019s representations to prospective lot purchasers that lot values would\n\ngreatly appreciate was puffery and did not violate FTC Act); Carlucci v. Han, 886 F. Supp. 2d\n\n497, 524 (E.D. Va. 2012) (alleged misrepresentations regarding potential investment return \u201cthat\n\nEnvion would provide Carlucci with the best return he had ever received, possibly up to 50 times\n\nhis investment\u201d \u201care the quintessential examples of non-actionable puffery\u201d). Statements about\n\nwhat is possible are simply not promises or guarantees, despite the FTC\u2019s mischaracterization of\n\nthem.\n\n        Similarly, the FTC points to one statement in which Mr. Dennis purported to explain the\n\neffects of the pandemic on the stock market and \u201cwhy he believes this may be the most exciting\n\nopportunity in decades!\u201d [SAC \u00b6 70.] But this statement, too, is a non-actionable statement of\n\npersonal opinion. See e.g., In re Marriott Int\u2019l, Inc., Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig., 543 F.\n\nSupp. 3d 96, 117 (D. Md. 2021) (finding statements of opinion to be inactionable); In re Under\n\nArmour, 342 F. Supp. 3d at 676 (explaining that statements of optimism are not actionable under\n\nthe securities laws).5 Notably, the Second Amended Complaint alleges that Mr. Dennis offered\n\nhis opinions on the state of the market during the COVID-19 pandemic alongside a disclaimer that\n\n\u201ctrading is risky\u201d and a warning that Mr. Dennis has \u201cwins and losses.\u201d Mr. Dennis used the word\n\n\u201cdisclaimer\u201d and described it as \u201csuper-duper important.\u201d [SAC \u00b6 101.] The FTC cannot plausibly\n\nallege that describing something as an \u201cexciting opportunity\u201d creates a misleading net impression\n\n\n\n5\n       Again, the statements attributed to Mr. Dennis are fact-based. For example, since Mr.\nDennis expressed his view that there was an \u201cexciting opportunity\u201d in the stock market in May\n2020, the market (measured by the Dow Jones Industrial Average) has climbed from 23,723.69 at\nclose on May 1, 2020, to 34,641.18 at close on April 5, 2022. See https://tinyurl.com/36hrhanf\n(Google Finance chart for DJIA).\n                                              13\n\f      Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 308-1 Filed 04/05/22 Page 16 of 24\n\n\n\nwhen Mr. Dennis provides a \u201cprominent and unambiguous\u201d disclaimer regarding the risks of\n\ntrading. See FTC v. OMICS Grp. Inc., 374 F. Supp. 3d 994, 1010 (D. Nev. 2019); see also Home\n\nBox Office, Inc. v. Showtime/The Movie Channel Inc., 832 F.2d 1311, 1315 (2d Cir. 1987) (\u201cthe\n\nuse of disclaimers [is] an adequate remedy when they are sufficient to avoid substantially the risk\n\nof consumer confusion.\u201d); Consumers Union of United States, Inc. v. Gen. Signal Corp., 724 F.2d\n\n1044, 1053 (2d Cir. 1983) (\u201cDisclaimers are a favored way of alleviating consumer confusion.\u201d).\n\n       Second, the FTC points to statements from Mr. Dennis about Raging Bull\u2019s services being\n\neasy to use, but these are also inactionable. These include statements that a strategy taught through\n\na Raging Bull service is \u201csimple,\u201d \u201ceasy to use,\u201d \u201crequires very little maintenance,\u201d and \u201cthat\n\nanybody can use [it],\u201d or that Raging Bull \u201cwill do the research\u201d and provide you \u201cwith everything\n\nyou need.\u201d [See, e.g., SAC \u00b6\u00b6 52, 54, 56, 59, 86, 87.] See, e.g., Carlay Co. v. FTC, 153 F.2d 493,\n\n496 (7th Cir. 1946) (\u201csuch words as \u2018easy,\u2019 \u2018perfect,\u2019 \u2018amazing,\u2019 \u2018prime,\u2019 \u2018wonderful,\u2019 \u2018excellent,\u2019\n\nare regarded in law as mere puffing or dealer\u2019s talk upon which no charge of misrepresentation\n\ncan be based\u201d); Kiddie Acad. Domestic Franchising, LLC v. Wonder World Learning, LLC, No.\n\nCV ELH-17-3420, 2020 WL 4338891, at *21 (D. Md. July 27, 2020) (representations that \u201cowner\n\noperators of its franchises did not need any training or experience as [franchisor] provided all\n\ntraining\u201d and that franchisor had a \u201cplatform which would guide [franchisee] to success\u201d were\n\nmere puffery); Baney Corp. v. Agilysys NV, LLC, 773 F. Supp. 2d 593, 609 (D. Md. 2011)\n\n(statement that a program would be \u201ceasy to use and perfect for a multi-property environment\u201d\n\nwas \u201cmere puffery\u201d and \u201cis too much like an opinion to constitute a misstatement of fact\u201d). These\n\nstatements\u2014which simply utilize commonplace terms that are used in advertising across this\n\ncountry every day for nearly every conceivable product\u2014are on their face inactionable.\n\n\n\n                                                 14\n\f      Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 308-1 Filed 04/05/22 Page 17 of 24\n\n\n\n       Third, the FTC attempts to hold Mr. Dennis liable for statements about his own trading\n\nsuccesses, which the FTC does not and cannot allege are false. [See, e.g., SAC \u00b6 14 (\u201cDennis\n\nclaims to be one of Jason Bond\u2019s most successful students and a self-made millionaire who made\n\nhis fortune trading in the stock market.\u201d); \u00b6 50 (\u201cAds for services offered by Kyle Dennis feature,\n\nfor example, Dennis saying he made \u2018about $9,100 per day\u2019 in 2019, which the image shown in\n\nFigure 6, below, displays.\u201d).] The first statement \u2013 about Mr. Dennis\u2019s own success as Mr. Bond\u2019s\n\nstudent [id. \u00b6 14] \u2013 is true and the FTC has not alleged otherwise. Thus, this statement cannot\n\npossibly give rise to individual liability under the FTC Act because there is no plausible allegation\n\nthat it is deceptive. Similarly, the second statement \u2013 that Mr. Dennis made $9,100 per day in\n\n2019 [id. \u00b6 50] \u2013 is again about Mr. Dennis\u2019s own success as a trader, and the FTC does not allege\n\nthat the statement is false or misleading. The same is true of the Trade With Kyle video in which\n\nMr. Dennis purportedly shared examples of his own profitable trades. [Id. \u00b6 75.] The FTC makes\n\nno allegation that those trading examples were false or otherwise untrue. Absent well-pleaded\n\nallegations that Mr. Dennis\u2019s statements are false, the FTC cannot possibly contend that the\n\nstatements about his own actual trading history and success are actionable under the FTC Act.6\n\n       Accordingly, none of the statements that the FTC attributes to Mr. Dennis are actionable\n\nas a matter of law.\n\n\n\n\n6\n        Although outside the pleadings, the FTC cannot allege that Mr. Dennis\u2019s statements are\nfalse because they are not. Mr. Dennis has put forward affirmative evidence that he is in fact one\nof Bond\u2019s most successful students, and a self-made millionaire who was able to quit his job as a\nreal estate agent in 2015 to become a full-time trader who has made millions in net trading profits.\n[ECF No. 124 \u00b6\u00b6 3-4.]\n\n                                                 15\n\f      Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 308-1 Filed 04/05/22 Page 18 of 24\n\n\n\nB.     The Second Amended Complaint Fails to Allege that Mr. Dennis is Jointly and\n       Severally Liable for Statements He Did Not Make.\n\n       To the extent that the Second Amended Complaint contains allegations of claims made by\n\nothers at Raging Bull that are alleged to be deceptive, there is no basis to impute those deceptive\n\nclaims to Mr. Dennis. The Second Amended Complaint alleges that Mr. Dennis should not only\n\nbe liable for statements that he himself made during promotional videos (which are not actionable\n\nfor the reasons explained above), but for all of Raging Bull\u2019s alleged misrepresentations \u2013\n\nregardless of whether the misrepresentations were written or spoken by someone else, and\n\nregardless of whether Mr. Dennis had any role in drafting or approving the statements. But an\n\nindividual may only be found liable under the FTC Act for the conduct of a corporate entity if he\n\n\u201c(1) participated directly in the deceptive practices or had authority to control those practices, and\n\n(2) had or should have had knowledge of the deceptive practices.\u201d Ross, 743 F.3d at 892; see also\n\nFTC v. On Point Glob. LLC, No. 19-25046-CIV, 2021 WL 4892228, at *11 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 29,\n\n2021) (\u201cThe parties dispute whether knowledge is a required showing if the FTC seeks only\n\ninjunctive relief. The Court holds that knowledge is a required prong.\u201d).\n\n       The Second Amended Complaint fails to allege any plausible factual basis to infer that Mr.\n\nDennis \u2013 a non-owner trading instructor for only a subset of Raging Bull\u2019s services \u2013 participated\n\nin or had the authority to control the marketing of any of Raging Bull\u2019s services, other than the\n\ninactionable statements he himself made during sales videos. Instead, the FTC resorts to improper\n\ngroup pleading and conclusory allegations, including the conclusory allegation that Mr. Dennis is\n\n\u201cinvolved in the review and development of the sales scripts and presentation slides used to\n\npromote the various Biotech Breakouts services.\u201d [SAC \u00b6 62.] The Second Amended Complaint\n\nfails to plausibly demonstrate that Mr. Dennis is liable for anyone\u2019s conduct but his own for several\n\n\n                                                 16\n\f      Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 308-1 Filed 04/05/22 Page 19 of 24\n\n\n\nreasons.\n\n       First, in an attempt to establish personal liability, the Second Amended Complaint relies\n\non conclusory allegations that Mr. Dennis \u201chas formulated, directed, controlled, had authority to\n\ncontrol, or participated in the acts and practices set forth in this Complaint.\u201d [SAC \u00b6 14.] Such a\n\nconclusory allegation about Mr. Dennis\u2019s purported participation and control is not supported by\n\nany factual allegations and fails under both Rule 8 and Rule 9(b). The Second Amended\n\nComplaint, for example, does not allege that Mr. Dennis himself drafted, reviewed, approved,\n\ncommented on, or edited any marketing materials for services offered by other trading instructors.\n\nThus, the FTC\u2019s allegations are typical examples of \u201cformulaic recitation[s] of the elements of a\n\ncause of action\u201d that \u201cwill not do\u201d under Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, let alone under Rule 9(b). Similar\n\nconclusory allegations have been rejected by courts in other cases where the FTC attempted to\n\nutilize this generic approach to pleading. See, e.g., FTC v. Quincy Bioscience Holding Co., Inc.,\n\n389 F. Supp. 3d 211, 221 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (rejecting \u201cconclusory statement\u201d that individual\n\ndefendant \u201cparticipated in the acts and practices of [the company] . . . including the acts and\n\npractices set forth in this Complaint\u201d).\n\n       In FTC v. Swish Marketing, the court rejected as conclusory the same exact language that\n\nthe FTC uses to describe Mr. Dennis here: \u201cAt all times material to this Complaint, acting alone\n\nor in concert with others, [the individual defendant] has formulated, directed, controlled, had the\n\nauthority to control, or participated in the acts and practices of Swish, including the acts and\n\npractices set forth in this Complaint.\u201d No. C 09-03814 RS, 2010 WL 653486, at *5 (N.D. Cal.\n\nFeb. 22, 2010). The court held that \u201c[t]he Commission\u2019s conclusory assertions of authority\u2014\n\nuntethered to virtually any supportive facts\u2014do not support an inference of [the individual\n\ndefendant\u2019s] involvement\u201d and thus that the complaint failed under both Rule 8 and Rule 9(b). Id.;\n                                                17\n\f      Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 308-1 Filed 04/05/22 Page 20 of 24\n\n\n\nsee also id. at *6 (\u201cIn light of the Commission\u2019s broad investigatory power and its ability to obtain\n\ndiscovery prior to the commencement of this litigation, requiring it to advance some factual\n\nconnection between Benning and the alleged deceptive acts should not represent an unreasonable\n\nor impractical expectation.\u201d).7\n\n       Second, the remainder of the allegations in the Amended Complaint regarding Raging\n\nBull\u2019s purportedly false or misleading advertising similarly fail under both Rule 8 and 9(b). The\n\nSecond Amended Complaint simply does not allege how Mr. Dennis supposedly participated in,\n\nor was otherwise responsible for, making those statements. Rather, the FTC lumps Mr. Dennis in\n\nwith the other Defendants in a conclusory manner that provides no basis whatsoever for his\n\npersonal liability for alleged misleading statements. [See, e.g., SAC \u00b6\u00b6 21, 26, 40, 41, 43, 47.]\n\nThe FTC\u2019s failure to distinguish how Mr. Dennis\u2019s conduct relates to the allegedly deceptive\n\nstatements plainly runs afoul of Rule 8\u2019s prohibition against baseless group pleading and Rule\n\n9(b)\u2019s requirement that a complaint sounding in fraud allege the identity of the person making the\n\nmisrepresentation and what he obtained thereby. See, e.g., McPherson v. Baltimore Police Dep\u2019t,\n\nNo. CV SAG-20-0795, 2020 WL 6063479, at *5 (D. Md. Oct. 14, 2020) (\u201cWhile group pleading\n\ncan be permissible in certain circumstances, it must be plausible that each defendant was involved\n\nin all of the facts as alleged.\u201d (emphasis added)); Green v. Rosenberg & Assocs., LLC, No. CV\n\nPJM 17-732, 2018 WL 1183655, at *2 (D. Md. Mar. 7, 2018) (\u201cA plaintiff does not satisfy Rule 8\n\n\n\n\n7\n        In this case, as the Court is aware, the FTC not only made use of its \u201cbroad investigatory\npower,\u201d but it also received a complete copy of Raging Bull\u2019s servers from the short-lived receiver\nappointed prior to this Court\u2019s rejection of the preliminary injunction, and it had the opportunity\nto take Mr. Dennis\u2019s deposition in advance of the preliminary injunction hearing.\n\n\n                                                 18\n\f      Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 308-1 Filed 04/05/22 Page 21 of 24\n\n\n\nwhen the complaint lumps all the defendants together and fails to distinguish their conduct because\n\nsuch allegations fail to give adequate notice to the defendants as to what they did wrong.\u201d (cleaned\n\nup)); Owens, 612 F.3d at 731 (Rule 9(b) requires that the complaint allege \u201cat a minimum . . . the\n\ntime, place, and contents of the false representations, as well as the identity of the person making\n\nthe misrepresentation and what he obtained thereby\u201d).8\n\n       Knowing full well (and in fact alleging) that Mr. Dennis is only a \u201ctrading instructor,\u201d and\n\nnot an owner, officer, or executive of Raging Bull, and who offers only a subset of Raging Bull\u2019s\n\nservices [see SAC \u00b6\u00b6 12\u201314], the FTC still equates him with the Raging Bull Defendants, all of\n\nwhom were in fact owners and executives in the business. [See, e.g., id. \u00b6 26 (\u201cDefendants make\n\nparallel claims across all services about the possibility of making consistent, substantial profits\n\nand about who can use their services effectively.\u201d (emphases added)).] The FTC also fails to plead\n\nhow Mr. Dennis played a role that was in any way different from the other non-owner \u201ctrading\n\ninstructors\u201d at Raging Bull, none of whom were charged in the Second Amended Complaint.\n\n       Examples of the FTC\u2019s improper group pleading abound. It alleges that \u201cDefendants\n\ndescribe Total Alpha as teaching consumers \u2018the options trading strategies that Jeff Bishop has\n\nused to make a fortune in the stock market\u2019\u201d while at the same time alleging that Total Alpha is\n\n\u201cBishop\u2019s service,\u201d [id. \u00b6\u00b6 69, 32] with no alleged relationship to Mr. Dennis. The FTC alleges\n\nthat \u201cDefendants market Jason Bond Picks with statements like \u2018Don\u2019t Just Beat the Market\u2026\n\n\n\n\n8\n       The requirement that the FTC plausibly allege that each defendant is liable for all of the\ndeceptive conduct charged in a particular count is particularly critical in light of the Supreme\nCourt\u2019s recent ruling in Liu v. SEC, which effectively eliminated joint and several liability in the\nanalogous circumstances of the SEC\u2019s equitable authority to enforce the securities laws. In Liu,\nthe Court held that joint and several liability is \u201cat odds with the common-law rule requiring\nindividual liability for wrongful profits.\u201d 140 S. Ct. 1936, 1949 (2020)\n                                                 19\n\f      Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 308-1 Filed 04/05/22 Page 22 of 24\n\n\n\nCrush It,\u2019\u201d while at the same time alleging that Jason Bond Picks is \u201cBond\u2019s.\u201d [Id.] The FTC does\n\nnot attempt to tie Mr. Dennis to these Raging Bull services in the Second Amended Complaint,\n\ninstead relying on group pleading to make the conclusory (and totally false) assertion that Mr.\n\nDennis is just the same as the other Raging Bull Defendants. Nor does the FTC make any attempt\n\nto allege which Defendants participated in the drafting, creation, review, approval, or\n\ndissemination of the statements. Absent any specific allegations that Mr. Dennis participated in\n\nmaking each allegedly deceptive statement in the Second Amended Complaint (and there are\n\nnone), the FTC cannot make this baseless leap through improper group pleading.\n\n       Once the few non-deceptive statements that are allegedly attributable to Mr. Dennis are\n\ndisregarded, along with the Second Amended Complaint\u2019s conclusory allegations and improper\n\ngroup pleading, there is nothing left as against Mr. Dennis. Accordingly, the Court should dismiss\n\nthe FTC\u2019s claims against him pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).\n\n                                        CONCLUSION\n       For the foregoing reasons, the Court should dismiss the FTC\u2019s claims against Defendant\n\nKyle W. Dennis. Because the FTC has now had two opportunities to amend its Complaint, the\n\nCourt should dismiss the claims in the Second Amended Complaint with prejudice.\n\nDated: April 5, 2022\n                                                    Respectfully submitted,\n\n\n                                                    /s/ Matthew L. Schwartz\n                                                    Matthew L. Schwartz (pro hac vice)\n                                                    John T. Zach (pro hac vice)\n                                                    Sabina Mariella (pro hac vice)\n                                                    BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP\n                                                    55 Hudson Yards\n                                                    New York, New York\n                                                    Tel.: (212) 446-2300\n                                               20\n\fCase 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 308-1 Filed 04/05/22 Page 23 of 24\n\n\n\n                                     E-mail: mlschwartz@bsfllp.com\n                                            jzach@bsfllp.com\n                                            smariella@bsfllp.com\n\n                                     Jonathan Shaw (Bar No. 11328)\n                                     BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP\n                                     1401 New York Ave, NW\n                                     Washington, DC 20005\n                                     Tel: 202 274 1123\n                                     E-mail: jshaw@bsfllp.com\n\n                                     Brian Levin (pro hac vice)\n                                     LEVIN LAW, P.A.\n                                     2665 South Bayshore Drive Penthouse 2B\n                                     Miami, Florida 33133\n                                     Tel: (305) 539-0593\n                                     E-mail: brian@levinlawpa.com\n\n                                     Counsel for Defendant Kyle W. Dennis\n\n\n\n\n                                21\n\f      Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 308-1 Filed 04/05/22 Page 24 of 24\n\n\n\n                               CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\n       I HEREBY CERTIFY that on April 5, 2022 a true and accurate copy foregoing was\n\nproperly served on all parties through the ECF system.\n\n\n                                                         /s/ Matthew L. Schwartz\n                                                         Matthew L. Schwartz\n                                                         BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP\n                                                         55 Hudson Yards\n                                                         New York, New York\n                                                         Tel.: (212) 446-2300\n                                                         E-mail: mlschwartz@bsfllp.com\n\n\n\n\n                                              22\n\f","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":"2022-08-14T07:15:36.255643-07:00","document_number":"308","attachment_number":1,"pacer_doc_id":"093012376532","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2022-08-14T07:12:28.314039-07:00","date_modified":"2023-01-16T09:19:35.003839-08:00","date_filed":"2022-04-05","time_filed":null,"entry_number":308,"recap_sequence_number":"2022-04-05.001","pacer_sequence_number":869,"description":"MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim by Kyle W. Dennis (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support)(Schwartz, Matthew) (Entered: 04/05/2022)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/203459924/","id":203459924,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/18719211/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/209266481/","id":209266481,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/18719211/309/federal-trade-commission-v-dennis/","date_created":"2022-08-14T07:12:28.302867-07:00","date_modified":"2023-01-16T09:19:35.068490-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"309","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"093012405250","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2022-08-14T07:12:28.293476-07:00","date_modified":"2023-01-16T09:19:35.053645-08:00","date_filed":"2022-04-19","time_filed":null,"entry_number":309,"recap_sequence_number":"2022-04-19.001","pacer_sequence_number":871,"description":"RESPONSE in Opposition re 308 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim filed by Federal Trade Commission.(Kim, Sung) (Entered: 04/19/2022)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/203459923/","id":203459923,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/18719211/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/209266480/","id":209266480,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/18719211/310/federal-trade-commission-v-dennis/","date_created":"2022-08-14T07:12:28.273875-07:00","date_modified":"2023-01-16T09:19:35.111028-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"310","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"093012436644","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2022-08-14T07:12:28.256524-07:00","date_modified":"2023-01-16T09:19:35.099160-08:00","date_filed":"2022-05-03","time_filed":null,"entry_number":310,"recap_sequence_number":"2022-05-03.001","pacer_sequence_number":874,"description":"REPLY to Response to Motion re 308 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim filed by Kyle W. Dennis.(Schwartz, Matthew) (Entered: 05/03/2022)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/189976880/","id":189976880,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/18719211/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/195551900/","id":195551900,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/18719211/304/federal-trade-commission-v-dennis/","date_created":"2022-03-15T07:47:50.608903-07:00","date_modified":"2022-08-14T07:12:28.434984-07:00","sha1":"ba54d764846c5f9150190f49117901ade67ba6d4","page_count":42,"file_size":1435273,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.487710/gov.uscourts.mdd.487710.304.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.mdd.487710/gov.uscourts.mdd.487710.304.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":"recap-thumbnails/gov.uscourts.mdd.487710/195551900.thumb.1068.jpeg","thumbnail_status":1,"plain_text":"      Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 304 Filed 03/15/22 Page 1 of 42\n\n\n\n                           UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND\n\n\nFederal Trade Commission,\n600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW\nMailstop CC-8528                              Case No. 1:20-cv-3538\nWashington, DC 20580\n\n              Plaintiff,\n\n       vs.\n\nRagingBull.com, LLC f/k/a Lighthouse\nMedia LLC, a Delaware limited liability       SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT\ncompany, 62 Calef Hwy., Ste. 233, Lee,        FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION,\nNew Hampshire 03861 and 1311                  MONETARY RELIEF, AND OTHER\nMcCormick Rd., Suite 200, Hunt Valley,        RELIEF\nMaryland 21031, Baltimore County,\n\nJeffrey M. Bishop, individually and as an\nofficer and/or member of RagingBull.com,\nLLC, and Sherwood Ventures, LLC, 18\nSackett Rd., Lee, New Hampshire 03861,\n\nJason Bond, f/k/a Jason P. Kowalik,\nindividually and as an officer and/or\nmember of RagingBull.com, LLC and Jason\nBond, LLC, 22 Foss Farm Rd., Durham,\nNew Hampshire 03824,\n\nKyle W. Dennis, individually, 857 Indian\nTrail Dr., Apt. E36, Kingsport, Tennessee\n37660,\n\nSherwood Ventures, LLC, a Texas limited\nliability company, 62 Calef Hwy., Ste. 233,\nLee, New Hampshire 03861,\n\nJason Bond, LLC, a Delaware limited\nliability company, 22 Foss Farm Rd.,\nDurham, New Hampshire 03824,\n\n              Defendants.\n\f        Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 304 Filed 03/15/22 Page 2 of 42\n\n\n\n\n       Plaintiff, the Federal Trade Commission (\u201cFTC\u201d), for its Complaint alleges:\n\n       1.      The FTC brings this action under Sections 13(b) and 19 of the Federal Trade\n\nCommission Act (\u201cFTC Act\u201d), 15 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 53(b) and 57b, and under Section 5 of the Restore\n\nOnline Shoppers\u2019 Confidence Act (\u201cROSCA\u201d), 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 8404, to obtain permanent injunctive\n\nrelief, monetary relief, the refund of monies paid, and other relief for Defendants\u2019 acts or\n\npractices in violation of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 45(a), and in violation of\n\nSection 4 of ROSCA, 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 8403, in connection with the sale and marketing of\n\nDefendants\u2019 goods and services.\n\n\n                                  SUMMARY OF THE CASE\n\n       2.      Defendants operate a company called Raging Bull, which promotes and sells\n\nstock and options trading services online that Defendants claim provide strategies that generate\n\nsubstantial profits. The problem is Defendants have no proof that their trading strategies\n\ngenerate such profits for consumers, and in fact the typical consumer does not make substantial\n\nincome when attempting to deploy them. Misrepresenting the attributes of a product that you are\n\nselling is deceptive and violates the FTC Act.\n\n       3.      Raging Bull is directed by Jeff Bishop and Jason Bond, who present themselves\n\nas a pair of expert stock and options traders who made millions in the stock market and now\n\nteach their techniques to the public. Additional so-called trading \u201cgurus\u201d and \u201cinstructors\u201d\u2014in\n\nreality, Raging Bull salespeople\u2014have been added over time, including Kyle Dennis. Raging\n\nBull advertises that consumers who sign up for their programs will learn from Bishop, Bond,\n\nDennis, and the other instructors\u2019 simple-to-follow strategies for beating the market or will be\n\nable to copy these millionaires\u2019 trades using real-time alerts.\n\n\n\n\n                                                  2\n\f        Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 304 Filed 03/15/22 Page 3 of 42\n\n\n\n        4.      Defendants\u2019 advertising is replete with claims that Bishop, Bond, Dennis, and\n\nother instructors have made substantial money with these strategies and on trades to which they\n\nalerted consumers as part of their programs. Defendants also make extensive use of testimonials\n\nwhere their customers claim to have made substantial profits using Raging Bull\u2019s services, often\n\nciting particular trades.\n\n        5.      Buried in fine print at the bottom of their websites, Defendants admit they do not\n\nverify the testimonials they use in advertising. And they admit they do not track whether\n\nconsumers who purchase their services make any money at all, much less the kinds of returns\n\nadvertised. Numerous consumers have purchased Defendants\u2019 programs and found Defendants\u2019\n\nearnings claims to be false.\n\n        6.      The majority of consumers do not beat the market or make the kinds of returns\n\nadvertised. Many consumers have lost substantial sums of money in the stock market following\n\nDefendants\u2019 strategy or trade recommendations; some consumers have even lost tens of\n\nthousands of dollars on just a few trades. When consumers try to cancel their subscriptions,\n\nmany find they cannot do so easily.\n\n        7.      Amid one of the most volatile stock markets in history and the economic crisis\n\nbrought on by the COVID-19 pandemic, Defendants are aggressively marketing their products\n\nwhile touting the success of their so-called COVID-19 and pandemic \u201cplays\u201d in a market they\n\nsay is \u201ccreating more money making opportunities than we\u2019ve seen in over a decade.\u201d Recent\n\naccount statements show Defendants are causing millions of dollars of consumer injury per\n\nmonth. In the past three years, Defendants have defrauded consumers out of more than $197\n\nmillion dollars.\n\n\n\n\n                                                 3\n\f        Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 304 Filed 03/15/22 Page 4 of 42\n\n\n\n                                JURISDICTION AND VENUE\n\n       8.      This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 1331, 1337(a),\n\nand 1345.\n\n       9.      Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1391(b)(2)\u2013(3), (c)(2), and (d),\n\nand 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 53(b).\n\n\n                                          PLAINTIFF\n\n       10.     The FTC is an independent agency of the United States Government created by\n\nthe FTC Act, which authorizes the FTC to commence this district court civil action by its own\n\nattorneys. 15 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 41\u201358. The FTC enforces Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. \u00a7\n\n45(a), which prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce. The FTC\n\nalso enforces ROSCA, 15 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 8401 et seq., which prohibits certain methods of negative\n\noption marketing on the internet.\n\n\n                                        DEFENDANTS\n\n       11.     Defendant RagingBull.com, LLC (\u201cRaging Bull\u201d) is a Delaware limited liability\n\ncompany. Raging Bull\u2019s principal place of business is listed as 62 Calef Hwy. Ste. 233, Lee,\n\nNew Hampshire 03861; but Raging Bull also maintains an office at 1311 McCormick Rd., Suite\n\n200, Hunt Valley, Maryland 21031. Raging Bull transacts or has transacted business in this\n\ndistrict and throughout the United States. Raging Bull was formed in or around 2014 as\n\nLighthouse Media, LLC and changed its name to Raging Bull in December of 2016.\n\n       12.     Defendant Jeffrey M. Bishop (\u201cBishop\u201d) is co-founder and CEO of Raging Bull,\n\nappears in the company\u2019s advertising, narrates a number of Raging Bull\u2019s marketing and training\n\nvideos, and leads a number of its trading services, as described further below. Bishop, along\n\nwith his wife, owns Sherwood Ventures, LLC (\u201cSherwood Ventures\u201d). Bishop is Sherwood\n\n\n                                                4\n\f        Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 304 Filed 03/15/22 Page 5 of 42\n\n\n\nVentures\u2019 sole officer and controls the company. Sherwood Ventures owns 65% of Raging Bull,\n\nand Bishop signs Raging Bull business documents on behalf of Sherwood Ventures. Bishop\n\nreceives money from Raging Bull either directly or through Sherwood Ventures. Bishop resides\n\nin New Hampshire. At all times material to this Complaint, acting alone or in concert with\n\nothers, Bishop has formulated, directed, controlled, had authority to control, or participated in the\n\nacts and practices set forth in this Complaint. Bishop, in connection with the matters alleged\n\nherein, transacts or has transacted business in this district and throughout the United States.\n\n       13.     Defendant Jason Bond (\u201cBond\u201d), formerly known as Jason P. Kowalik, is\n\nPresident and co-founder of Raging Bull and appears in the company\u2019s advertising. Bond leads\n\nmany of Raging Bull\u2019s \u201ceducational\u201d and stock alert programs. Bond is an owner and controls\n\nJason Bond, LLC. At all times material to this Complaint, either Bond or Jason Bond, LLC has\n\nbeen listed as a 25% owner of Raging Bull, and Bond signs Raging Bull business documents on\n\nbehalf of Jason Bond, LLC. At times Bond has been paid directly by Raging Bull, and at times\n\nhe receives money through his LLC. Bond resides in New Hampshire. At all times material to\n\nthis Complaint, acting alone or in concert with others, Bond has formulated, directed, controlled,\n\nhad authority to control, or participated in the acts and practices set forth in this Complaint.\n\nBond, in connection with the matters alleged herein, transacts or has transacted business in this\n\ndistrict and throughout the United States.\n\n       14.     Defendant Kyle W. Dennis (\u201cDennis\u201d) is a salesman and trading instructor who\n\noffers and promotes a number of widely advertised services through Raging Bull. In doing so,\n\nDennis claims to be one of Jason Bond\u2019s most successful students and a self-made millionaire\n\nwho made his fortune trading in the stock market. Dennis is also the lone \u201cguru\u201d or purported\n\ntrading expert featured on the Biotech Breakouts brand of services at Raging Bull, which has\n\n\n\n\n                                                  5\n\f        Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 304 Filed 03/15/22 Page 6 of 42\n\n\n\nbilked over $40 million from consumers in the past three years. Dennis appears on all of the\n\nsales and marketing materials that promote the Biotech Breakouts brand. Dennis purportedly\n\ncreated and developed the Biotech Breakouts trading system or methods that purport to generate\n\nsubstantial and consistent trading profits for its subscribers. At various times, Dennis has held\n\nhimself out as the \u201cDirector and Co-Founder of Biotech Breakouts\u201d and as the \u201cBiotech\n\nBreakouts Guru.\u201d Dennis has personally reaped over $13.6 million in profits from Defendants\u2019\n\nsales and auto-renewals of the Biotech Breakouts services, all of which are sold and billed as\n\nnegative options. As set forth in detail below, Dennis has repeatedly made false and\n\nunsubstantiated earnings claims in connection with the sale and marketing of Biotech Breakouts\n\nsubscriptions, including during online sales presentations attended by thousands of consumers, in\n\nwidely disseminated sales videos, and in his communications with consumers. Dennis resides in\n\nTennessee. At all times material to this Complaint, acting alone or in concert with others,\n\nDennis has formulated, directed, controlled, had authority to control, or participated in the acts\n\nand practices set forth in this Complaint. Dennis, in connection with the matters alleged herein,\n\ntransacts or has transacted business in this district and throughout the United States.\n\n       15.     Defendant Sherwood Ventures, LLC (\u201cSherwood Ventures\u201d) is a Texas limited\n\nliability company with its principal place of business listed as the same address as Raging Bull.\n\nBishop and his wife are the sole owners of Sherwood Ventures, and Bishop is the sole officer\n\nand controls the company. Sherwood Ventures owns 65% of Raging Bull. Raging Bull\u2019s\n\ninternet domain, ragingbull.com, was originally registered under Sherwood\u2019s name; the\n\nregistration was changed to list Ragingbull.com, LLC as the registrant in January 2017. In the\n\npast five years, Sherwood Ventures has received more than $36 million from Raging Bull. At\n\nleast three Raging Bull employees also work for Sherwood. Sherwood Ventures, along with the\n\n\n\n\n                                                  6\n\f        Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 304 Filed 03/15/22 Page 7 of 42\n\n\n\nother two owners of Raging Bull, opened a Raging Bull depository account used to collect\n\nconsumers\u2019 payments to Raging Bull. Sherwood Ventures transacts or has transacted business in\n\nthis district and throughout the United States.\n\n       16.     Defendant Jason Bond, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company. Jason\n\nBond, LLC\u2019s principal place of business is the same as Bond\u2019s home address. Bond owns and\n\ncontrols Jason Bond, LLC. Jason Bond, LLC owns 25% of Raging Bull. In the past five years,\n\nJason Bond, LLC has received more than $12 million from Raging Bull. A Raging Bull\n\nemployee is a signatory on the Jason Bond LLC bank account. Jason Bond, LLC, along with the\n\nother two owners of Raging Bull, opened a Raging Bull depository account used to collect\n\nconsumers\u2019 payments to Raging Bull. Bond is an officer of Raging Bull and a member of Jason\n\nBond, LLC. Jason Bond, LLC transacts or has transacted business in this district and throughout\n\nthe United States.\n\n\n                                       Common Enterprise\n\n       17.     Defendants Raging Bull, Sherwood Ventures, and Jason Bond, LLC,\n\n(collectively, \u201cCorporate Defendants\u201d) have operated as a common enterprise while engaging in\n\nthe deceptive acts and practices alleged below. Corporate Defendants concerted and coordinated\n\nto design, organize, manage, market, and sell Raging Bull\u2019s fraudulent enterprise, as well as to\n\nderive revenue and profit from it. Working together, Corporate Defendants have conducted the\n\nbusiness practices described below through an interrelated network of companies, which share\n\nowners, officers, managers, employees, and office locations. Consumer money comes into\n\nRaging Bull as a result of Defendants\u2019 deceptive acts and practices and is quickly transferred out\n\nto the other corporate entities, sometimes multiple times per month, as profit distributions,\n\ncommissions, or wages. Because Corporate Defendants have operated as a common enterprise,\n\n\n\n                                                  7\n\f        Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 304 Filed 03/15/22 Page 8 of 42\n\n\n\neach of them is liable for the acts and practices alleged below. Individual Defendants Bishop,\n\nBond, and Dennis formulated, directed, controlled, had the authority to control, or participated in\n\nthe acts and practices of the Corporate Defendants that constitute the common enterprise.\n\n\n                                         COMMERCE\n\n       18.     At all times material to this Complaint, Defendants have maintained a substantial\n\ncourse of trade in or affecting commerce, as \u201ccommerce\u201d is defined in Section 4 of the FTC Act,\n\n15 U.S.C. \u00a7 44.\n\n\n                          DEFENDANTS\u2019 BUSINESS ACTIVITIES\n\n       19.     Defendants have operated and continue to operate a company called Raging Bull,\n\nwhich sells stock and options trading services online to consumers across the United States and\n\nabroad. Defendants claim their services provide strategies that generate substantial profits.\n\n       20.     Defendants Bishop and Bond formed Raging Bull in 2014, and are its principals.\n\nThrough Sherwood Ventures and Jason Bond, LLC, Bishop and Bond own 65% and 25% of the\n\ncompany, respectively. Dennis joined the company in 2016. He is the featured \u201cguru\u201d for the\n\nBiotech Breakouts brand at Raging Bull and is also actively involved in Raging Bull\u2019s marketing\n\nand sales operations. Defendants claim to have thousands of subscribers, and bank records show\n\nthey are bilking consumers out of millions of dollars on a monthly basis. A number of these\n\nconsumers are older adults, retirees, and/or immigrants.\n\n       21.     Defendants offer or have offered over 30 services to date, as well as packages that\n\ninclude access to all or a set of their services. Defendants frequently add new services and\n\nchange or remove existing ones. Each service purportedly shares with consumers a given\n\ninstructor\u2019s strategies for making money in the stock market through educational materials or\n\ntrade recommendations, and frequently both. Trade recommendations are advertised to come in\n\n\n                                                 8\n\f         Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 304 Filed 03/15/22 Page 9 of 42\n\n\n\nthe form of specific, real-time alerts that the instructor has bought or sold a particular stock or\n\noption; some services also offer live-streaming of the instructor\u2019s trading activity during the day,\n\nso that consumers can follow along. Defendants market these services by touting examples of\n\nthe instructors\u2019 purported success as traders, by sharing consumer testimonials that boast big\n\nwins, and by claiming consumers can make consistent and substantial profits regardless of the\n\nconsumer\u2019s experience, wealth, or available time.\n\n        22.     Consumers purchase these services based on Defendants\u2019 claims that they will be\n\nable to make substantial, market-beating returns in the stock market \u2013 either by studying the\n\nmaterials Defendants provide or by following specific trade recommendations that Defendants\n\noffer as part of their services.\n\n        23.     In numerous instances, however, consumers have instead lost substantial sums of\n\nmoney when investing based on Defendants\u2019 advice and alerts, not counting the millions of\n\ndollars consumers collectively pay each month for access to these services.\n\n        24.     Buried in a purported disclaimer on their websites, described further below,\n\nDefendants admit they have no substantiation for their claims that consumers are likely to make\n\nthe advertised profits or income. Defendants admit they have not independently verified the\n\nclaims made by consumer testimonials and have not determined whether those testimonials are\n\ntypical of consumers using their services.\n\n        25.     Numerous consumers have realized Defendants\u2019 services do not work as claimed.\n\nConsumers who request refunds are routinely denied. When attempting to cancel the services to\n\navoid recurring charges, many consumers encounter difficulties, including an inability to cancel\n\ncertain services online, challenges reaching customer service, and confusing instructions about\n\nhow to request cancellations.\n\n\n\n\n                                                  9\n\f       Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 304 Filed 03/15/22 Page 10 of 42\n\n\n\n                                     Defendants\u2019 Advertising\n\n                                Defendants\u2019 Marketing Practices\n\n       26.     While Defendants offer numerous paid subscription stock and option trading\n\nservices and frequently change their lineup, Defendants\u2019 services are all marketed in similar\n\nways. Defendants make parallel claims across all services about the possibility of making\n\nconsistent, substantial profits and about who can use their services effectively.\n\n       27.     Defendants pay millions of dollars to promote their products with search engine\n\nadvertisements, social media posts and videos, and individual websites for each service they\n\noffer. Defendants also use an affiliate marketing program, paying other companies and\n\nindividuals to direct potential customers to their site, and they engage in mass email marketing.\n\nDefendants\u2019 advertisements and websites are replete with purported testimonials from customers\n\nclaiming to have made substantial returns on individual trades using Defendants\u2019 services.\n\n       28.     Consumers typically first encounter Defendants\u2019 marketing after searching on the\n\ninternet for information about the stock market or visiting websites related to the stock market or\n\noptions trading. Utilizing the advertising services of sites such as Google, Facebook, Instagram,\n\nand YouTube, defendants show ads to customers who have been identified as potentially\n\ninterested in such topics. One such ad is depicted below in Figure 1.\n\n\n\n\n                                                 10\n\f       Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 304 Filed 03/15/22 Page 11 of 42\n\n\n\n\nFigure 1: Screenshot of Raging Bull ad featuring Jeff Bishop, running on Facebook\u2019s platforms\n                                (from Facebook Ad Library).\n       29.     Many Raging Bull ads emphasize the purported success of the instructors,\n\nincluding Defendants Bishop, Bond, and Dennis. The ads often feature Raging Bull\u2019s\n\ninstructors, talking about highly successful trades or claiming they have made millions in the\n\n\n\n\n                                                11\n\f          Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 304 Filed 03/15/22 Page 12 of 42\n\n\n\nstock market. A number of ads feature instructors with private jets or in expensive-looking\n\nhotels.\n\n          30.   Raging Bull markets its services as opportunities to learn from these purported\n\nmillionaires. The services include purported educational materials that claim to teach consumers\n\nthese traders\u2019 secrets to success and are often paired with trade alerts that will purportedly let\n\nconsumers copy the instructors\u2019 trades and share in the wealth.\n\n          31.   Raging Bull touts its trading strategies as simple and easy to use. For example,\n\nadvertisements for Defendants\u2019 service Bullseye Trades describe that program as \u201cthe simplest,\n\nmost consistent strategy on Wall Street. Hands down,\u201d and assert \u201cBullseye Trades can work for\n\neveryone\u201d and \u201chas worked for tons of people.\u201d\n\n          32.   Raging Bull markets its trade alerts as easy opportunities to copy the instructors\u2019\n\ntrades and make similar returns. For example, advertisements for Bishop\u2019s service Total Alpha\n\nassert consumers can \u201cleave the heavy lifting to Jeff!\u201d when using the service\u2019s alerts and that\n\nconsumers can \u201clook right over Jeff\u2019s shoulder and see the moves he is making in real time.\u201d\n\nLikewise, ads for Bond\u2019s \u201cJason Bond Picks\u201d service state \u201cI do the work, find, and reveal up to\n\n10 simple trades each week that make me a killing. Learn my system. Trade my system. Keep\n\nall the profits.\u201d Marketing materials often include selective examples of past alerts that went out\n\non trades that earned large returns for the instructor, despite such returns being highly atypical\n\nfor the instructors.\n\n          33.   Many Raging Bull ads and advertising campaigns feature testimonials by\n\nindividuals who claim to have made significant money with the services, often boasting about\n\nreturns of several thousand dollars or over 100% profit from a single trade. Raging Bull ads\n\n\n\n\n                                                  12\n\f       Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 304 Filed 03/15/22 Page 13 of 42\n\n\n\nclaim the company has \u201chelped thousands of people to become empowered, self-directed traders\n\nwho know how to take control in any market condition.\u201d\n\n       34.     After consumers click one of these ads, they are typically taken to the website for\n\na specific product. Most of these sites have a similar design and feature further advertising for\n\nthe specific product. In many cases, the site will pitch some introductory content such as a\n\nwebinar or e-book, as illustrated below in Figure 2 (stating \u201cLearn how you could DOUBLE or\n\nTRIPLE your account in One Week!\u201d). These webinars and e-books provide some basic\n\neducational content but serve primarily to advertise Raging Bull\u2019s products.\n\n\n\n\nFigure 2: Screenshot of webinar offered on one of Defendants\u2019 marketing websites, arrived at by\n                          clicking the ad shown in Figure 1, supra.\n       35.     Consumers who enter an email address, for example to obtain a free e-book or\n\nregister for a webinar, are added to marketing email lists. Consumers on such email lists receive\n\nfrequent emails marketing Defendants\u2019 services, sometimes highlighting purported limited-time\n\ndeals, and directing consumers to product-specific websites for additional services.\n\n       36.     The free webinar videos typically begin with the instructor for the service\n\ndiscussing his background and purported success as a millionaire trader. The instructor then\n\n\n                                                13\n\f       Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 304 Filed 03/15/22 Page 14 of 42\n\n\n\nprovides an overview of the purported strategy behind the product, often while sharing consumer\n\ntestimonials or touting successful trades. The videos typically discuss details about the particular\n\nRaging Bull service and how to purchase it. In many cases, the free webinar videos end by\n\ndescribing a purported limited-time offer to get the advertised product at a discount, as illustrated\n\nbelow in Figure 3. Many of the products\u2019 web pages also assert limited-time deals.\n\n\n\n\n             Figure 3: Screenshot from Jason Bond Unchained promotional webinar.\n       37.     If a consumer proceeds to purchase a product, he or she is typically taken to a\n\ncheckout page on ragingbull.com. Most of the checkout pages have a similar format, featuring\n\nadditional earnings claims, consumer testimonials that claim substantial profits, or examples of\n\nhighly-profitable trades made by the instructors, along with a payment form.\n\n       38.     Once consumers purchase a product from Defendants, they are often bombarded\n\nwith more marketing. This includes further emails advertising special deals on new products or\n\naccess to other promotional webinars. Consumers may also receive offers from Raging Bull\n\ncustomer service staff to try out new or different services.\n\n\n\n                                                 14\n\f       Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 304 Filed 03/15/22 Page 15 of 42\n\n\n\n                       Marketing Based on the Founders and Instructors\n\n       39.     Much of the advertising for Raging Bull\u2019s products centers on the purported\n\nsuccess of the instructors that lead each service. Consumers are led to believe they can also\n\nmake significant money by using the instructor\u2019s methods, copying their trades, or both.\n\n\n                                        Defendant Bishop\n\n\n       40.     Many ads for Bishop\u2019s services begin by touting his success as one of Wall\n\nStreet\u2019s top options traders, and as a \u201cgenius trader who has made millions in the stock market.\u201d\n\nDefendants also refer to Bishop as \u201cone of the most widely followed stock market commentators\n\nand traders out there.\u201d Many Raging Bull ads claim Bishop taught Bond, and that together they\n\ntaught most of the other instructors at the company.\n\n\n\n\nFigure 4: Screenshot of promotional video for Weekly Money Multiplier (Bishop on the right).\n       41.     When touting Bishop\u2019s purported success, Defendants do not tell consumers\n\nBishop\u2019s income is primarily derived from subscription fees consumers pay to Raging Bull and\n\n\n\n\n                                                15\n\f       Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 304 Filed 03/15/22 Page 16 of 42\n\n\n\nnot from stock and options trading. Bishop has incurred substantial and persistent losses as a\n\nresult of his own stock and options trading activities.\n\n\n                                          Defendant Bond\n\n\n       42.     As the leader of many of Raging Bull\u2019s services and one of the company\u2019s\n\nfounders, Bond\u2019s success as a securities trader is also a central feature of many of Defendants\u2019\n\nadvertisements.\n\n       43.     Raging Bull\u2019s website and product pages tell the story that Bond is a former gym\n\nteacher who was $250,000 in debt, found a mentor in Jeff Bishop, became a \u201cstock trading\n\nmillionaire,\u201d and is now \u201csharing the wealth\u201d with his clients. Defendants frequently describe\n\nJason Bond as a trading phenomenon, and claim, for example, that his training is \u201csecond to\n\nnone because he started as a physical education teacher making a modest salary and grew his net\n\nworth to become a multi-millionaire.\u201d\n\n       44.     In a marketing email sent to one of Raging Bull\u2019s mailing lists in March 2020,\n\nBond states he \u201cmade over 180% in 2015 and then in 2016 I turned a $100,000 account into\n\n$430,000! A massive 330% returns [sic]. 2017, I then made $284,000 and get this\u2026 I donated\n\nall of it to charity! \u2026 2018 is no different because of my market-tested strategy that myself and\n\nthousands of members are using for HUGE success.\u201d Bond later told the New Hampshire\n\nBureau of Securities Regulation that he lost money in 2018.\n\n       45.     Other Raging Bull advertisements tout Bond\u2019s and Bishop\u2019s purported success by\n\nclaiming they have been recognized for their success by the media or by well-known institutions.\n\nFor example, one advertisement claimed \u201c[b]ecause of our crazy story, we\u2019ve been all over the\n\nmedia\u2014including Times Square!\u201d Other ads have claimed Bond was invited to speak at Harvard\n\n\n\n\n                                                 16\n\f       Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 304 Filed 03/15/22 Page 17 of 42\n\n\n\nBusiness School or feature a video of him supposedly doing so. A screenshot of a recording of\n\nBond\u2019s purported Harvard speech is shown below in Figure 5.\n\n\n\n\n  Figure 5: Screenshot from recording of Bond\u2019s purported Harvard Business School speech.\n\n       46.     The events referred to in such marketing are mostly paid-for promotional events.\n\nFor example, the image that appeared on a Times Square Billboard was a paid advertisement.\n\nSimilarly, Defendants paid for Bond to speak on or near Harvard\u2019s campus for promotional\n\npurposes; Bond was never invited by the school or any of its affiliates.\n\n       47.     When touting Bond\u2019s purported success, Defendants do not tell consumers\n\nBond\u2019s income is primarily derived from subscription fees consumers pay to Raging Bull and not\n\nfrom stock and options trading. Bond has incurred substantial and persistent losses as a result of\n\nhis own stock and options trading activities.\n\n\n                               Defendant Dennis/Other Instructors\n\n\n       48.     Ads for services offered by instructors other than Bond and Bishop feature similar\n\nclaims. In most cases, Raging Bull advertises that other instructors, including Defendant Dennis,\n\nare former students of Bond and Bishop who made their own millions trading stocks and then\n\n\n                                                17\n\f        Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 304 Filed 03/15/22 Page 18 of 42\n\n\n\njoined Raging Bull as instructors to teach their methods. Defendants make the success of these\n\ninstructors central to their advertising as well.\n\n        49.     Defendants\u2019 ads portray their instructors as able to generate market-beating\n\nreturns through their trades and able to pick \u201cwinning\u201d stocks on a week-after-week basis. As\n\ndiscussed further below, many of Defendants\u2019 marketing materials involve their instructors\n\nhighlighting selected winning trades that earned huge percentages, often over 100% per trade and\n\nas high as 1600%. Such trades are atypical, and neither Raging Bull\u2019s instructors nor their\n\nconsumers make market-beating returns on a week-after-week basis. Many consumers have\n\ncomplained of losing money when trying to follow Defendants\u2019 trade recommendations.\n\n        50.     Ads for services offered by Kyle Dennis feature, for example, Dennis saying he\n\nmade \u201cabout $9,100 per day\u201d in 2019, which the image shown in Figure 6, below, displays.\n\n\n\n\nFigure 6A: Screenshot of promotional video for Dennis\u2019s service Fast Five Trades.\n\n        51.     Dennis appears in and narrates numerous sales videos with false or\n\nunsubstantiated earnings claims used to induce consumers to enroll in one or more of the Biotech\n\n\n                                                    18\n\f       Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 304 Filed 03/15/22 Page 19 of 42\n\n\n\nBreakouts services. These sales videos were disseminated to consumers through emails, posted\n\non the BiotechBreakouts.com website, and broadcast on Defendants\u2019 YouTube channels. Dennis\n\nhas admitted in a sworn deposition that he does not track his subscribers\u2019 results and lacks data\n\nshowing what a typical consumer earns in trading profits using Defendants\u2019 services. For\n\nexample, Dennis narrates the sales video for \u201cFast Five Trades,\u201d a negative option product sold\n\nunder the Biotech Breakouts brand. In this video, Dennis tells the viewer that he intends to\n\n\u201cshow people how they can hit the ground running and begin to add an extra 250, 500, even\n\n2,000 dollars or more to their account each and every week\u201d and enable consumers to generate\n\n\u201cfast profits\u201d in \u201cfive days\u201d or less. Defendants, including Dennis, lack substantiation for these\n\nearnings claims.\n\n       52.     Dennis also narrates the sales video for \u201cDollar Ace,\u201d another negative option\n\nproduct sold under the Biotech Breakouts brand. In this video, Dennis tells the viewer that\n\nDennis has developed a simple and easy to use system that will enable consumers to grow their\n\nsmall accounts from \u201c1,000 to 5,000 to 10,000 to 25,000 in a matter of months; something\n\nmedium-sized accounts of 25,000 or more could apply to make an extra 1,000 or 4,000 per week;\n\nand something that large accounts, 100 grand or more could supplement into their trading as\n\nanother low maintenance cash generator.\u201d Dennis claims that \u201cDollar Ace\u201d subscribers will\n\nreceive access to trades that will generate 100% or more in trading profits in just \u201cone to three\n\ndays.\u201d Defendants, including Dennis, lack substantiation for these claims. In fact, many\n\nsubscribers of Biotech Breakouts services have incurred substantial losses as a result of\n\nfollowing the trades that Dennis provided to them in trade alerts.\n\n       53.     In the sales video \u2013 \u201cKyle Dennis presents the $100K Heist!\u201d \u2013 Dennis tells the\n\nviewer: \u201cSo what I\u2019m planning to do here is to take a small $10,000 account and show you how\n\n\n\n\n                                                 19\n\f        Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 304 Filed 03/15/22 Page 20 of 42\n\n\n\nto systematically build that up to a $100,000. Because that is everyone\u2019s goal at the end of the\n\nday, right? You\u2019re trying to work that 9-to-5, you\u2019re trying to make that six-figure salary.\u201d\n\nDefendants, including Dennis, lack substantiation for the claim that consumers are likely to grow\n\ntheir trading account from $10,000 to $100,000 by enrolling in the services offered in this video.\n\n        54.     In the sales video for \u201cBlack Optics,\u201d a marketing campaign Defendants devised\n\nto enroll consumers in various Biotech Breakouts negative option products, Dennis claims that\n\nhe has generated millions in trade profits over the past year, that Black Optics will \u201cprovide you\n\nwith everything you need to experience results like my own,\u201d and that Dennis will \u201cshow you\n\nhow to 10X your account by mastering my simple system and then introducing new profit\n\nbuckets so that the cash flow never dries up.\u201d Defendants, including Dennis, lack substantiation\n\nfor the claim that consumers are likely to grow their trading accounts by ten times the initial\n\nvalue if they enroll in the services offered in this video.\n\n        55.     Dennis also conducted numerous live webinar presentations attended by\n\nthousands of consumers. In these webinars, Dennis repeatedly made claims that consumers\n\nenrolling in one or more of his Biotech Breakouts services are likely to generate substantial\n\nincome and consistent trading profits. Defendants record these webinars and provide them to\n\nvisitors of the BiotechBreakouts.com website and Dennis\u2019 Facebook page so they can be\n\nreplayed and viewed by consumers who did not attend the live events.\n\n        56.     In an hour long webinar called \u201cMortal Lock,\u201d a promotional campaign\n\nDefendants devised to enroll consumers in a negative option service called \u201cOption Rocket,\u201d\n\nDennis claims that consumers will generate consistent trading profits of 100% or more using his\n\n\u201cC.A.S.H. system,\u201d and that there is a 95% likelihood of doubling a consumer\u2019s investment\n\nusing his C.A.S.H. system:\n\n\n\n\n                                                  20\n\f       Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 304 Filed 03/15/22 Page 21 of 42\n\n\n\n               So this system can be a \u2013 can be a nice foundation. That\u2019s why I like\n               it so much for anybody who wants to scale up their profits or\n               anybody who is struggling. It requires very little maintenance. As\n               the time has gone on, I\u2019ve had less time to, you know, have ten\n               different strategies and have them all be, you know, really lucrative\n               and little maintenance strategies. These are intra-week trades that\n               required very little maintenance. A lot of times you can get in on\n               Monday and be out on Friday. And the target is always 100 percent.\n               Double or nothing. Put your money on black, spin it. (Making\n               noise). Black. Boom, 100 percent, right? Just like -- just like the\n               casino, but this isn\u2019t 50/50, this is more like 95/5, right? 95 percent,\n               5 percent, right? It\u2019s really a nice strategy \u2026.\n       57.     Dennis then claims that consumers who sign up now for this service will get\n\naccess to his \u201cMortal Lock\u201d trade alerts, which have the potential to generate \u201c500, 600, 1,000,\n\n2,000 percent\u201d returns, and that Dennis has \u201chundreds\u201d of trade alerts with the potential to\n\ngenerate 1000% or more in trading profits. Dennis also \u201cguarantees\u201d that his Mortal Lock trades\n\nwill generate at least $1997 in trading profits on a single trade (approximately a 400% return on\n\na $500 investment), as illustrated in Figure 6B below:\n\n\n\n\nFigure 6B: Screenshot from the Mortal Lock sales webinar\n\n\n\n\n                                                 21\n\f       Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 304 Filed 03/15/22 Page 22 of 42\n\n\n\n       58.     Defendants, including Dennis, lack substantiation for the claim that consumers are\n\nlikely to generate returns of 100% or more using the \u201cC.A.S.H. system\u201d or from the \u201cMortal\n\nLock trades.\u201d Many consumers have incurred substantial losses as a result of following the\n\nMortal Lock trades and other trades that Dennis alerted to Option Rocket subscribers. Dennis\n\ndoes not have a system or strategy that consistently generates 100% or more in trading profits,\n\nand Dennis himself does not consistently make 100% or more from his own trades.\n\n       59.     Dennis also presented a webinar called \u201cFortune Forecaster, the 9-to-5 Killer,\u201d\n\nwhich is another sales campaign that Dennis and Raging Bull devised to enroll consumers in\n\nseveral Biotech Breakouts offers. In this webinar, Dennis claims to have a system or strategy\n\nthat consumers can easily copy or mirror to make \u201creliable,\u201d \u201crepeatable\u201d and \u201creproducible\u201d\n\ntrading profits. Dennis claims that his annual goal for the Fortune Forecaster portfolio is at least\n\n100% growth, that the strategy is simple and that anybody can use this strategy to quickly\n\ngenerate trading profits like Dennis. Dennis also claims that he will do the research necessary\n\nand find profitable trading opportunities for his subscribers. Defendants, including Dennis, lack\n\nsubstantiation for the claim that consumers are likely to grow their account by 100% from the\n\nservices offered in this webinar.\n\n       60.     Dennis also conducted a webinar called \u201cThe Resolution,\u201d another campaign that\n\nDennis and Raging Bull launched to promote Biotech Breakouts services. In the webinar,\n\nDennis tells the viewer that he is doing one last \u201c5K challenge,\u201d where he will grow a $5,000\n\ntrading account into $50,000 account and his subscribers can similarly grow their accounts by\n\nfollowing Dennis\u2019 trading accounts and his trades. Defendants, including Dennis, lack\n\nsubstantiation for the claim that consumers are likely to grow their accounts from $5,000 to\n\n$50,000 using the services offered in this webinar.\n\n\n\n\n                                                 22\n\f       Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 304 Filed 03/15/22 Page 23 of 42\n\n\n\n       61.     In connection with his sale and marketing of the Biotech Breakouts services,\n\nDennis uses various high pressure tactics to induce consumers to purchase the products,\n\nincluding offering limited time \u201cguarantees,\u201d \u201cfree\u201d services, \u201cdiscounted\u201d pricing, using timers\n\nthat count down and warning consumers not to miss out on his purportedly \u201crisk-free\u201d trade\n\nrecommendations or alerts. To complete the sale, Dennis urges consumers to click on online\n\norder forms and complete their purchase or to call his telesales team (the \u201cVIP Team\u201d) who will\n\ndispel any doubts about joining the service. Dennis also communicates directly with consumers\n\nin chatrooms and through emails, further using deception to sell Raging Bull services.\n\n       62.     Dennis is also involved in the review and development of the sales scripts and\n\npresentation slides used to promote the various Biotech Breakouts services. Dennis has decision-\n\nmaking authority on the rebranding and launch of new services under the Biotech Breakouts\n\nbrand. Dennis works closely with the lead advertising copywriter for the Biotech Breakouts\n\nbrand, who Dennis referred to as \u201cmy right hand man.\u201d Dennis has the ability to approve or\n\nreject any advertisement or marketing material bearing his name, image or likeness, which\n\nincludes all the marketing materials used to promote the Biotech Breakouts brand.\n\n       63.     Dennis has a lucrative compensation arrangement with Raging Bull, where\n\nDennis receives over one-third of the net revenues or profits generated from the sale and auto-\n\nrenewals of the Biotech Breakouts subscription services. Dennis also stands to receive a\n\nsubstantial lump-sum payment in the event Bishop and Bond transfer their controlling interest in\n\nRaging Bull to an outside party. In 2018, when Dennis was re-negotiating his compensation\n\nterms, Dennis told Bishop: \u201cGlad to be on board for the next 5+ years and have a great path of\n\nincentives. And I\u2019m ready to crank these sales as much as we can in anyway [sic] we can!\u201d\n\n\n\n\n                                                23\n\f       Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 304 Filed 03/15/22 Page 24 of 42\n\n\n\nDennis\u2019 agreement with the Raging Bull owners has not been terminated and is operative for\n\nseveral more years.\n\n       64.     Dennis continues to offer and sell the same Raging Bull trading services that he\n\npromoted prior to the FTC\u2019s lawsuit in December 2020, such as Mobile Closer. On May 5,\n\n2021, Raging Bull sent an email to its subscribers promising that Dennis would appear at a\n\nRaging Bull program.\n\n\n                           Misrepresentations about Income Potential\n\n       65.     Defendants advertise that consumers can make substantial, market-beating returns\n\nby following Defendants\u2019 purported trade strategies or by following Defendants\u2019 specific trade\n\nrecommendations and alerts. Defendants make three main types of income claims: (1) general\n\nclaims about the kinds of profits consumers can make, which include statements like \u201cconsistent\n\nmoney,\u201d \u201cbig money,\u201d \u201cdouble your money,\u201d and various profit percentages; (2) examples of\n\nspecific, winning trades the instructors themselves claim to have made using their strategies,\n\nwhich purport to illustrate the income potential of the programs; and (3) testimonials that purport\n\nto illustrate the kinds of profits Raging Bull customers make.\n\n\n                                     General Income Claims\n\n\n       66.     All of Defendants\u2019 services are marketed with substantially similar income\n\nclaims, boasting the success of the instructor and claiming subscribers will be able to make\n\nconsistent, substantial income too if they purchase the service and learn the instructor\u2019s method.\n\n       67.     Defendants lack substantiation for their claims that consumers are likely to earn\n\nsubstantial income using their services.\n\n\n\n\n                                                24\n\f       Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 304 Filed 03/15/22 Page 25 of 42\n\n\n\n       68.     For example, typical of Defendants\u2019 services is one called Bullseye Trades, led by\n\nDefendant Jeff Bishop. Bullseye Trades offers consumers access to purported educational\n\nmaterials plus alerts for \u201cone trade,\u201d \u201conce a week,\u201d with \u201cone hundred percent profit targets.\u201d\n\nAdvertising materials for Bullseye Trades state \u201cI\u2019m aiming to make over 100% profit each and\n\nevery week with these ideas and I\u2019m really good at it.\u201d\n\n       69.     Likewise, Defendants describe Total Alpha as teaching consumers \u201cthe options\n\ntrading strategies that Jeff Bishop has used to make a fortune in the stock market.\u201d Defendants\n\nmarket Jason Bond Picks with statements like \u201cDon\u2019t Just Beat the Market\u2026 Crush It.\u201d\n\nDefendants describe Weekly Windfalls as \u201cJason Bond\u2019s unique options strategy that could\n\nDOUBLE your income (in as little as a few minutes per week).\u201d Defendants also call Weekly\n\nWindfalls a \u201cnew $10,000 per week trading strategy.\u201d Defendants market Sniper Report as a\n\nnewsletter by Kyle Dennis \u201cstrategically developed to only deliver high probable [sic] trades\n\nwith the power to make 100%, 200% 300% return [sic] on each trade.\u201d Defendants lack\n\nsubstantiation for their claims that consumers are likely to earn substantial income using the\n\nWeekly Windfalls service.\n\n       70.     Since approximately March 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic, Defendants\n\nhave employed additional marketing tactics based on the nationwide economic uncertainty. For\n\nexample, marketing emails in April 2020 claimed Dennis \u201cwas able to rack up nearly $500K in\n\nprofits by trading stocks related to the COVID-19 pandemic\u201d and had found a \u201chidden bull\n\nmarket.\u201d In May 2020, Defendants advertised a webinar in which Kyle Dennis purported to\n\nexplain the effects of the pandemic on the stock market and \u201cwhy he believes this may be the\n\nmost exciting opportunity in decades!\u201d (emphasis original). The video was an advertisement\n\nfor one of Kyle Dennis\u2019s Raging Bull subscription services called Trade With Kyle. Many of\n\n\n\n\n                                                25\n\f        Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 304 Filed 03/15/22 Page 26 of 42\n\n\n\nDefendants\u2019 instructors have sent marketing emails touting their ability to make money during\n\nthe pandemic.\n\n       71.      Defendants do not, in fact, provide effective strategies that consumers can\n\nreasonably use to make market-beating profits. Nor can consumers make market-beating returns\n\nby using Defendants\u2019 trade alerts.\n\n       72.      Defendant Jeff Bishop has stated that, at the time Defendants made their income\n\nclaims, Defendants kept no data on what percentage of their trades are successful, or whether or\n\nhow much profit was made by a \u201cguru\u201d or in a particular Raging Bull service over a period of\n\ntime. Accordingly, Raging Bull is unable to provide a \u201ctrack record\u201d of the profit or loss of a\n\nparticular \u201cguru\u201d or service.\n\n       73.      Consumers do not typically make returns like those advertised. A substantial\n\nnumber of consumers have lost money attempting to invest based on the \u201ceducation\u201d provided by\n\nDefendants or attempting to follow the instructors\u2019 trade alerts.\n\n\n                                     Example Instructor Trades\n\n\n       74.      Defendants also frequently tout examples of the instructors\u2019 winning trades in\n\ntheir advertising.\n\n       75.      For example, a promotional video for Weekly Money Multiplier includes\n\nnumerous examples of highly profitable trades that a Raging Bull instructor named Nathan Bear\n\nclaims he shared as alerts with his subscribers, boasting profits like 140%, 267%, or as high as\n\n1600%. Similarly, in a promotional webinar for Bullseye Trades, Bishop states, \u201cI have made\n\nliterally hundreds of trades where I\u2019ve made well over 100% on [sic],\u201d and \u201c[s]ome of these I\n\nused to think were unreal profits, I mean, I\u2019m talking $50,000, $60,000, even $100,000 in a\n\nmatter of days.\u201d Dennis, in a video for his service Trade With Kyle, shares examples of options\n\n\n                                                26\n\f        Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 304 Filed 03/15/22 Page 27 of 42\n\n\n\nor stocks where the price jumped several hundred percent for each, which his strategy would\n\npurportedly have identified, and claims his own trading returned tens of thousands of dollars of\n\nprofit on these. In emails Bond sent to consumers who signed up to receive his free newsletter,\n\nhe wrote, for example, \u201cSNAP, crackle, pop! $22,000 profit for me on SNAP Wednesday, 172%\n\non the options and another 10% on the shares. ALL from IPHONE\u201d and \u201cI\u2019m avg, $2300 a day\n\nright now trading part time.\u201d\n\n        76.    The instructor trades mentioned in Defendants\u2019 advertising are not representative\n\nof consumers\u2019 experience using Defendants\u2019 services.\n\n        77.    Defendants do not provide effective strategies that consumers can reasonably use\n\nto make market-beating profits of the type illustrated by these example trades. Nor can\n\nconsumers make such returns by using Defendants\u2019 trade alerts.\n\n\n                                     Consumer Testimonials\n\n\n        78.    Defendants make heavy use of consumer testimonials in their videos and other\n\npromotional materials.\n\n        79.    For example, advertising for Fast 5 Trades features many testimonials, including\n\nquotes from three individuals who stated they made over $1,000 in three weeks, made $500 in\n\ntwo days, and made nearly 20% on their first trade with the service, respectively.\n\nAdvertisements for Bullseye Trades also feature quotes from purported customers, asserting wins\n\nof 25%, 70%, or 115%, or claiming, \u201call of the Bullseye Trades have been profitable for me.\u201d\n\nTotal Alpha ads feature testimonials from purported customers claiming to have made\n\n\u201c[$]6500.00 in 20 MINUTES,\u201d \u201c$500 in 15 min[utes],\u201d \u201croughly 90% in 24 hours,\u201d and \u201c92%\u201d\n\nwins.\n\n\n\n\n                                                27\n\f       Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 304 Filed 03/15/22 Page 28 of 42\n\n\n\n       80.       As described below, the trades described in these testimonials are not typical or\n\nrepresentative of Raging Bull customer experiences overall. Customers do not make market-\n\nbeating returns overall from their trading with Defendants\u2019 programs, much less returns like\n\nthose advertised. Numerous customers lose money.\n\n       81.       Defendants do not provide effective strategies that consumers can reasonably use\n\nto make consistent, market-beating profits such as those suggested by the consumer testimonials\n\nthey use in advertising. Nor can consumers make such returns by using Defendants\u2019 trade alerts.\n\n\n          Misrepresentations About Who Can Use Defendants\u2019 Services Successfully\n\n       82.       Defendants claim their services can be used successfully by people with little or\n\nno stock or options trading experience. For example, Defendants tell consumers when\n\nadvertising the Total Alpha service, \u201cit\u2019s even better if you\u2019re brand new because there\u2019s no bad\n\nhabits to break\u201d and \u201cso, yes if you\u2019re new to options, perfect.\u201d\n\n       83.       Defendants claim consumers can make substantial profits regardless of the\n\nbalance in consumers\u2019 accounts. For example, Defendants advertise that their High Octane\n\nservice can be used with as little as $500. As illustrated in Figure 7, below, Defendants\n\nadvertise that consumers can turn a $1,000 account into a $10,000 account with their Profit\n\nPrism service.\n\n\n\n\n                                                  28\n\f         Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 304 Filed 03/15/22 Page 29 of 42\n\n\n\n\n         Figure 7: Screenshot of promotional video for Defendants\u2019 service Profit Prism.\n         84.   Defendants claim their services can be used profitably by people who only trade\n\npart-time. For many services, Defendants claim people can make money using the service in as\n\nlittle as 10 to 30 minutes per day or by just following a single trade alert per week. For example,\n\nDefendants claim their service Total Alpha is designed for people with busy schedules and that\n\nFreedom Trader is for \u201cbusy professionals.\u201d\n\n         85.   In the Fast Five Trades sales video, Dennis claims that most of his subscribers are\n\n\u201cbrand new to trading and don\u2019t have a lot of funds to allocate to the market\u201d and that he will be\n\n\u201cspoon feeding\u201d his subscribers the information to make consistent and weekly trading profits:\n\n\u201cI call these my fast five trades. In on Monday, out by Friday, five days, fast profits. Just like\n\nthat.\u201d\n\n         86.   In the Dollar Ace sales video, Dennis claims that the Dollar Ace system is \u201ceasy\n\nto follow\u201d and use, even for beginners and consumers with small accounts, and requires just\n\n\u201cminutes per day\u201d to implement: \u201cIt finds those big returns in a one to three-day period so you\n\ncan grow and it works in no matter what market condition is thrown at us\u2026. whether you\u2019re\n\n\n                                                 29\n\f       Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 304 Filed 03/15/22 Page 30 of 42\n\n\n\nnew, you\u2019re a beginner, maybe you\u2019re really experienced, maybe you have a big account, maybe\n\nyou have a small account, it doesn\u2019t matter.\u201d\n\n       87.     In the Mortal Lock sales webinar, Dennis claims that his Mortal Lock system and\n\noptions trade alerts will enable consumers to generate consistent trading profits even if they are\n\ninexperienced traders, have little time to devote to trading, or have small accounts: \u201cSo how are\n\npeople with no trading experience doing this? Because I make it easy\u2026. Schedule your\n\npaycheck. Collect your cash\u2026. There\u2019s little time commitment on this. I don\u2019t have a lot of time\n\nmyself and I\u2019ve developed a system utilizing options that doesn\u2019t require too much time\u2026. With\n\nthis strategy, it doesn\u2019t matter if you have the smallest account in the world and it doesn\u2019t matter\n\nif you have the largest account in the world. You can make money doing this.\u201d Dennis claims\n\nthat Mortal Lock provides a \u201csimplified way to supplement [consumers\u2019] income without having\n\nto spend too much time.\u201d\n\n       88.     In general, Defendants advertise that anyone can use their services profitably\n\nbecause it is easy to follow the instructors\u2019 alerts and recommendations.\n\n       89.     Numerous consumers have found Defendants\u2019 claims about the level of\n\nexperience, account size, and time investment needed to be inconsistent with their experiences.\n\n       90.     While Defendants sell subscription services that require consumers to be\n\nsophisticated traders who have clearance with brokerage firms, Defendants describe these\n\nservices in their advertising as designed for beginners. For example, when advertising Total\n\nAlpha, Defendants tell consumers that experience is not necessary. But Total Alpha is a product\n\nfor sophisticated traders and requires them to have clearance with brokerage firms.\n\n       91.     While Defendants routinely market their services as simple and easy to use, their\n\npurported educational materials and alerts consist of generic trading concepts and technical\n\n\n\n\n                                                 30\n\f           Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 304 Filed 03/15/22 Page 31 of 42\n\n\n\nindicators that are not sufficiently concrete to be implemented. Defendants do not provide any\n\nstrategy that consumers can follow, much less a strategy capable of achieving market-beating\n\nreturns.\n\n        92.     Contrary to Defendants\u2019 claims that consumers with small balances in their\n\naccounts can grow their accounts into a source of substantial income as Raging Bull traders\n\nclaim to have done, these consumers are especially unlikely to realize the kind of income\n\nadvertised.\n\n        93.     Consumers are also likely to have a hard time using Defendants\u2019 services without\n\nspending significantly more time than advertised, and even then, they struggle to make positive\n\ninvestment returns. Consumers are unable to reliably execute Defendants\u2019 trade alerts without\n\ndedicating significant time and making themselves available throughout the day during market\n\nhours. The stocks and options Defendants trade tend to be low-volume securities with prices that\n\nmove rapidly and with great volatility, particularly when Defendants issue trade alerts.\n\n\n           Defendants\u2019 Purported Disclaimers Do Not Cure Their Misrepresentations\n\n        94.     Defendants\u2019 purported disclaimers are not clear or conspicuous, and do not cure\n\ntheir misrepresentations. Rather, in many instances, the disclaimers actually confirm the\n\nmisleading nature of Defendants\u2019 advertising.\n\n        95.     Defendants frequently include disclaimers on their services\u2019 purchase pages in a\n\nsmall \u201cTerms & Conditions\u201d text box that appears below the purchase button. The text box\n\ncontains several pages worth of text and requires several minutes to scroll through. A screenshot\n\nof such a disclaimer box appears in Figure 8, below, in the bottom right corner. As can be seen\n\nin the image, the actual disclaimers are not visible at first and require significant scrolling to find.\n\n\n\n\n                                                  31\n\f       Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 304 Filed 03/15/22 Page 32 of 42\n\n\n\n       96.     Defendants also typically include a pair of links at the bottom of their web pages\n\nthat take consumers to two separate pages, titled \u201cDisclaimer\u201d and \u201cTerms and Conditions,\u201d\n\nwhich contain similar text.\n\n\n\n\nFigure 8: Screenshot of purchase page for Bullseye Trades. The text box where Defendants put\n     disclaimers appears in the bottom right corner, below the purchase button. The actual\n   disclaimers are not visible without scrolling down through the box\u2019s several pages of text.\n       97.     These website disclaimers acknowledge that Defendants have not collected any\n\ndata to substantiate whether the earnings claims they make, or the example trades or consumer\n\ntestimonials they use in advertising, are typical and representative. In pertinent part, they state\n\nthat \u201cfacts stated in testimonials have not been independently audited or verified,\u201d and that there\n\nhas not been \u201cany attempt to determine whether any testimonials are representative of the\n\n\n                                                 32\n\f        Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 304 Filed 03/15/22 Page 33 of 42\n\n\n\nexperiences of all persons using the methods described herein or to compare the experiences of\n\nthe persons giving the testimonials after the testimonials were given.\u201d\n\n       98.     The website disclaimers also contradict Defendants\u2019 advertising that consumers\n\ncan make money by simply following the instructors\u2019 trades. For example, while Bullseye\n\nTrades is marketed with statements such as \u201cI do all the homework and research during the week\n\nahead and you get to piggyback off my single best idea for the week,\u201d the disclaimers on other\n\npages of the website or in the small text box below the purchase button contradict that. In a\n\ncomplete about-face, the disclaimers say instead that consumers \u201cshould never invest in the\n\nsecurities of any of the companies mentioned based solely on information contained on our\n\nwebsite\u201d and should assume \u201call information provided regarding companies is not trustworthy\n\nunless verified by their own independent research.\u201d\n\n       99.     Defendants additionally include purported disclaimers buried in small-print font\n\nat the end of many marketing emails. In recent emails, for example, these disclaimers admit that\n\n\u201csubscribers\u2019 trading results have NOT been tracked or verified\u201d and that \u201cthe results presented\n\nin this communication are NOT TYPICAL.\u201d These recent email disclaimers also acknowledge\n\nthat \u201c[a]ctual results will vary widely given a variety of factors such as experience, skill, risk\n\nmitigation practices, market dynamics and the amount of capital deployed.\u201d\n\n       100.    Defendants sometimes, but not always, include disclaimers at the beginning of\n\ntheir promotional videos. Such disclaimers appear only for a brief period of time, in a large\n\nblock of text, while the instructor speaks to the viewer.\n\n       101.    For example, as shown below in Figure 9, Defendants\u2019 webinar advertising the\n\nTrade With Kyle service that was released as a COVID-19 \u201cstate of the market\u201d webinar\n\n\n\n\n                                                  33\n\f       Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 304 Filed 03/15/22 Page 34 of 42\n\n\n\nincludes a brief disclaimer at the beginning of the video for approximately 30 seconds, about 15\n\nminutes prior to Dennis sharing his example wins and consumer testimonials.\n\n\n\n\n    Figure 9: Screenshot of disclaimer text displaying at the beginning of a Trade With Kyle\n                                      promotional video.\nWhile the disclaimer displays on the screen, Dennis continues to speak and tells consumers:\n\n               Now, really really quickly right, especially right now, this is really\n               super super-duper important. Disclaimer here. Trading is risky. I\n               think we\u2019ve all understood and found that out in the last month here,\n               right? Heck, going outside is risky nowadays, right? So, make sure\n               you\u2019re smart, you\u2019re the one pushing the buttons, you\u2019re the one\n               taking responsibility for your wins and your losses. I always like to\n               hear about both because I have wins and losses as well and I take\n               responsibility for my decisions, as you should take responsibility as\n               well.\n       102.    Contrary to Defendants\u2019 marketing claims, the fleeting video disclaimer states\n\nthat Dennis\u2019s \u201cresults are very atypical and you should not expect to replicate them.\u201d\n\n       103.     In the sales webinar for \u201cThe Resolution,\u201d Dennis momentarily displays on the\n\nscreen a similar, boilerplate disclaimer while telling the consumer: \u201cI\u2019ve taken a lot of risks in\n\n\n\n\n                                                 34\n\f       Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 304 Filed 03/15/22 Page 35 of 42\n\n\n\nmy life and I\u2019ve been rewarded for that. And I expect nothing less of you. If you want reward,\n\nyou have to take risk. That\u2019s what this disclaimer is all about.\u201d\n\n\n                                      Consumer Complaints\n\n       104.    Numerous consumers have concluded their own experience is not consistent with\n\nthe impressions created by Defendants\u2019 marketing about consumers\u2019 ability to generate\n\nsubstantial income using Raging Bull\u2019s services.\n\n       105.    The training materials to which consumers are given access after signing up\n\nconsist of one or more series of videos and some written materials that purport to describe the\n\ninstructors\u2019 strategies. Many of the videos are just recordings of past webinars or live chat\n\nsessions. Overall, these materials are a collection of generic trading concepts and technical\n\ntrading indicators lacking the structure, concreteness, consistency, and clarity required for\n\nRaging Bull\u2019s subscribers to use them to generate substantial income through trading.\n\n       106.    Consumers also encounter numerous problems with Defendants\u2019 trade alerts.\n\nNumerous consumers have incurred substantial losses following Defendants\u2019 trade\n\nrecommendations. Further, many consumers have found that alerts arrive too late or do not\n\narrive at all in some cases. For example, consumers may receive a buy alert but not a sell alert or\n\nmay only realize the instructor sold the security when he later claims he made substantial profit\n\non the trade, at which point the security\u2019s price has dropped significantly.\n\n       107.    Many consumers have requested refunds after concluding the service does not\n\nwork for them as advertised.\n\n       108.    Defendants routinely deny refund requests, often stating it is against company\n\npolicy. In many cases, consumers are instead encouraged to try a different Raging Bull service\n\nor even to purchase an upgrade to get the results they want.\n\n\n\n                                                 35\n\f       Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 304 Filed 03/15/22 Page 36 of 42\n\n\n\n       109.    When consumers are denied a refund, some file complaints online with agencies\n\nsuch as the Federal Trade Commission or with organizations such as the Better Business Bureau.\n\n       110.    Some consumers have been able to obtain refunds after they filed complaints with\n\nthe Better Business Bureau, despite initially being told it was against company policy, but were\n\ntold they could only receive a refund if they took down their complaints or marked them as\n\nresolved.\n\n       111.    All of the Individual Defendants are aware of consumer complaints. Consumers\n\nhave complained to Raging Bull customer service and to Raging Bull instructors, including the\n\nIndividual Defendants, by way of email, chat rooms, social media, and messaging services.\n\nConsumers have also filed complaints and negative reviews online, including complaints that\n\nconsumers could not make money using the materials or alerts provided by Raging Bull, that\n\nconsumers were losing money, that consumers could not understand or implement strategies\n\nfrom the purported educational materials, and that alerts were not working for consumers.\n\nBishop, Bond, and Dennis all have seen or received such complaints from consumers. Dennis\n\nhas received complaints from consumers who have incurred substantial losses following trade\n\nalerts that Dennis guaranteed would generate 400% to 800% returns.\n\n       112.    For example, in or around December 2019, Bond shared a video with members of\n\nRaging Bull\u2019s services called Nucleus, Black Optics, Millionaire Roadmap, and Most Wanted\n\nwherein he apologized to them for significant changes in the services that \u201cdid not sit right\u201d with\n\nhim. Bond admitted he, Bishop, and Dennis had overestimated their ability to mentor so many\n\npeople and had failed to deliver the services as promised. Raging Bull offered these consumers\n\nlimited access to their Elite service instead but refused to give consumers even partial refunds for\n\nthe services they had discontinued.\n\n\n\n\n                                                36\n\f       Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 304 Filed 03/15/22 Page 37 of 42\n\n\n\n    Consumers\u2019 Difficulties Cancelling Defendants\u2019 Services to Stop Recurring Charges\n\n       113.     Raging Bull sells and has sold its services as recurring subscriptions that are\n\nbilled quarterly or annually, with prices that range from several hundred dollars to several\n\nthousand dollars per year, per service. Some customers pay additional amounts to obtain so-\n\ncalled \u201clifetime\u201d access to services.\n\n       114.     In numerous instances, consumers have had a difficult time cancelling Raging\n\nBull\u2019s recurring billing of their credit cards. Defendants have made it difficult to cancel in\n\nnumerous ways, including: (1) limiting the means consumers could use to submit cancellation\n\nrequests; (2) having different cancellation requirements for different services; (3) substantially\n\nand chronically understaffing the customer service phone line to which many consumers are\n\ndirected for cancellation purposes; and (4) providing consumers with inconsistent and confusing\n\ninstructions regarding the way to cancel their services.\n\n       115.     While Raging Bull offers a few services that consumers appear able to cancel\n\nonline, many of their services cannot be cancelled online. Many consumers are directed to call\n\nor email a Raging Bull customer support representative instead.\n\n       116.     In some cases, cancellation instructions are unclear. For example, some services\n\ncannot be cancelled from the subscriptions page on Raging Bull\u2019s website. Those services\n\ninstead direct consumers to a Frequently Asked Questions (\u201cFAQ\u201d) webpage. If consumers wish\n\nto cancel immediately, that document directs consumers back to the subscriptions page and\n\ndirects them to write to customer service.\n\n       117.     Consumers who email customer support experience delays or problems getting in\n\ntouch with a representative and then often are told they need to call instead to discuss\n\ncancellation.\n\n\n\n\n                                                 37\n\f         Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 304 Filed 03/15/22 Page 38 of 42\n\n\n\n         118.   Consumers who try to contact customer support by phone often have had to wait\n\nsignificant amounts of time before speaking to someone, have been disconnected, never received\n\na call back if they left messages, or received a voicemail recording instructing them to send an\n\nemail.\n\n         119.   These delays sometimes result in Raging Bull charging consumers for a renewal,\n\ndespite those consumers\u2019 attempts to cancel in advance of the renewal date.\n\n\n                            Defendants Continue to Violate the Law\n\n         120.   Based on the facts and violations of law alleged in this Complaint, the FTC has\n\nreason to believe that Defendants are violating or are about to violate laws enforced by the\n\nCommission.\n\n\n                               VIOLATIONS OF THE FTC ACT\n\n         121.   Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 45(a), prohibits \u201cunfair or deceptive acts\n\nor practices in or affecting commerce.\u201d\n\n         122.   Misrepresentations or deceptive omissions of material fact constitute deceptive\n\nacts or practices prohibited by Section 5(a) of the FTC Act.\n\n\n                     Count I \u2013 False or Unsubstantiated Earnings Claims\n\n                                     (Against All Defendants)\n\n         123.   In numerous instances in connection with the advertising, marketing, promotion,\n\noffering for sale, or sale of Raging Bull\u2019s services, including through the means described in\n\nParagraphs 19 to 81, Defendants represent, directly or indirectly, expressly or by implication,\n\nthat consumers who purchase Raging Bull\u2019s services will earn or are likely to earn substantial\n\nincome.\n\n\n\n\n                                                38\n\f        Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 304 Filed 03/15/22 Page 39 of 42\n\n\n\n        124.   The representations set forth in Paragraph 123 are false, misleading, or were not\n\nsubstantiated at the time the representations were made.\n\n        125.   Therefore, Defendants\u2019 representations as set forth in Paragraph 123 constitute\n\ndeceptive acts or practices in violation of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 45(a).\n\n\n           Count II \u2013 Other Misrepresentations Regarding Raging Bull\u2019s Services\n\n                                     (Against All Defendants)\n\n        126.   In numerous instances, in connection with the advertising, marketing, promotion,\n\noffering for sale, or sale of Raging Bull\u2019s services, including through the means described in\n\nParagraphs 82 to 93, Defendants represent, directly or indirectly, expressly or by implication,\n\nthat:\n\n           a. Consumers will or are likely to earn substantial income using Raging Bull\u2019s\n\n               services even if they have little to no experience in securities trading.\n\n           b. Consumers will or are likely to earn substantial income using Raging Bull\u2019s\n\n               services even if they spend only a short amount of time each day using the\n\n               service, for example if they are trading while also working full time.\n\n           c. Consumers will or are likely to earn substantial income using Raging Bull\u2019s\n\n               services even if they start with a very small balance in their brokerage account.\n\n        127.   The representations set forth in Paragraph 126 are false or misleading or were not\n\nsubstantiated at the time the representations were made.\n\n        128.   Therefore, Defendants\u2019 representations as set forth in Paragraph 126 constitute\n\ndeceptive acts or practices in violation of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. \u00a745(a).\n\n\n\n\n                                                 39\n\f       Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 304 Filed 03/15/22 Page 40 of 42\n\n\n\n     VIOLATIONS OF THE RESTORE ONLINE SHOPPERS\u2019 CONFIDENCE ACT\n\n       129.    In 2010, Congress passed the Restore Online Shoppers\u2019 Confidence Act, 15\n\nU.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 8401 et seq., which became effective on December 29, 2010. Congress passed\n\nROSCA because: \u201cConsumer confidence is essential to the growth of online commerce. To\n\ncontinue its development as a marketplace, the Internet must provide consumers with clear,\n\naccurate information and give sellers an opportunity to fairly compete with one another for\n\nconsumers\u2019 business.\u201d 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 8401.\n\n       130.    Section 4 of ROSCA, 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 8403, generally prohibits charging consumers\n\nfor goods or services sold in transactions effected on the Internet through a negative option\n\nfeature, as that term is defined in the Commission\u2019s Telemarketing Sales Rule (\u201cTSR\u201d), 16\n\nC.F.R. \u00a7 310.2(u), unless the seller: (1) clearly and conspicuously discloses all material terms of\n\nthe transaction before obtaining the consumer\u2019s billing information; (2) obtains the consumer\u2019s\n\nexpress informed consent before making the charge; and (3) provides a simple mechanism to\n\nstop recurring charges. 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 8403.\n\n       131.    The TSR defines a negative option feature as: \u201cin an offer or agreement to sell or\n\nprovide any goods or services, a provision under which the consumer\u2019s silence or failure to take\n\nan affirmative action to reject goods or services or to cancel the agreement is interpreted by the\n\nseller as acceptance of the offer.\u201d 16 C.F.R. \u00a7 310.2(u).\n\n       132.    As described in Paragraph 113, Defendants advertise and sell Defendants\u2019\n\nservices to consumers through a negative option feature as defined by the TSR. See 16 C.F.R.\n\n\u00a7 310.2(u). Pursuant to Section 5 of ROSCA, 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 8404, a violation of ROSCA is treated\n\nas a violation of a rule promulgated under Section 18 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 57a.\n\n\n\n\n                                                 40\n\f          Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 304 Filed 03/15/22 Page 41 of 42\n\n\n\n                  Count III \u2013 Failure to Provide a Simple Cancellation Method\n\n           (Against Raging Bull, Bishop, Bond, Sherwood Ventures, and Jason Bond LLC)\n\n          133.   In numerous instances, as described in Paragraphs 113 to 119, Defendants Raging\n\nBull, Bishop, Bond, Sherwood Ventures and Jason Bond LLC (\u201cRaging Bull Defendants\u201d)\n\ncharge or attempt to charge consumers for Raging Bull\u2019s services through a negative option\n\nfeature while failing to provide simple mechanisms for consumers to stop recurring charges from\n\nbeing placed on their credit card, debit card, bank account, or other financial account.\n\n          134.   The Raging Bull Defendants\u2019 acts or practices set forth in Paragraph 133\n\nconstitute a violation of Section 4(3) of ROSCA, 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 8403(3), and are therefore treated\n\nas a violation of a rule promulgated under Section 18 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 57a.\n\n\n                                      CONSUMER INJURY\n\n          135.   Consumers have suffered and will continue to suffer substantial injury as a result\n\nof Defendants\u2019 violations of the FTC Act and ROSCA. Absent injunctive relief by this Court,\n\nDefendants are likely to continue to injure consumers and harm the public interest.\n\n\n                                      PRAYER FOR RELIEF\n\n          Wherefore, Plaintiff FTC requests that the Court:\n\n          A.     Enter a permanent injunction to prevent future violations of the FTC Act by\n\nDefendants and of ROSCA by the Raging Bull Defendants;\n\n          B.     Award monetary and other relief as provided by law; and\n\n          C.     Award any other and additional relief as the Court determines to be just and\n\nproper.\n\n\n\n\n                                                 41\n\f      Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 304 Filed 03/15/22 Page 42 of 42\n\n\n\nDated: June 11, 2021               Respectfully submitted,\n\n                                   JAMES REILLY DOLAN\n                                   Acting General Counsel\n\n\n                                   /s/ Laura C. Basford\n                                   Colleen Robbins (D. Md. Temp. Bar No. 92567)\n                                   Sung W. Kim (D. Md. Temp. Bar No. 814609)\n                                   Gordon E. Sommers (D. Md. Temp. Bar No.\n                                   814431)\n                                   Laura C. Basford (D. Md. Temp. Bar No. 814888)\n                                   Federal Trade Commission\n                                   600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW\n                                   Mailstop CC-8528\n                                   Washington, DC 20580\n                                   (202) 326-2548; crobbins@ftc.gov\n                                   (202) 326-2211; skim6@ftc.gov\n                                   (202) 326-2504; gsommers@ftc.gov\n                                   (202) 326-2343; lbasford@ftc.gov\n                                   (202) 326-3395 (Facsimile)\n                                   Attorneys for Plaintiff\n                                   Federal Trade Commission\n\n\n\n\n                                     42\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2022-03-15T07:48:33.339509-07:00","document_number":"304","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"093012331786","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/195551901/","id":195551901,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/18719211/304/1/federal-trade-commission-v-dennis/","date_created":"2022-03-15T07:48:20.290933-07:00","date_modified":"2022-03-16T02:01:19.835452-07:00","sha1":"b1f718b6ab510c1ca78a396be61bcb68b2f67d52","page_count":45,"file_size":1539470,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.487710/gov.uscourts.mdd.487710.304.1.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.mdd.487710/gov.uscourts.mdd.487710.304.1.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":"recap-thumbnails/gov.uscourts.mdd.487710/195551901.thumb.1068.jpeg","thumbnail_status":1,"plain_text":"     Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 304-1 Filed 03/15/22 Page 1 of 45\n\n\n\n                           UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND\n\n\nFederal Trade Commission,\n600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW\nMailstop CC-8528                              Case No. 1:20-cv-3538\nWashington, DC 20580\n\n              Plaintiff,\n\n       vs.\n\nRagingBull.com, LLC f/k/a Lighthouse\nMedia LLC, a Delaware corporationlimited      SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT\nliability company, 62 Calef Hwy., Ste. 233,   FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION,\nLee, New Hampshire 03861 and 1311             MONETARY RELIEF, AND OTHER\nMcCormick Rd., Suite 200, Hunt Valley,        EQUITABLE RELIEF\nMaryland 21031, Baltimore County,\n\nJeffrey M. Bishop, individually and as an\nofficer and/or member of RagingBull.com,\nLLC, and Sherwood Ventures, LLC, 18\nSackett Rd., Lee, New Hampshire 03861,\n\nJason Bond, f/k/a Jason P. Kowalik,\nindividually and as an officer and/or\nmember of RagingBull.com, LLC and Jason\nBond, LLC, 22 Foss Farm Rd., Durham,\nNew Hampshire 03824,\n\nKyle W. Dennis, individually and as an\nofficer and/or member of Winston Research\nInc. and Winston Corp.,, 857 Indian Trail\nDr., Apt. E36, Kingsport, Tennessee 37660,\n\nSherwood Ventures, LLC, a Texas\ncorporationlimited liability company, 62\nCalef Hwy., Ste. 233, Lee, New Hampshire\n03861,\n\nJason Bond, LLC, a Delaware\ncorporationlimited liability company, 22\nFoss Farm Rd., Durham, New Hampshire\n03824,\n\f       Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 304-1 Filed 03/15/22 Page 2 of 45\n\n\n\n Winston Research Inc., a Delaware\n corporation, 857 Indian Trail Dr, Apt E36,\n Kingsport, Tennessee 37660, and\n\n Winston Corp., a California corporation,\n 857 Indian Trail Dr, Apt E36, Kingsport,\n Tennessee 37660,\n\n                Defendants.\n\n\n\n       Plaintiff, the Federal Trade Commission (\u201cFTC\u201d), for its Complaint alleges:\n\n       1.      The FTC brings this action under Sections 13(b) and 19 of the Federal Trade\n\nCommission Act (\u201cFTC Act\u201d), 15 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 53(b) and 57b, and under Section 5 of the Restore\n\nOnline Shoppers\u2019 Confidence Act (\u201cROSCA\u201d), 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 8404, to obtain temporary,\n\npreliminary, and permanent injunctive relief, rescission or reformation of contracts,\n\nrestitutionmonetary relief, the refund of monies paid, disgorgement of ill-gotten monies, and\n\nother equitable relief for Defendants\u2019 acts or practices in violation of Section 5(a) of the FTC\n\nAct, 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 45(a), and in violation of Section 4 of ROSCA, 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 8403, in connection\n\nwith the sale and marketing of Defendants\u2019 goods and services.\n\n\n                                  SUMMARY OF THE CASE\n\n       2.      Defendants operate a company called Raging Bull, which sells online services\n\nrelated to stock and options trading. promotes and sells stock and options trading services online\n\nthat Defendants claim provide strategies that generate substantial profits. The problem is\n\nDefendants have no proof that their trading strategies generate such profits for consumers, and in\n\nfact the typical consumer does not make substantial income when attempting to deploy them.\n\nMisrepresenting the attributes of a product that you are selling is deceptive and violates the FTC\n\nAct.\n\n\n\n                                                 2\n\f       Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 304-1 Filed 03/15/22 Page 3 of 45\n\n\n\n        2.3.    Raging Bull is directed by Jeff Bishop and Jason Bond, who present themselves\n\nas a pair of expert stock and options traders who made millions in the stock market and now\n\nteach their techniques to the public. Additional \u201cself-made millionaire\u201d so-called trading\n\n\u201cgurus\u201d and \u201cinstructors \u201d\u2014in reality, Raging Bull salespeople\u2014have been added over time,\n\nincluding Kyle Dennis. Raging Bull advertises that consumers who sign up for their programs\n\nwill learn from Bishop, Bond, Dennis, and the other instructors\u2019 simple-to-follow strategies for\n\nbeating the market or will be able to copy these millionaires\u2019 trades using real-time alerts.\n\n        3.4.    Defendants\u2019 advertising is replete with claims that Bishop, Bond, Dennis, and\n\nother instructors have made substantial money with these strategies and on trades to which they\n\nalerted consumers as part of their programs. Defendants also make extensive use of testimonials\n\nwhere their customers claim to have made substantial profits using Raging Bull\u2019s services, often\n\nciting particular trades.\n\n        4.5.    Buried in fine print at the bottom of their websites, Defendants admit they do not\n\nverify the testimonials they use in advertising and. And they admit they do not track whether\n\nconsumers who purchase their services make any money at all, much less the kinds of returns\n\nadvertised. Numerous consumers have purchased Defendants'Defendants\u2019 programs and found\n\nDefendants\u2019 earnings claims to be false.\n\n        5.6.    The majority of consumers do not beat the market or make the kinds of returns\n\nadvertised. Many consumers have lost substantial sums of money in the stock market following\n\nDefendant\u2019sDefendants\u2019 strategy or trade recommendations; some consumers have even lost tens\n\nof thousands of dollars on just a few trades. When consumers try to cancel their subscriptions,\n\nmany find they cannot do so easily.\n\n\n\n\n                                                 3\n\f       Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 304-1 Filed 03/15/22 Page 4 of 45\n\n\n\n       6.7.    Amid one of the most volatile stock markets in history and the economic crisis\n\nbrought on by the COVID-19 pandemic, Defendants are aggressively marketing their products\n\nwhile touting the success of their so-called COVID-19 and pandemic \u201cplays\u201d in a market they\n\nsay is \u201ccreating more money making opportunities than we\u2019ve seen in over a decade.\u201d Recent\n\naccount statements show Defendants are causing millions of dollars of consumer injury per\n\nmonth. In the past three years, Defendants have defrauded consumers out of more than $137197\n\nmillion dollars.\n\n\n                                JURISDICTION AND VENUE\n\n       7.8.    This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 1331, 1337(a),\n\nand 1345.\n\n       8.9.    Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1391(b)(2)\u2013(3), (c)(2), and (d),\n\nand 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 53(b).\n\n\n                                           PLAINTIFF\n\n       9.10.   The FTC is an independent agency of the United States Government created by\n\nstatute.the FTC Act, which authorizes the FTC to commence this district court civil action by its\n\nown attorneys. 15 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 41-\u201358. The FTC enforces Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C.\n\n\u00a7 45(a), which prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce. The FTC\n\nalso enforces ROSCA, 15 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 8401 et seq., which prohibits certain methods of negative\n\noption marketing on the internet.\n\n       10.     The FTC is authorized to initiate federal district court proceedings, by its own\n\nattorneys, to enjoin violations of the FTC Act and ROSCA, and to secure such equitable relief as\n\nmay be appropriate in each case, including rescission or reformation of contracts, restitution, the\n\n\n\n\n                                                 4\n\f        Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 304-1 Filed 03/15/22 Page 5 of 45\n\n\n\nrefund of monies paid, and the disgorgement of ill-gotten monies. 15 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 53(b), 57b, and\n\n8404.\n\n\n                                          DEFENDANTS\n\n        11.    Defendant RagingBull.com, LLC (\u201cRaging Bull\u201d) is a Delaware\n\nCorporationlimited liability company. Raging Bull\u2019s principal place of business is listed as 62\n\nCalef Hwy. Ste. 233, Lee, New Hampshire 03861; but Raging Bull also maintains an office at\n\n1311 McCormick Rd., Suite 200, Hunt Valley, Maryland 21031. Raging Bull transacts or has\n\ntransacted business in this district and throughout the United States. Raging Bull was formed in\n\nor around 2014 as Lighthouse Media, LLC and changed its name to Raging Bull in December of\n\n2016.\n\n        12.    Defendant Jeffrey M. Bishop (\u201cBishop\u201d) is co-founder and CEO of Raging Bull,\n\nappears in the company\u2019s advertising, narrates a number of Raging Bull\u2019s marketing and training\n\nvideos, and leads a number of its trading services, as described further below. Bishop, along\n\nwith his wife, owns and controls Sherwood Ventures, LLC (\u201cSherwood Ventures\u201d). Bishop is\n\nSherwood Ventures\u2019 sole officer and controls the company. Sherwood Ventures owns 65% of\n\nRaging Bull, and Bishop signs Raging Bull business documents on behalf of Sherwood\n\nVentures. Bishop receives money from Raging Bull either directly or through Sherwood\n\nVentures. Bishop resides in New Hampshire. At all times material to this Complaint, acting\n\nalone or in concert with others, Bishop has formulated, directed, controlled, had authority to\n\ncontrol, or participated in the acts and practices set forth in this Complaint. Bishop, in\n\nconnection with the matters alleged herein, transacts or has transacted business in this district\n\nand throughout the United States.\n\n\n\n\n                                                  5\n\f       Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 304-1 Filed 03/15/22 Page 6 of 45\n\n\n\n        13.     Defendant Jason Bond (\u201cBond\u201d), formerly known as Jason P. Kowalik, is\n\nPresident and co-founder of Raging Bull and appears in the company\u2019s advertising. Bond leads\n\nmany of Raging Bull\u2019s \u201ceducational\u201d and stock alert programs. Bond ownsis an owner and\n\ncontrols Jason Bond, LLC. At all times material to this Complaint, either Bond or Jason Bond,\n\nLLC has been listed as a 25% owner of Raging Bull, and Bond signs Raging Bull business\n\ndocuments on behalf of Jason Bond, LLC. At times Bond has been paid directly by Raging Bull,\n\nand at times he receives money through his LLC. Bond resides in New Hampshire. At all times\n\nmaterial to this Complaint, acting alone or in concert with others, Bond has formulated, directed,\n\ncontrolled, had authority to control, or participated in the acts and practices set forth in this\n\nComplaint. Bond, in connection with the matters alleged herein, transacts or has transacted\n\nbusiness in this district and throughout the United States.\n\n        14.     Defendant Kyle W. Dennis (\u201cDennis\u201d) is a salesman and trading instructor who\n\noffers and promotes a number of widely advertised services through Raging Bull. In doing so,\n\nDennis claims to be one of Jason Bond\u2019s most successful students and a self-made millionaire\n\nwho made his fortune trading in the stock market. Dennis is also a principal and owner of\n\nWinston Corp. and of Winston Research Inc. and does business under these names. Dennis is\n\nalso the lone \u201cguru\u201d or purported trading expert featured on the Biotech Breakouts brand of\n\nservices at Raging Bull, which has bilked over $40 million from consumers in the past three\n\nyears. Dennis appears on all of the sales and marketing materials that promote the Biotech\n\nBreakouts brand. Dennis purportedly created and developed the Biotech Breakouts trading\n\nsystem or methods that purport to generate substantial and consistent trading profits for its\n\nsubscribers. At various times, Dennis has held himself out as the \u201cDirector and Co-Founder of\n\nBiotech Breakouts\u201d and as the \u201cBiotech Breakouts Guru.\u201d Dennis has personally reaped over\n\n\n\n\n                                                   6\n\f       Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 304-1 Filed 03/15/22 Page 7 of 45\n\n\n\n$13.6 million in profits from Defendants\u2019 sales and auto-renewals of the Biotech Breakouts\n\nservices, all of which are sold and billed as negative options. As set forth in detail below, Dennis\n\nhas repeatedly made false and unsubstantiated earnings claims in connection with the sale and\n\nmarketing of Biotech Breakouts subscriptions, including during online sales presentations\n\nattended by thousands of consumers, in widely disseminated sales videos, and in his\n\ncommunications with consumers. Dennis resides in Tennessee. At all times material to this\n\nComplaint, acting alone or in concert with others, Dennis has formulated, directed, controlled,\n\nhad authority to control, or participated in the acts and practices set forth in this Complaint.\n\nDennis, in connection with the matters alleged herein, transacts or has transacted business in this\n\ndistrict and throughout the United States.\n\n       15.     Defendant Sherwood Ventures, LLC (\u201cSherwood Ventures\u201d) is a Texas\n\ncorporationlimited liability company with its principal place of business listed atas the same\n\naddress as Raging Bull. Bishop and his wife are the sole owners of Sherwood Ventures holds\n\nassets for Bishop and, and Bishop is the sole officer and controls the company. Sherwood\n\nVentures owns 65% of Raging Bull. Raging Bull\u2019s internet domain, ragingbull.com, was\n\noriginally registered under Sherwood\u2019s name; the registration was changed to list\n\nRagingbull.com, LLC as the registrant in January 2017. In the past five years, Sherwood\n\nVentures has received more than $36 million from Raging Bull. At least three Raging Bull\n\nemployees also work for Sherwood. Sherwood Ventures, along with the other two owners of\n\nRaging Bull, opened a Raging Bull depository account used to collect consumers\u2019 payments to\n\nRaging Bull. Sherwood Ventures transacts or has transacted business in this district and\n\nthroughout the United States.\n\n\n\n\n                                                  7\n\f       Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 304-1 Filed 03/15/22 Page 8 of 45\n\n\n\n       16.     Defendant Jason Bond, LLC is a Delaware corporation. Jason Bond, LLC\u2019s\n\nprincipal place of business is the same as Bond\u2019s home address.limited liability company. Jason\n\nBond, LLC\u2019s principal place of business is the same as Bond\u2019s home address. Bond owns and\n\ncontrols Jason Bond, LLC. Jason Bond, LLC owns 25% of Raging Bull. In the past five years,\n\nJason Bond, LLC has received more than $12 million from Raging Bull. A Raging Bull\n\nemployee is a signatory on the Jason Bond LLC bank account. Jason Bond, LLC, along with the\n\nother two owners of Raging Bull, opened a Raging Bull depository account used to collect\n\nconsumers\u2019 payments to Raging Bull. Bond is an officer of Raging Bull and a member of Jason\n\nBond, LLC. Jason Bond, LLC transacts or has transacted business in this district and throughout\n\nthe United States.\n\n       17.     Defendant Winston Research Inc. is a Delaware corporation. Winston Research\n\nInc.\u2019s principal place of business is Dennis\u2019 home address in Kingsport, Tennessee. Winston\n\nResearch Inc. transacts or has transacted business in this district and throughout the United\n\nStates. Winston Research Inc. is owned and controlled by Dennis and receives funds from\n\nRaging Bull.\n\n       18.     Defendant Winston Corp. is a California corporation. Winston Corp. shares the\n\nsame business address as Winston Research Inc., which is Dennis\u2019s home address in Kingsport,\n\nTennessee. Winston Corp. transacts or has transacted business in this district and throughout the\n\nUnited States. Winston Corp. is owned and controlled by Dennis and has received funds from\n\nRaging Bull.\n\n\n                                      Common Enterprise\n\n       19.17. Defendants Raging Bull, Sherwood Ventures, and Jason Bond, LLC, Winston\n\nCorp., and Winston Research, Inc. (collectively, \u201cCorporate Defendants\u201d) have operated as a\n\n\n\n                                                 8\n\f       Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 304-1 Filed 03/15/22 Page 9 of 45\n\n\n\ncommon enterprise while engaging in the deceptive acts and practices alleged below. Corporate\n\nDefendants concerted and coordinated to design, organize, manage, market, and sell Raging\n\nBull\u2019s fraudulent enterprise, as well as to derive revenue and profit from it. Working together,\n\nCorporate Defendants have conducted the business practices described below through an\n\ninterrelated network of companies, which share owners, officers, managers, employees, and\n\noffice locations. Consumer money comes into Raging Bull as a result of Defendants\u2019 deceptive\n\nacts and practices and is quickly transferred out to the other corporate entities, sometimes\n\nmultiple times per month, as profit distributions, commissions, or wages. Because Corporate\n\nDefendants have operated as a common enterprise, each of them is liable for the acts and\n\npractices alleged below. Individual Defendants Bishop, Bond, and Dennis formulated, directed,\n\ncontrolled, had the authority to control, or participated in the acts and practices of the Corporate\n\nDefendants that constitute the common enterprise.\n\n\n                                          COMMERCE\n\n       20.18. At all times material to this Complaint, Defendants have maintained a substantial\n\ncourse of trade in or affecting commerce, as \u201ccommerce\u201d is defined in Section 4 of the FTC Act,\n\n15 U.S.C. \u00a7 44.\n\n\n                           DEFENDANTS\u2019 BUSINESS ACTIVITIES\n\n       21.19. Defendants have operated and continue to operate a company called Raging Bull,\n\nwhich sells online services related to stock and options trading services online to consumers\n\nacross the United States and abroad. Defendants claim their services provide strategies that\n\ngenerate substantial profits.\n\n       22.20. Defendants Bishop and Bond formed Raging Bull in 2014, and are its principals.\n\nThrough Sherwood Ventures and Jason Bond, LLC, Bishop and Bond own 65% and 25% of the\n\n\n                                                  9\n\f       Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 304-1 Filed 03/15/22 Page 10 of 45\n\n\n\ncompany, respectively, and are its principals. . Dennis joined the company in 2016. He serves\n\nas an instructoris the featured \u201cguru\u201d for the Biotech Breakouts brand at Raging Bull and is also\n\nactively involved in Raging Bull\u2019s marketing and sales operations. Defendants claim to have\n\nthousands of subscribers, and bank records show they are bilking consumers out of millions of\n\ndollars on a monthly basis. A number of these consumers are older adults, retirees, and/or\n\nimmigrants.\n\n        23.21. Defendants offer or have offered over 30 services to date, as well as packages that\n\ninclude access to all or a set of their services. Defendants frequently add new services and\n\nchange or remove existing ones. Each service purportedly shares with consumers a given\n\ninstructor\u2019s strategies for making money in the stock market through educational materials or\n\ntrade recommendations, and frequently both. Trade recommendations are advertised to come in\n\nthe form of specific, real-time alerts that the instructor has bought or sold a particular stock or\n\noption; some services also offer live-streaming of the instructor\u2019s trading activity during the day,\n\nso that consumers can follow along. Defendants market these services by touting examples of\n\nthe instructors\u2019 purported success as traders, by sharing consumer testimonials that boast big\n\nwins, and by claiming consumers can make consistent and substantial profits regardless of the\n\nconsumer\u2019s experience, wealth, or available time.\n\n        24.22. Consumers purchase these services based on Defendants\u2019 claims that they will be\n\nable to make substantial, market-beating returns in the stock market \u2013 either by studying the\n\nmaterials Defendants provide or by following specific trade recommendations that Defendants\n\noffer as part of their services.\n\n\n\n\n                                                  10\n\f      Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 304-1 Filed 03/15/22 Page 11 of 45\n\n\n\n       25.23. In numerous instances, however, consumers have instead lost substantial sums of\n\nmoney when investing based on Defendants\u2019 advice and alerts, not counting the millions of\n\ndollars consumers collectively pay each month for access to these services.\n\n       26.24. Buried in a purported disclaimer on their websites, described further below,\n\nDefendants admit they have no substantiation for their claims that consumers are likely to make\n\nthe advertised profits or income. Defendants admit they have not independently verified the\n\nclaims made by consumer testimonials and have not determined whether those testimonials are\n\ntypical of consumers using their services.\n\n       27.25. Numerous consumers have realized Defendants\u2019 services do not work as claimed.\n\nConsumers who request refunds are routinely denied. When attempting to cancel the services to\n\navoid recurring charges, many consumers encounter difficulties, including an inability to cancel\n\ncertain services online, challenges reaching customer service, and confusing instructions about\n\nhow to request cancellations.\n\n\n                                     Defendants\u2019 Advertising\n\n                                Defendants\u2019 Marketing Practices\n\n       28.26. While Defendants offer numerous paid subscription stock and option trading\n\nservices and frequently change their lineup, Defendants\u2019 services are all marketed in similar\n\nways. Defendants make parallel claims across all services about the possibility of making\n\nconsistent, substantial profits and about who can use their services effectively.\n\n       29.27. Defendants pay millions of dollars to promote their products with search engine\n\nadvertisements, social media posts and videos, and individual websites for each service they\n\noffer. Defendants also use an affiliate marketing program, paying other companies and\n\nindividuals to direct potential customers to their site, and they engage in mass email marketing.\n\n\n\n                                                 11\n\f      Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 304-1 Filed 03/15/22 Page 12 of 45\n\n\n\nDefendants\u2019 advertisements and websites are replete with purported testimonials from customers\n\nclaiming to have made substantial returns on individual trades using Defendants\u2019 services.\n\n       30.28. Consumers typically first encounter Defendants\u2019 marketing after searching on the\n\ninternet for information about the stock market or visiting websites related to the stock market or\n\noptions trading. Utilizing the advertising services of sites such as Google, Facebook, Instagram,\n\nand YouTube, defendants show ads to customers who have been identified as potentially\n\ninterested in such topics. One such ad is depicted below in Figure 1.\n\n\n\n\n                                                12\n\f      Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 304-1 Filed 03/15/22 Page 13 of 45\n\n\n\n\nFigure 1: Screenshot of Raging Bull ad featuring Jeff Bishop, running on Facebook\u2019s platforms\n                                (from Facebook Ad Library).\n       31.29. Many Raging Bull ads emphasize the purported success of the instructors,\n\nincluding Defendants Bishop, Bond, and Dennis. The ads often feature Raging Bull\u2019s\n\ninstructors, talking about highly successful trades or claiming they have made millions in the\n\n\n\n\n                                                13\n\f       Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 304-1 Filed 03/15/22 Page 14 of 45\n\n\n\nstock market. A number of ads feature instructors with private jets or in expensive-looking\n\nhotels.\n\n          32.30. Raging Bull markets its services as opportunities to learn from these purported\n\nmillionaires. The services include purported educational materials that claim to teach consumers\n\nthese traders\u2019 secrets to success and are often paired with trade alerts that will purportedly let\n\nconsumers copy the instructors\u2019 trades and share in the wealth.\n\n          33.31. Raging Bull touts its trading strategies as simple and easy to use. For example,\n\nadvertisements for Defendants\u2019 service Bullseye Trades describe that program as \u201cthe simplest,\n\nmost consistent strategy on Wall Street. Hands down,\u201d and assert \u201cBullseye Trades can work for\n\neveryone\u201d and \u201chas worked for tons of people.\u201d\n\n          34.32. Raging Bull markets its trade alerts as easy opportunities to copy the instructors\u2019\n\ntrades and make similar returns. For example, advertisements for Bishop\u2019s service Total Alpha\n\nassert consumers can \u201cleave the heavy lifting to Jeff!\u201d when using the service\u2019s alerts and that\n\nconsumers can \u201clook right over Jeff\u2019s shoulder and see the moves he is making in real time.\u201d\n\nLikewise, ads for Bond\u2019s \u201cJason Bond Picks\u201d service state \u201cI do the work, find, and reveal up to\n\n10 simple trades each week that make me a killing. Learn my system. Trade my system. Keep\n\nall the profits.\u201d Marketing materials often include selective examples of past alerts that went out\n\non trades that earned large returns for the instructor, despite such returns being highly atypical\n\nfor the instructors.\n\n          35.33. Many Raging Bull ads and advertising campaigns feature testimonials by\n\nindividuals who claim to have made significant money with the services, often boasting about\n\nreturns of several thousand dollars or over 100% profit from a single trade. Raging Bull ads\n\n\n\n\n                                                  14\n\f      Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 304-1 Filed 03/15/22 Page 15 of 45\n\n\n\nclaim the company has \u201chelped thousands of people to become empowered, self-directed traders\n\nwho know how to take control in any market condition.\u201d\n\n       36.34. After consumers click one of these ads, they are typically taken to the website for\n\na specific product. Most of these sites have a similar design and feature further advertising for\n\nthe specific product. In many cases, the site will pitch some introductory content such as a\n\nwebinar or e-book, as illustrated below in Figure 2 (stating \u201cLearn how you could DOUBLE or\n\nTRIPLE your account in One Week!\u201d). These webinars and e-books provide some basic\n\neducational content but serve primarily to advertise Raging Bull\u2019s products.\n\n\n\n\nFigure 2: Screenshot of webinar offered on one of Defendants\u2019 marketing websites, arrived at by\n                          clicking the ad shown in Figure 1, supra.\n       37.35. Consumers who enter an email address, for example to obtain a free e-book or\n\nregister for a webinar, are added to marketing email lists. Consumers on such email lists receive\n\nfrequent emails marketing Defendants\u2019 services, sometimes highlighting purported limited-time\n\ndeals, and directing consumers to product-specific websites for additional services.\n\n       38.36. The free webinar videos typically begin with the instructor for the service\n\ndiscussing his background and purported success as a millionaire trader. The instructor then\n\n\n                                                15\n\f      Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 304-1 Filed 03/15/22 Page 16 of 45\n\n\n\nprovides an overview of the purported strategy behind the product, often while sharing consumer\n\ntestimonials or touting successful trades. The videos typically discuss details about the particular\n\nRaging Bull service and how to purchase it. In many cases, the free webinar videos end by\n\ndescribing a purported limited-time offer to get the advertised product at a discount, as illustrated\n\nbelow in Figure 3. Many of the products\u2019 web pages also assert limited-time deals.\n\n\n\n\n            Figure 3: Screenshot from Jason Bond Unchained promotional webinar.\n       39.37. If a consumer proceeds to purchase a product, he or she is typically taken to a\n\ncheckout page on ragingbull.com. Most of the checkout pages have a similar format, featuring\n\nadditional earnings claims, consumer testimonials that claim substantial profits, or examples of\n\nhighly-profitable trades made by the instructors, along with a payment form.\n\n       40.38. Once consumers purchase a product from Defendants, they are often bombarded\n\nwith more marketing. This includes further emails advertising special deals on new products or\n\naccess to other promotional webinars. Consumers may also receive offers from Raging Bull\n\ncustomer service staff to try out new or different services.\n\n\n\n                                                 16\n\f      Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 304-1 Filed 03/15/22 Page 17 of 45\n\n\n\n                       Marketing Based on the Founders and Instructors\n\n       41.39. Much of the advertising for Raging Bull\u2019s products centers on the purported\n\nsuccess of the instructors that lead each service. Consumers are led to believe they can also\n\nmake significant money by using the instructor\u2019s methods, copying their trades, or both.\n\n\n                                        Defendant Bishop\n\n\n       42.40. Many ads for Bishop\u2019s services begin by touting his success as one of Wall\n\nStreet\u2019s top options traders, and as a \u201cgenius trader who has made millions in the stock market.\u201d\n\nDefendants also refer to Bishop as \u201cone of the most widely followed stock market commentators\n\nand traders out there.\u201d Many Raging Bull ads claim Bishop taught Bond, and that together they\n\ntaught most of the other instructors at the company.\n\n\n\n\nFigure 4: Screenshot of promotional video for Weekly Money Multiplier (Bishop on the right).\n       43.41. When touting Bishop\u2019s purported success, Defendants do not tell consumers\n\nBishop\u2019s income is primarily derived from subscription fees consumers pay to Raging Bull and\n\n\n\n\n                                                17\n\f      Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 304-1 Filed 03/15/22 Page 18 of 45\n\n\n\nnot from stock and options trading. Bishop has incurred substantial and persistent losses as a\n\nresult of his own stock and options trading activities.\n\n\n                                          Defendant Bond\n\n\n       44.42. As the leader of many of Raging Bull\u2019s services and one of the company\u2019s\n\nfounders, Bond\u2019s success as a securities trader is also a central feature of many of Defendants\u2019\n\nadvertisements.\n\n       45.43. Raging Bull\u2019s website and product pages tell the story that Bond is a former gym\n\nteacher who was $250,000 in debt, found a mentor in Jeff Bishop, became a \u201cstock trading\n\nmillionaire,\u201d and is now \u201csharing the wealth\u201d with his clients. Defendants frequently describe\n\nJason Bond as a trading phenomenon, and claim, for example, that his training is \u201csecond to\n\nnone because he started as a physical education teacher making a modest salary and grew his net\n\nworth to become a multi-millionaire.\u201d\n\n       46.44. In a marketing email sent to one of Raging Bull\u2019s mailing lists in March 2020,\n\nBond states he \u201cmade over 180% in 2015 and then in 2016 I turned a $100,000 account into\n\n$430,000! A massive 330% returns [sic]. 2017, I then made $284,000 and get this\u2026 I donated\n\nall of it to charity! \u2026 2018 is no different because of my market-tested strategy that myself and\n\nthousands of members are using for HUGE success.\u201d Bond later told the New Hampshire\n\nBureau of Securities Regulation that he lost money in 2018.\n\n       47.45. Other Raging Bull advertisements tout Bond\u2019s and Bishop\u2019s purported success by\n\nclaiming they have been recognized for their success by the media or by well-known institutions.\n\nFor example, one advertisement claimed \u201c[b]ecause of our crazy story, we\u2019ve been all over the\n\nmedia\u2014including Times Square!\u201d Other ads have claimed Bond was invited to speak at Harvard\n\n\n\n\n                                                 18\n\f      Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 304-1 Filed 03/15/22 Page 19 of 45\n\n\n\nBusiness School or feature a video of him supposedly doing so. A screenshot of a recording of\n\nBond\u2019s purported Harvard speech is shown below in Figure 5.\n\n\n\n\n  Figure 5: Screenshot from recording of Bond\u2019s purported Harvard Business School speech.\n\n       48.46. The events referred to in such marketing are mostly paid-for promotional events.\n\nFor example, the image that appeared on a Times Square Billboard was a paid advertisement.\n\nSimilarly, Defendants paid for Bond to speak on or near Harvard\u2019s campus for promotional\n\npurposes; Bond was never invited by the school or any of its affiliates.\n\n       49.47. When touting Bond\u2019s purported success, Defendants do not tell consumers\n\nBond\u2019s income is primarily derived from subscription fees consumers pay to Raging Bull and not\n\nfrom stock and options trading. Bond has incurred substantial and persistent losses as a result of\n\nhis own stock and options trading activities.\n\n\n                               Defendant Dennis/Other Instructors\n\n\n       50.48. Ads for services offered by instructors other than Bond and Bishop feature similar\n\nclaims. In most cases, Raging Bull advertises that other instructors, including Defendant Dennis,\n\nare former students of Bond and Bishop who made their own millions trading stocks and then\n\n\n                                                19\n\f      Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 304-1 Filed 03/15/22 Page 20 of 45\n\n\n\njoined Raging Bull as instructors to teach their methods. Defendants make the success of these\n\ninstructors central to their advertising as well.\n\n        51.49. Defendants\u2019 ads portray their instructors as able to generate market-beating\n\nreturns through their trades and able to pick \u201cwinning\u201d stocks on a week-after-week basis. As\n\ndiscussed further below, many of Defendants\u2019 marketing materials involve their instructors\n\nhighlighting selected winning trades that earned huge percentages, often over 100% per trade and\n\nas high as 1600%. Such trades are atypical, and neither Raging Bull\u2019s instructors nor their\n\nconsumers make market-beating returns on a week-after-week basis. Many consumers have\n\ncomplained of losing money when trying to follow Defendants\u2019 trade recommendations.\n\n        52.50. Ads for services offered by Kyle Dennis feature, for example, Dennis saying he\n\nmade \u201cabout $9,100 per day\u201d in 2019, which the image shown in Figure 6, below, displays.\n\n\n\n\nFigure 6:A: Screenshot of promotional video for Dennis\u2019s service Fast Five Trades.\n\n        51.     Dennis appears in and narrates numerous sales videos with false or\n\nunsubstantiated earnings claims used to induce consumers to enroll in one or more of the Biotech\n\n\n                                                    20\n\f      Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 304-1 Filed 03/15/22 Page 21 of 45\n\n\n\nBreakouts services. These sales videos were disseminated to consumers through emails, posted\n\non the BiotechBreakouts.com website, and broadcast on Defendants\u2019 YouTube channels. Dennis\n\nhas admitted in a sworn deposition that he does not track his subscribers\u2019 results and lacks data\n\nshowing what a typical consumer earns in trading profits using Defendants\u2019 services. For\n\nexample, Dennis narrates the sales video for \u201cFast Five Trades,\u201d a negative option product sold\n\nunder the Biotech Breakouts brand. In this video, Dennis tells the viewer that he intends to\n\n\u201cshow people how they can hit the ground running and begin to add an extra 250, 500, even\n\n2,000 dollars or more to their account each and every week\u201d and enable consumers to generate\n\n\u201cfast profits\u201d in \u201cfive days\u201d or less. Defendants, including Dennis, lack substantiation for these\n\nearnings claims.\n\n       52.     Dennis also narrates the sales video for \u201cDollar Ace,\u201d another negative option\n\nproduct sold under the Biotech Breakouts brand. In this video, Dennis tells the viewer that\n\nDennis has developed a simple and easy to use system that will enable consumers to grow their\n\nsmall accounts from \u201c1,000 to 5,000 to 10,000 to 25,000 in a matter of months; something\n\nmedium-sized accounts of 25,000 or more could apply to make an extra 1,000 or 4,000 per week;\n\nand something that large accounts, 100 grand or more could supplement into their trading as\n\nanother low maintenance cash generator.\u201d Dennis claims that \u201cDollar Ace\u201d subscribers will\n\nreceive access to trades that will generate 100% or more in trading profits in just \u201cone to three\n\ndays.\u201d Defendants, including Dennis, lack substantiation for these claims. In fact, many\n\nsubscribers of Biotech Breakouts services have incurred substantial losses as a result of\n\nfollowing the trades that Dennis provided to them in trade alerts.\n\n       53.     In the sales video \u2013 \u201cKyle Dennis presents the $100K Heist!\u201d \u2013 Dennis tells the\n\nviewer: \u201cSo what I\u2019m planning to do here is to take a small $10,000 account and show you how\n\n\n\n\n                                                 21\n\f      Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 304-1 Filed 03/15/22 Page 22 of 45\n\n\n\nto systematically build that up to a $100,000. Because that is everyone\u2019s goal at the end of the\n\nday, right? You\u2019re trying to work that 9-to-5, you\u2019re trying to make that six-figure salary.\u201d\n\nDefendants, including Dennis, lack substantiation for the claim that consumers are likely to grow\n\ntheir trading account from $10,000 to $100,000 by enrolling in the services offered in this video.\n\n        54.     In the sales video for \u201cBlack Optics,\u201d a marketing campaign Defendants devised\n\nto enroll consumers in various Biotech Breakouts negative option products, Dennis claims that\n\nhe has generated millions in trade profits over the past year, that Black Optics will \u201cprovide you\n\nwith everything you need to experience results like my own,\u201d and that Dennis will \u201cshow you\n\nhow to 10X your account by mastering my simple system and then introducing new profit\n\nbuckets so that the cash flow never dries up.\u201d Defendants, including Dennis, lack substantiation\n\nfor the claim that consumers are likely to grow their trading accounts by ten times the initial\n\nvalue if they enroll in the services offered in this video.\n\n        55.     Dennis also conducted numerous live webinar presentations attended by\n\nthousands of consumers. In these webinars, Dennis repeatedly made claims that consumers\n\nenrolling in one or more of his Biotech Breakouts services are likely to generate substantial\n\nincome and consistent trading profits. Defendants record these webinars and provide them to\n\nvisitors of the BiotechBreakouts.com website and Dennis\u2019 Facebook page so they can be\n\nreplayed and viewed by consumers who did not attend the live events.\n\n        56.     In an hour long webinar called \u201cMortal Lock,\u201d a promotional campaign\n\nDefendants devised to enroll consumers in a negative option service called \u201cOption Rocket,\u201d\n\nDennis claims that consumers will generate consistent trading profits of 100% or more using his\n\n\u201cC.A.S.H. system,\u201d and that there is a 95% likelihood of doubling a consumer\u2019s investment\n\nusing his C.A.S.H. system:\n\n\n\n\n                                                  22\n\f      Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 304-1 Filed 03/15/22 Page 23 of 45\n\n\n\n               So this system can be a \u2013 can be a nice foundation. That\u2019s why I like\n               it so much for anybody who wants to scale up their profits or\n               anybody who is struggling. It requires very little maintenance. As\n               the time has gone on, I\u2019ve had less time to, you know, have ten\n               different strategies and have them all be, you know, really lucrative\n               and little maintenance strategies. These are intra-week trades that\n               required very little maintenance. A lot of times you can get in on\n               Monday and be out on Friday. And the target is always 100 percent.\n               Double or nothing. Put your money on black, spin it. (Making\n               noise). Black. Boom, 100 percent, right? Just like -- just like the\n               casino, but this isn\u2019t 50/50, this is more like 95/5, right? 95 percent,\n               5 percent, right? It\u2019s really a nice strategy \u2026.\n       57.     Dennis then claims that consumers who sign up now for this service will get\n\naccess to his \u201cMortal Lock\u201d trade alerts, which have the potential to generate \u201c500, 600, 1,000,\n\n2,000 percent\u201d returns, and that Dennis has \u201chundreds\u201d of trade alerts with the potential to\n\ngenerate 1000% or more in trading profits. Dennis also \u201cguarantees\u201d that his Mortal Lock trades\n\nwill generate at least $1997 in trading profits on a single trade (approximately a 400% return on\n\na $500 investment), as illustrated in Figure 6B below:\n\n\n\n\nFigure 6B: Screenshot from the Mortal Lock sales webinar\n\n\n\n\n                                                 23\n\f      Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 304-1 Filed 03/15/22 Page 24 of 45\n\n\n\n       58.     Defendants, including Dennis, lack substantiation for the claim that consumers are\n\nlikely to generate returns of 100% or more using the \u201cC.A.S.H. system\u201d or from the \u201cMortal\n\nLock trades.\u201d Many consumers have incurred substantial losses as a result of following the\n\nMortal Lock trades and other trades that Dennis alerted to Option Rocket subscribers. Dennis\n\ndoes not have a system or strategy that consistently generates 100% or more in trading profits,\n\nand Dennis himself does not consistently make 100% or more from his own trades.\n\n       59.     Dennis also presented a webinar called \u201cFortune Forecaster, the 9-to-5 Killer,\u201d\n\nwhich is another sales campaign that Dennis and Raging Bull devised to enroll consumers in\n\nseveral Biotech Breakouts offers. In this webinar, Dennis claims to have a system or strategy\n\nthat consumers can easily copy or mirror to make \u201creliable,\u201d \u201crepeatable\u201d and \u201creproducible\u201d\n\ntrading profits. Dennis claims that his annual goal for the Fortune Forecaster portfolio is at least\n\n100% growth, that the strategy is simple and that anybody can use this strategy to quickly\n\ngenerate trading profits like Dennis. Dennis also claims that he will do the research necessary\n\nand find profitable trading opportunities for his subscribers. Defendants, including Dennis, lack\n\nsubstantiation for the claim that consumers are likely to grow their account by 100% from the\n\nservices offered in this webinar.\n\n       60.     Dennis also conducted a webinar called \u201cThe Resolution,\u201d another campaign that\n\nDennis and Raging Bull launched to promote Biotech Breakouts services. In the webinar,\n\nDennis tells the viewer that he is doing one last \u201c5K challenge,\u201d where he will grow a $5,000\n\ntrading account into $50,000 account and his subscribers can similarly grow their accounts by\n\nfollowing Dennis\u2019 trading accounts and his trades. Defendants, including Dennis, lack\n\nsubstantiation for the claim that consumers are likely to grow their accounts from $5,000 to\n\n$50,000 using the services offered in this webinar.\n\n\n\n\n                                                 24\n\f      Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 304-1 Filed 03/15/22 Page 25 of 45\n\n\n\n       61.     In connection with his sale and marketing of the Biotech Breakouts services,\n\nDennis uses various high pressure tactics to induce consumers to purchase the products,\n\nincluding offering limited time \u201cguarantees,\u201d \u201cfree\u201d services, \u201cdiscounted\u201d pricing, using timers\n\nthat count down and warning consumers not to miss out on his purportedly \u201crisk-free\u201d trade\n\nrecommendations or alerts. To complete the sale, Dennis urges consumers to click on online\n\norder forms and complete their purchase or to call his telesales team (the \u201cVIP Team\u201d) who will\n\ndispel any doubts about joining the service. Dennis also communicates directly with consumers\n\nin chatrooms and through emails, further using deception to sell Raging Bull services.\n\n       62.     Dennis is also involved in the review and development of the sales scripts and\n\npresentation slides used to promote the various Biotech Breakouts services. Dennis has decision-\n\nmaking authority on the rebranding and launch of new services under the Biotech Breakouts\n\nbrand. Dennis works closely with the lead advertising copywriter for the Biotech Breakouts\n\nbrand, who Dennis referred to as \u201cmy right hand man.\u201d Dennis has the ability to approve or\n\nreject any advertisement or marketing material bearing his name, image or likeness, which\n\nincludes all the marketing materials used to promote the Biotech Breakouts brand.\n\n       63.     Dennis has a lucrative compensation arrangement with Raging Bull, where\n\nDennis receives over one-third of the net revenues or profits generated from the sale and auto-\n\nrenewals of the Biotech Breakouts subscription services. Dennis also stands to receive a\n\nsubstantial lump-sum payment in the event Bishop and Bond transfer their controlling interest in\n\nRaging Bull to an outside party. In 2018, when Dennis was re-negotiating his compensation\n\nterms, Dennis told Bishop: \u201cGlad to be on board for the next 5+ years and have a great path of\n\nincentives. And I\u2019m ready to crank these sales as much as we can in anyway [sic] we can!\u201d\n\n\n\n\n                                                25\n\f      Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 304-1 Filed 03/15/22 Page 26 of 45\n\n\n\nDennis\u2019 agreement with the Raging Bull owners has not been terminated and is operative for\n\nseveral more years.\n\n       53.64. Dennis continues to offer and sell the same Raging Bull trading services that he\n\npromoted prior to the FTC\u2019s lawsuit in December 2020, such as Mobile Closer. On May 5,\n\n2021, Raging Bull sent an email to its subscribers promising that Dennis would appear at a\n\nRaging Bull program.\n\n\n                           Misrepresentations about Income Potential\n\n       54.65. Defendants advertise that consumers can make substantial, market-beating returns\n\nby following Defendants\u2019 purported trade strategies or by following Defendants\u2019 specific trade\n\nrecommendations and alerts. Defendants make three main types of income claims: (1) general\n\nclaims about the kinds of profits consumers can make, which include statements like \u201cconsistent\n\nmoney,\u201d \u201cbig money,\u201d \u201cdouble your money,\u201d and various profit percentages; (2) examples of\n\nspecific, winning trades the instructors themselves claim to have made using their strategies,\n\nwhich purport to illustrate the income potential of the programs; and (3) testimonials that purport\n\nto illustrate the kinds of profits Raging Bull customers make.\n\n\n                                     General Income Claims\n\n\n       55.66. All of Defendants\u2019 services are marketed with substantially similar income\n\nclaims, boasting the success of the instructor and claiming subscribers will be able to make\n\nconsistent, substantial income too if they purchase the service and learn the instructor\u2019s method.\n\n       67.     Defendants lack substantiation for their claims that consumers are likely to earn\n\nsubstantial income using their services.\n\n\n\n\n                                                26\n\f      Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 304-1 Filed 03/15/22 Page 27 of 45\n\n\n\n       56.68. For example, typical of Defendants\u2019 services is one called Bullseye Trades, led by\n\nDefendant Jeff Bishop. Bullseye Trades offers consumers access to purported educational\n\nmaterials plus alerts for \u201cone trade,\u201d \u201conce a week,\u201d with \u201cone hundred percent profit targets.\u201d\n\nAdvertising materials for Bullseye Trades state \u201cI\u2019m aiming to make over 100% profit each and\n\nevery week with these ideas and I\u2019m really good at it.\u201d\n\n       57.69. Likewise, Defendants describe Total Alpha as teaching consumers \u201cthe options\n\ntrading strategies that Jeff Bishop has used to make a fortune in the stock market.\u201d Defendants\n\nmarket Jason Bond Picks with statements like \u201cDon\u2019t Just Beat the Market\u2026 Crush It.\u201d\n\nDefendants describe Weekly Windfalls as \u201cJason Bond\u2019s unique options strategy that could\n\nDOUBLE your income (in as little as a few minutes per week).\u201d Defendants also call Weekly\n\nWindfalls a \u201cnew $10,000 per week trading strategy.\u201d Defendants market Sniper Report as a\n\nnewsletter by Kyle Dennis \u201cstrategically developed to only deliver high probable [sic] trades\n\nwith the power to make 100%, 200% 300% return [sic] on each trade.\u201d Defendants lack\n\nsubstantiation for their claims that consumers are likely to earn substantial income using the\n\nWeekly Windfalls service.\n\n       58.70. Since approximately March 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic, Defendants\n\nhave employed additional marketing tactics based on the nationwide economic uncertainty. For\n\nexample, marketing emails in April 2020 claimed Dennis \u201cwas able to rack up nearly $500K in\n\nprofits by trading stocks related to the COVID-19 pandemic\u201d and had found a \u201chidden bull\n\nmarket.\u201d In May 2020, Defendants advertised a webinar in which Kyle Dennis purported to\n\nexplain the effects of the pandemic on the stock market and \u201cwhy he believes this may be the\n\nmost exciting opportunity in decades!\u201d (emphasis original). The video was an advertisement\n\nfor one of Kyle Dennis\u2019s Raging Bull subscription services called Trade With Kyle. Many of\n\n\n\n\n                                                27\n\f      Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 304-1 Filed 03/15/22 Page 28 of 45\n\n\n\nDefendants\u2019 instructors have sent marketing emails touting their ability to make money during\n\nthe pandemic.\n\n       59.71. Defendants do not, in fact, provide effective strategies that consumers can\n\nreasonably use to make market-beating profits. Nor can consumers make market-beating returns\n\nby using Defendants\u2019 trade alerts.\n\n       72.      Defendant Jeff Bishop has stated that, at the time Defendants made their income\n\nclaims, Defendants kept no data on what percentage of their trades are successful, or whether or\n\nhow much profit was made by a \u201cguru\u201d or in a particular Raging Bull service over a period of\n\ntime. Accordingly, Raging Bull is unable to provide a \u201ctrack record\u201d of the profit or loss of a\n\nparticular \u201cguru\u201d or service.\n\n       60.73. Consumers do not typically make returns like those advertised. A substantial\n\nnumber of consumers have lost money attempting to invest based on the \u201ceducation\u201d provided by\n\nDefendants or attempting to follow the instructors\u2019 trade alerts.\n\n\n                                     Example Instructor Trades\n\n\n       61.74. Defendants also frequently tout examples of the instructors\u2019 winning trades in\n\ntheir advertising.\n\n       62.75. For example, a promotional video for Weekly Money Multiplier includes\n\nnumerous examples of highly profitable trades that a Raging Bull instructor named Nathan Bear\n\nclaims he shared as alerts with his subscribers, boasting profits like 140%, 267%, or as high as\n\n1600%. Similarly, in a promotional webinar for Bullseye Trades, Bishop states, \u201cI have made\n\nliterally hundreds of trades where I\u2019ve made well over 100% on [sic],\u201d and \u201c[s]ome of these I\n\nused to think were unreal profits, I mean, I\u2019m talking $50,000, $60,000, even $100,000 in a\n\nmatter of days.\u201d Dennis, in a video for his service Trade With Kyle, shares examples of options\n\n\n                                                28\n\f        Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 304-1 Filed 03/15/22 Page 29 of 45\n\n\n\nor stocks where the price jumped several hundred percent for each, which his strategy would\n\npurportedly have identified, and claims his own trading returned tens of thousands of dollars of\n\nprofit on these. In emails Bond sent to consumers who signed up to receive his free newsletter,\n\nhe wrote, for example, \u201cSNAP, crackle, pop! $22,000 profit for me on SNAP Wednesday, 172%\n\non the options and another 10% on the shares. ALL from IPHONE\u201d and \u201cI\u2019m avg, $2300 a day\n\nright now trading part time.\u201d\n\n        63.76. The instructor trades mentioned in Defendants\u2019 advertising are not representative\n\nof consumers\u2019 experience using Defendants\u2019 services.\n\n        64.77. Defendants do not provide effective strategies that consumers can reasonably use\n\nto make market-beating profits of the type illustrated by these example trades. Nor can\n\nconsumers make such returns by using Defendants\u2019 trade alerts.\n\n\n                                     Consumer Testimonials\n\n\n        65.78. Defendants make heavy use of consumer testimonials in their videos and other\n\npromotional materials.\n\n        66.79. For example, advertising for Fast 5 Trades features many testimonials, including\n\nquotes from three individuals who stated they made over $1,000 in three weeks, made $500 in\n\ntwo days, and made nearly 20% on their first trade with the service, respectively.\n\nAdvertisements for Bullseye Trades also feature quotes from purported customers, asserting wins\n\nof 25%, 70%, or 115%, or claiming, \u201call of the Bullseye Trades have been profitable for me.\u201d\n\nTotal Alpha ads feature testimonials from purported customers claiming to have made\n\n\u201c[$]6500.00 in 20 MINUTES,\u201d \u201c$500 in 15 min[utes],\u201d \u201croughly 90% in 24 hours,\u201d and \u201c92%\u201d\n\nwins.\n\n\n\n\n                                                29\n\f      Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 304-1 Filed 03/15/22 Page 30 of 45\n\n\n\n       67.80. As described below, the trades described in these testimonials are not typical or\n\nrepresentative of Raging Bull customer experiences overall. Customers do not make market-\n\nbeating returns overall from their trading with Defendants\u2019 programs, much less returns like\n\nthose advertised. Numerous customers lose money.\n\n       68.81. Defendants do not provide effective strategies that consumers can reasonably use\n\nto make consistent, market-beating profits such as those suggested by the consumer testimonials\n\nthey use in advertising. Nor can consumers make such returns by using Defendants\u2019 trade alerts.\n\n\n          Misrepresentations About Who Can Use Defendants\u2019 Services Successfully\n\n       69.82. Defendants claim their services can be used successfully by people with little or\n\nno stock or options trading experience. For example, Defendants tell consumers when\n\nadvertising the Total Alpha service, \u201cit\u2019s even better if you\u2019re brand new because there\u2019s no bad\n\nhabits to break\u201d and \u201cso, yes if you\u2019re new to options, perfect.\u201d\n\n       70.83. Defendants claim consumers can make substantial profits regardless of the\n\nbalance in consumers\u2019 accounts. For example, Defendants advertise that their High Octane\n\nservice can be used with as little as $500. As illustrated in Figure 7, below, Defendants\n\nadvertise that consumers can turn a $1,000 account into a $10,000 account with their Profit\n\nPrism service.\n\n\n\n\n                                                30\n\f         Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 304-1 Filed 03/15/22 Page 31 of 45\n\n\n\n\n          Figure 7: Screenshot of promotional video for Defendants\u2019 service Profit Prism.\n         71.84. Defendants claim their services can be used profitably by people who only trade\n\npart-time. For many services, Defendants claim people can make money using the service in as\n\nlittle as 10 to 30 minutes per day or by just following a single trade alert per week. For example,\n\nDefendants claim their service Total Alpha is designed for people with busy schedules and that\n\nFreedom Trader is for \u201cbusy professionals.\u201d\n\n         85.    In the Fast Five Trades sales video, Dennis claims that most of his subscribers are\n\n\u201cbrand new to trading and don\u2019t have a lot of funds to allocate to the market\u201d and that he will be\n\n\u201cspoon feeding\u201d his subscribers the information to make consistent and weekly trading profits:\n\n\u201cI call these my fast five trades. In on Monday, out by Friday, five days, fast profits. Just like\n\nthat.\u201d\n\n         86.    In the Dollar Ace sales video, Dennis claims that the Dollar Ace system is \u201ceasy\n\nto follow\u201d and use, even for beginners and consumers with small accounts, and requires just\n\n\u201cminutes per day\u201d to implement: \u201cIt finds those big returns in a one to three-day period so you\n\ncan grow and it works in no matter what market condition is thrown at us\u2026. whether you\u2019re\n\n\n                                                 31\n\f      Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 304-1 Filed 03/15/22 Page 32 of 45\n\n\n\nnew, you\u2019re a beginner, maybe you\u2019re really experienced, maybe you have a big account, maybe\n\nyou have a small account, it doesn\u2019t matter.\u201d\n\n       87.     In the Mortal Lock sales webinar, Dennis claims that his Mortal Lock system and\n\noptions trade alerts will enable consumers to generate consistent trading profits even if they are\n\ninexperienced traders, have little time to devote to trading, or have small accounts: \u201cSo how are\n\npeople with no trading experience doing this? Because I make it easy\u2026. Schedule your\n\npaycheck. Collect your cash\u2026. There\u2019s little time commitment on this. I don\u2019t have a lot of time\n\nmyself and I\u2019ve developed a system utilizing options that doesn\u2019t require too much time\u2026. With\n\nthis strategy, it doesn\u2019t matter if you have the smallest account in the world and it doesn\u2019t matter\n\nif you have the largest account in the world. You can make money doing this.\u201d Dennis claims\n\nthat Mortal Lock provides a \u201csimplified way to supplement [consumers\u2019] income without having\n\nto spend too much time.\u201d\n\n       72.88. In general, Defendants advertise that anyone can use their services profitably\n\nbecause it is easy to follow the instructors\u2019 alerts and recommendations.\n\n       73.89. Numerous consumers have found Defendants\u2019 claims about the level of\n\nexperience, account size, and time investment needed to be inconsistent with their experiences.\n\n       90.     While Defendants sell subscription services that require consumers to be\n\nsophisticated traders who have clearance with brokerage firms, Defendants describe these\n\nservices in their advertising as designed for beginners. For example, when advertising Total\n\nAlpha, Defendants tell consumers that experience is not necessary. But Total Alpha is a product\n\nfor sophisticated traders and requires them to have clearance with brokerage firms.\n\n       74.91. While Defendants routinely market their services as simple and easy to use, their\n\npurported educational materials and alerts consist of generic trading concepts and technical\n\n\n\n\n                                                 32\n\f      Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 304-1 Filed 03/15/22 Page 33 of 45\n\n\n\nindicators that are not sufficiently concrete to be implemented. Defendants do not provide any\n\nstrategy that consumers can follow, much less a strategy capable of achieving market-beating\n\nreturns.\n\n        75.92. Contrary to Defendants\u2019 claims that consumers with small balances in their\n\naccounts can grow their accounts into a source of substantial income as Raging Bull traders\n\nclaim to have done, these consumers are especially unlikely to realize the kind of income\n\nadvertised.\n\n        76.93. Consumers are also likely to have a hard time using Defendants\u2019 services without\n\nspending significantly more time than advertised, and even then, they struggle to make positive\n\ninvestment returns. Consumers are unable to reliably execute Defendants\u2019 trade alerts without\n\ndedicating significant time and making themselves available throughout the day during market\n\nhours. The stocks and options Defendants trade tend to be low-volume securities with prices that\n\nmove rapidly and with great volatility, particularly when Defendants issue trade alerts.\n\n\n           Defendants\u2019 Purported Disclaimers Do Not Cure Their Misrepresentations\n\n        77.94. Defendants\u2019 purported disclaimers are not clear or conspicuous, and do not cure\n\ntheir misrepresentations. Rather, in many instances, the disclaimers actually confirm the\n\nmisleading nature of Defendants\u2019 advertising.\n\n        78.95. Defendants frequently include disclaimers on their services\u2019 purchase pages in a\n\nsmall \u201cTerms & Conditions\u201d text box that appears below the purchase button. The text box\n\ncontains several pages worth of text and requires several minutes to scroll through. A screenshot\n\nof such a disclaimer box appears in Figure 8, below, in the bottom right corner. As can be seen\n\nin the image, the actual disclaimers are not visible at first and require significant scrolling to find.\n\n\n\n\n                                                  33\n\f      Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 304-1 Filed 03/15/22 Page 34 of 45\n\n\n\n       79.96. Defendants also typically include a pair of links at the bottom of their web pages\n\nthat take consumers to two separate pages, titled \u201cDisclaimer\u201d and \u201cTerms and Conditions,\u201d\n\nwhich contain similar text.\n\n\n\n\nFigure 8: Screenshot of purchase page for Bullseye Trades. The text box where Defendants put\n     disclaimers appears in the bottom right corner, below the purchase button. The actual\n   disclaimers are not visible without scrolling down through the box\u2019s several pages of text.\n       80.97. These website disclaimers acknowledge that Defendants have not collected any\n\ndata to substantiate whether the earnings claims they make, or the example trades or consumer\n\ntestimonials they use in advertising, are typical and representative. In pertinent part, they state\n\nthat \u201cfacts stated in testimonials have not been independently audited or verified,\u201d and that there\n\nhas not been \u201cany attempt to determine whether any testimonials are representative of the\n\n\n                                                 34\n\f      Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 304-1 Filed 03/15/22 Page 35 of 45\n\n\n\nexperiences of all persons using the methods described herein or to compare the experiences of\n\nthe persons giving the testimonials after the testimonials were given.\u201d\n\n       81.98. The website disclaimers also contradict Defendants\u2019 advertising that consumers\n\ncan make money by simply following the instructors\u2019 trades. For example, while Bullseye\n\nTrades is marketed with statements such as \u201cI do all the homework and research during the week\n\nahead and you get to piggyback off my single best idea for the week,\u201d the disclaimers on other\n\npages of the website or in the small text box below the purchase button contradict that. In a\n\ncomplete about-face, the disclaimers say instead that consumers \u201cshould never invest in the\n\nsecurities of any of the companies mentioned based solely on information contained on our\n\nwebsite\u201d and should assume \u201call information provided regarding companies is not trustworthy\n\nunless verified by their own independent research.\u201d\n\n       82.99. Defendants additionally include purported disclaimers buried in small-print font\n\nat the end of many marketing emails. In recent emails, for example, these disclaimers admit that\n\n\u201csubscribers'subscribers\u2019 trading results have NOT been tracked or verified\u201d and that \u201cthe results\n\npresented in this communication are NOT TYPICAL.\u201d These recent email disclaimers also\n\nacknowledge that \u201c[a]ctual results will vary widely given a variety of factors such as experience,\n\nskill, risk mitigation practices, market dynamics and the amount of capital deployed.\u201d\n\n       83.100.         Defendants sometimes, but not always, include disclaimers at the\n\nbeginning of their promotional videos. Such disclaimers appear only for a brief period of time,\n\nin a large block of text, while the instructor speaks to the viewer.\n\n       84.101.         For example, as shown below in Figure 9, Defendants\u2019 webinar\n\nadvertising the Trade With Kyle service that was released as a COVID-19 \u201cstate of the market\u201d\n\n\n\n\n                                                 35\n\f      Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 304-1 Filed 03/15/22 Page 36 of 45\n\n\n\nwebinar includes a brief disclaimer at the beginning of the video for approximately 30 seconds,\n\nabout 15 minutes prior to Dennis sharing his example wins and consumer testimonials.\n\n\n\n\n    Figure 9: Screenshot of disclaimer text displaying at the beginning of a Trade With Kyle\n                                      promotional video.\nWhile the disclaimer displays on the screen, Dennis continues to speak and tells consumers:\n\n                 Now, really really quickly right, especially right now, this is really\n                 super super-duper important. Disclaimer here. Trading is risky. I\n                 think we\u2019ve all understood and found that out in the last month here,\n                 right? Heck, going outside is risky nowadays, right? So, make sure\n                 you\u2019re smart, you\u2019re the one pushing the buttons, you\u2019re the one\n                 taking responsibility for your wins and your losses. I always like to\n                 hear about both because I have wins and losses as well and I take\n                 responsibility for my decisions, as you should take responsibility as\n                 well.\n       85.102.          Contrary to Defendants\u2019 marketing claims, the fleeting video disclaimer\n\nstates that Dennis\u2019s \u201cresults are very atypical and you should not expect to replicate them.\u201d\n\n       103.      In the sales webinar for \u201cThe Resolution,\u201d Dennis momentarily displays on the\n\nscreen a similar, boilerplate disclaimer while telling the consumer: \u201cI\u2019ve taken a lot of risks in\n\n\n\n\n                                                  36\n\f      Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 304-1 Filed 03/15/22 Page 37 of 45\n\n\n\nmy life and I\u2019ve been rewarded for that. And I expect nothing less of you. If you want reward,\n\nyou have to take risk. That\u2019s what this disclaimer is all about.\u201d\n\n\n                                      Consumer Complaints\n\n       86.104.         Numerous consumers have concluded their own experience is not\n\nconsistent with the impressions created by Defendants\u2019 marketing about consumers\u2019 ability to\n\ngenerate substantial income using Raging Bull\u2019s services.\n\n       87.105.         The training materials to which consumers are given access after signing\n\nup consist of one or more series of videos and some written materials that purport to describe the\n\ninstructors\u2019 strategies. Many of the videos are just recordings of past webinars or live chat\n\nsessions. Overall, these materials are a collection of generic trading concepts and technical\n\ntrading indicators lacking the structure, concreteness, consistency, and clarity required for\n\nRaging Bull\u2019s subscribers to use them to generate substantial income through trading.\n\n       88.106.         Consumers also encounter numerous problems with Defendants\u2019 trade\n\nalerts. Numerous consumers have incurred substantial losses following Defendants\u2019 trade\n\nrecommendations. Further, many consumers have found that alerts arrive too late or do not\n\narrive at all in some cases. For example, consumers may receive a buy alert but not a sell alert or\n\nmay only realize the instructor sold the security when he later claims he made substantial profit\n\non the trade, at which point the security\u2019s price has dropped significantly.\n\n       89.107.         Many consumers have requested refunds after concluding the service does\n\nnot work for them as advertised.\n\n       90.108.         Defendants routinely deny refund requests, often stating it is against\n\ncompany policy. In many cases, consumers are instead encouraged to try a different Raging Bull\n\nservice or even to purchase an upgrade to get the results they want.\n\n\n\n                                                 37\n\f      Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 304-1 Filed 03/15/22 Page 38 of 45\n\n\n\n       91.109.        When consumers are denied a refund, some file complaints online with\n\nagencies such as the Federal Trade Commission or with organizations such as the Better\n\nBusiness Bureau.\n\n       92.110.        Some consumers have been able to obtain refunds after they filed\n\ncomplaints with the Better Business Bureau, despite initially being told it was against company\n\npolicy, but were told they could only receive a refund if they took down their complaints or\n\nmarked them as resolved.\n\n       93.111.        All of the Individual Defendants are aware of consumer complaints.\n\nConsumers have complained to Raging Bull customer service and to Raging Bull instructors,\n\nincluding the Individual Defendants, by way of email, chat rooms, social media, and messaging\n\nservices. Consumers have also filed complaints and negative reviews online, including\n\ncomplaints that consumers could not make money using the materials or alerts provided by\n\nRaging Bull, that consumers were losing money, that consumers could not understand or\n\nimplement strategies from the purported educational materials, and that alerts were not working\n\nfor consumers. Bishop, Bond, and Dennis all have seen or received such complaints from\n\nconsumers. Dennis has received complaints from consumers who have incurred substantial\n\nlosses following trade alerts that Dennis guaranteed would generate 400% to 800% returns.\n\n       94.112.        For example, in or around December 2019, Bond shared a video with\n\nmembers of Raging Bull\u2019s services called Nucleus, Black Optics, Millionaire Roadmap, and\n\nMost Wanted wherein he apologized to them for significant changes in the services that \u201cdid not\n\nsit right\u201d with him. Bond admitted he, Bishop, and Dennis had overestimated their ability to\n\nmentor so many people and had failed to deliver the services as promised. Raging Bull offered\n\n\n\n\n                                               38\n\f      Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 304-1 Filed 03/15/22 Page 39 of 45\n\n\n\nthese consumers limited access to their Elite service instead but refused to give consumers even\n\npartial refunds for the services they had discontinued.\n\n\n    Consumers\u2019 Difficulties Cancelling Defendants\u2019 Services to Stop Recurring Charges\n\n       95.113.         Raging Bull sells and has sold its services as recurring subscriptions that\n\nare billed quarterly or annually, with prices that range from several hundred dollars to several\n\nthousand dollars per year, per service. Some customers pay additional amounts to obtain so-\n\ncalled \u201clifetime\u201d access to services.\n\n       96.114.         In numerous instances, consumers have had a difficult time cancelling\n\nRaging Bull\u2019s recurring billing of their credit cards. Defendants have made it difficult to cancel\n\nin numerous ways, including: (1) limiting the means consumers could use to submit cancellation\n\nrequests; (2) having different cancellation requirements for different services; (3) substantially\n\nand chronically understaffing the customer service phone line to which many consumers are\n\ndirected for cancellation purposes; and (4) providing consumers with inconsistent and confusing\n\ninstructions regarding the way to cancel their services.\n\n       97.115.         While Raging Bull offers a few services that consumers appear able to\n\ncancel online, many of their services cannot be cancelled online. Many consumers are directed\n\nto call or email a Raging Bull customer support representative instead.\n\n       98.116.         In some cases, cancellation instructions are unclear. For example, some\n\nservices cannot be cancelled from the subscriptions page on Raging Bull\u2019s website. Those\n\nservices instead direct consumers to a Frequently Asked Questions (\u201cFAQ\u201d) webpage. If\n\nconsumers wish to cancel immediately, that document directs consumers back to the\n\nsubscriptions page and directs them to write to customer service.\n\n\n\n\n                                                 39\n\f      Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 304-1 Filed 03/15/22 Page 40 of 45\n\n\n\n       99.117.         Consumers who email customer support experience delays or problems\n\ngetting in touch with a representative and then often are told they need to call instead to discuss\n\ncancellation.\n\n       100.118.        Consumers who try to contact customer support by phone often have had\n\nto wait significant amounts of time before speaking to someone, have been disconnected, never\n\nreceived a call back if they left messages, or received a voicemail recording instructing them to\n\nsend an email.\n\n       101.119.        These delays sometimes result in Raging Bull charging consumers for a\n\nrenewal, despite those consumers\u2019 attempts to cancel in advance of the renewal date.\n\n\n                            Defendants Continue to Violate the Law\n\n       102.120.        Based on the facts and violations of law alleged in this Complaint, the\n\nFTC has reason to believe that Defendants are violating or are about to violate laws enforced by\n\nthe Commission.\n\n\n                               VIOLATIONS OF THE FTC ACT\n\n       103.121.        Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 45(a), prohibits \u201cunfair or\n\ndeceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce.\u201d\n\n       104.122.        Misrepresentations or deceptive omissions of material fact constitute\n\ndeceptive acts or practices prohibited by Section 5(a) of the FTC Act.\n\n\n                     Count I \u2013 False or Unsubstantiated Earnings Claims\n\n                                     (Against All Defendants)\n\n       105.123.        In numerous instances in connection with the advertising, marketing,\n\npromotion, offering for sale, or sale of Raging Bull\u2019s services, including through the means\n\n\n\n\n                                                 40\n\f         Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 304-1 Filed 03/15/22 Page 41 of 45\n\n\n\ndescribed in Paragraphs 4119 to 6781, Defendants represent, directly or indirectly, expressly or\n\nby implication, that consumers who purchase Raging Bull\u2019s services will earn or are likely to\n\nearn substantial income.\n\n         106.124.       The representations set forth in Paragraph 104123 are false, misleading, or\n\nwere not substantiated at the time the representations were made.\n\n         107.125.       Therefore, Defendants\u2019 representations as set forth in Paragraph 104123\n\nconstitute deceptive acts or practices in violation of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. \u00a7\n\n45(a).\n\n\n            Count II \u2013 Other Misrepresentations Regarding Raging Bull\u2019s Services\n\n                                     (Against All Defendants)\n\n         108.126.       In numerous instances, in connection with the advertising, marketing,\n\npromotion, offering for sale, or sale of Raging Bull\u2019s services, including through the means\n\ndescribed in Paragraphs 6882 to 7593, Defendants represent, directly or indirectly, expressly or\n\nby implication, that:\n\n            a. Consumers will or are likely to earn substantial income using Raging Bull\u2019s\n\n               services even if they have little to no experience in securities trading.\n\n            b. Consumers will or are likely to earn substantial income using Raging Bull\u2019s\n\n               services even if they spend only a short amount of time each day using the\n\n               service, for example if they are trading while also working full time.\n\n            c. Consumers will or are likely to earn substantial income using Raging Bull\u2019s\n\n               services even if they start with a very small balance in their brokerage account.\n\n         109.127.       The representations set forth in Paragraph 107126 are false or misleading\n\nor were not substantiated at the time the representations were made.\n\n\n\n                                                 41\n\f      Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 304-1 Filed 03/15/22 Page 42 of 45\n\n\n\n          110.128.     Therefore, Defendants\u2019 representations as set forth in Paragraph 107126\n\nconstitute deceptive acts or practices in violation of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C.\n\n\u00a745(a).\n\n\n     VIOLATIONS OF THE RESTORE ONLINE SHOPPERS\u2019 CONFIDENCE ACT\n\n          111.129.     In 2010, Congress passed the Restore Online Shoppers\u2019 Confidence Act,\n\n15 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 8401 et seq., which became effective on December 29, 2010. Congress passed\n\nROSCA because: \u201cConsumer confidence is essential to the growth of online commerce. To\n\ncontinue its development as a marketplace, the Internet must provide consumers with clear,\n\naccurate information and give sellers an opportunity to fairly compete with one another for\n\nconsumers\u2019 business.\u201d 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 8401.\n\n          112.130.     Section 4 of ROSCA, 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 8403, generally prohibits charging\n\nconsumers for goods or services sold in transactions effected on the Internet through a negative\n\noption feature, as that term is defined in the Commission\u2019s Telemarketing Sales Rule (\u201cTSR\u201d),\n\n16 C.F.R. \u00a7 310.2(u), unless the seller: (1) clearly and conspicuously discloses all material terms\n\nof the transaction before obtaining the consumer\u2019s billing information; (2) obtains the\n\nconsumer\u2019s express informed consent before making the charge; and (3) provides a simple\n\nmechanism to stop recurring charges. 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 8403.\n\n          113.131.     The TSR defines a negative option feature as: \u201cin an offer or agreement to\n\nsell or provide any goods or services, a provision under which the consumer\u2019s silence or failure\n\nto take an affirmative action to reject goods or services or to cancel the agreement is interpreted\n\nby the seller as acceptance of the offer.\u201d 16 C.F.R. \u00a7 310.2(u).\n\n\n\n\n                                                 42\n\f      Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 304-1 Filed 03/15/22 Page 43 of 45\n\n\n\n        114.    As described in Paragraph 94113, Defendants advertise and sell Defendants\u2019\n\nservices to consumers through a negative option feature as defined by the TSR. See 16 C.F.R.\n\n\u00a7 310.2(u).\n\n        115.132.        Pursuant to Section 5 of ROSCA, 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 8404, a violation of\n\nROSCA is treated as a violation of a rule promulgated under Section 18 of the FTC Act, 15\n\nU.S.C. \u00a7 57a.\n\n\n                 Count III \u2013 Failure to Provide a Simple Cancellation Method\n\n         (Against Raging Bull, Bishop, Bond, Sherwood Ventures, and Jason Bond LLC)\n\n        116.133.       In numerous instances, as described in Paragraphs 94113 to 100119,\n\nDefendants Raging Bull, Bishop, Bond, Sherwood Ventures and Jason Bond LLC (\u201cRaging Bull\n\nDefendants\u201d) charge or attempt to charge consumers for Defendants\u2019Raging Bull\u2019s services\n\nthrough a negative option feature while failing to provide simple mechanisms for consumers to\n\nstop recurring charges from being placed on their credit card, debit card, bank account, or other\n\nfinancial account.\n\n        117.134.       The Raging Bull Defendants\u2019 acts or practices set forth in Paragraph\n\n115133 constitute a violation of Section 4(3) of ROSCA, 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 8403(3), and are therefore\n\ntreated as a violation of a rule promulgated under Section 18 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 57a.\n\n\n                                      CONSUMER INJURY\n\n        118.135.       Consumers have suffered and will continue to suffer substantial injury as a\n\nresult of Defendants\u2019 violations of the FTC Act and ROSCA. In addition, Defendants have been\n\nunjustly enriched as a result of their unlawful acts or practices. Absent injunctive relief by this\n\nCourt, Defendants are likely to continue to injure consumers, reap unjust enrichment, and harm\n\nthe public interest.\n\n\n                                                 43\n\f      Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 304-1 Filed 03/15/22 Page 44 of 45\n\n\n\n                        THE COURT\u2019S POWER TO GRANT RELIEF\n\n       119.    Section 13(b) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 53(b), empowers this Court to grant\n\ninjunctive and such other relief as the Court may deem appropriate to halt and redress violations\n\nof any provision of law enforced by the FTC. The Court, in the exercise of its equitable\n\njurisdiction, may award ancillary relief, including rescission or reformation of contracts,\n\nrestitution, the refund of monies paid, and the disgorgement of ill-gotten monies, to prevent and\n\nremedy any violation of any provision of law enforced by the FTC.\n\n       120.    Section 19 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. \u00a757b, and ROSCA, 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 8404,\n\nauthorize this Court to grant such relief as the Court finds necessary to redress injury to\n\nconsumers resulting from Defendants\u2019 violations of ROSCA, including the rescission or\n\nreformation of contracts, the refund of monies paid, the disgorgement of ill-gotten monies, and\n\nprejudgment interest.\n\n\n                                     PRAYER FOR RELIEF\n\n       Wherefore, Plaintiff FTC requests, pursuant to Sections 13(b) and 19 of the FTC Act, 15\n\nU.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 53(b) and 57b, and Section 5 of ROSCA, 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 8404, and the Court\u2019s own\n\nequitable powers, that the Court:\n\n       A.      Award Plaintiff such preliminary injunctive and ancillary relief as may be\n\nnecessary to avert the likelihood of consumer injury during the pendency of this action and to\n\npreserve the possibility of effective final relief, including temporary and preliminary injunctions,\n\nan order freezing assets, immediate access, and appointment of a receiver;\n\n       B.A.    Enter a permanent injunction to prevent future violations of the FTC Act and\n\nROSCA by Defendants; and of ROSCA by the Raging Bull Defendants;\n\n       B.      Award monetary and other relief as provided by law; and\n\n\n\n                                                 44\n\f      Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 304-1 Filed 03/15/22 Page 45 of 45\n\n\n\n       C.      Award such relief as the Court finds necessary to redress injury to consumers\n\nresulting from Defendants\u2019 violations of the FTC Act and ROSCA, rescission or reformation of\n\ncontracts, restitution, the refund of monies paid, and the disgorgement of ill-gotten monies; and\n\n       D.C.    Award Plaintiff the costs of bringing this action, as well as suchany other and\n\nadditional relief as the Court may determinedetermines to be just and proper.\n\n\n\n Dated: February 4June 11, 2021               Respectfully submitted,\n\n                                              JAMES REILLY DOLAN\n                                              Acting General Counsel\n\n\n                                              __/s/ Gordon E. Sommers__________________\n                                              /s/ Laura C. Basford\n                                              Colleen Robbins (D. Md. Temp. Bar No. 92567)\n                                              Sung W. Kim (D. Md. Temp. Bar No. 814609)\n                                              Gordon E. Sommers (D. Md. Temp. Bar No.\n                                              814431)\n                                              Laura C. Basford (D. Md. Temp. Bar No. 814888)\n                                              Federal Trade Commission\n                                              600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW\n                                              Mailstop CC-8528\n                                              Washington, DC 20580\n                                              (202) 326-2548; crobbins@ftc.gov\n                                              (202) 326-2211; skim6@ftc.gov\n                                              (202) 326-2504; gsommers@ftc.gov\n                                              (202) 326-2343; lbasford@ftc.gov\n                                              (202) 326-3395 (Facsimile)\n                                              Attorneys for Plaintiff\n                                              Federal Trade Commission\n\n\n\n\n                                                45\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2022-03-15T07:55:50.165413-07:00","document_number":"304","attachment_number":1,"pacer_doc_id":"093012331787","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Redline Version","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2022-03-15T07:47:50.594984-07:00","date_modified":"2022-08-14T07:12:28.420276-07:00","date_filed":"2022-03-15","time_filed":null,"entry_number":304,"recap_sequence_number":"2022-03-15.004","pacer_sequence_number":857,"description":"SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT against Jeffrey M. Bishop, Jason Bond, Kyle W. Dennis, Jason Bond, LLC, RagingBull.com, LLC, Sherwood Ventures, LLC, filed by Federal Trade Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Redline Version)(kk5s, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/15/2022)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/189976879/","id":189976879,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/18719211/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/195551899/","id":195551899,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/18719211/303/federal-trade-commission-v-dennis/","date_created":"2022-03-15T07:47:50.578727-07:00","date_modified":"2022-08-14T07:12:28.479565-07:00","sha1":"7020edfbe87488318a06ad2d0a2738eb112d113f","page_count":24,"file_size":1525744,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.487710/gov.uscourts.mdd.487710.303.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.mdd.487710/gov.uscourts.mdd.487710.303.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":"recap-thumbnails/gov.uscourts.mdd.487710/195551899.thumb.1068.jpeg","thumbnail_status":1,"plain_text":"             Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 303 Filed 03/15/22 Page 1 of 24\n\n\n\n                            UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n                               DISTRICT OF MARYLAND\n\n\n\nFEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,\n                                                       Case No. 1 :20-cv-03538-GLR\n        Plaintiff,\n\n        V.\nRAGINGBULL.COM, LLC, et al.,\n\n        Defendants.\n\n\n\nSTIPULATED ORDER FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION, MONETARY JUDGMENT,\nAND OTHER RELIEF AS TO RAGINGBULL.COM, LLC, SHERWOOD VENTURES,\n      LLC, JASON BOND, LLC, JEFFREY M. BISHOP AND JASON BOND\n\n       Plaintiff, the Federal Trade Commission (\"FTC\" or \"Commission\"), filed its Complaint\n\nfor Permanent Injunction, and Other Equitable Relief, subsequently amended as Amended\n\nComplaint for Permanent Injunction and Other Equitable Relief (\"Complaint\"), for a permanent\n\ninjunction and other relief in this matter, pursuant to Sections 13(b) and 19 of the Federal Trade\n\nCommission Act (\"FTC A ct\"), 15 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 53(b) and 57b, and Section 5 of the Restore Online\n\nShoppers' Confidence Act (\"ROSCA \"), 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 8404. ECF Nos. 1, 164-1. The FTC and\n\nDefendants RagingBull.com, LLC f/k/a Lighthouse Media, LLC, Sherwood Ventures, LLC,\n\nJason Bond, LLC, Jeffrey M. Bishop, and Jason Bond f/k/a Jason P. Kowalik (collectively, the\n\n\"Settling Defendants\") stipulate to the entry of this Stipulated Order for Permanent Injunction,\n\nMonetary Judgment, and Other Relief (\"Order\") to resolve all matters in dispute in this action\n\nbetween them.\n\n       THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:\n\f             Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 303 Filed 03/15/22 Page 2 of 24\n\n\n\n                                            FINDINGS\n\n        1.      This Court has jurisdiction over this matter.\n\n        2.      The Complaint charges that Defendants participated in deceptive acts or practices\n\nthat violate Section S(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 45(a), and Section 4 of ROSCA; 15 U.S.C.\n\n\u00a7 8403, in the marketing and sale of trading and investment training services, and related goods\n\nand services.\n\n        3.      The Settling; Defendants neither admit nor deny any of the allegations in the\n\nComplaint, except as specifically stated in this Order. Only for purposes of this action, the\n\nSettling Defendants admit the facts necessary to establish jurisdiction.\n\n        4.      The Settling Defendants waive any claim that they may have under the Equal\n\nAccess to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 2412, concerning the prosecution of this action through the\n\ndate of this Order, and agree to qear their own costs and attorney fees.\n\n        5.      The Settling Defendants and the FTC waive all rights to appeal or otherwise\n\nchallenge or contest the validity of this Order.\n\n                                          DEFINITIONS\n\n       For the purpose of this Order, the following definitions apply:\n\n       A.       \"Billing Information\" means any data that enables any person to access a\n\ncustomer's account, such as a credit card, checking, savings, share or similar account, utility bill,\n\nmortgage loan account, or debit card.\n\n       B.       \"Charge,\" \"Charged,\" or \"Charging\" means any attempt to collect money or\n\nother consideration from a consumer, including causing Billing Information to be submitted for\n\npayment, including against the consumer's credit card, d\u00b7ebit card, bank account, telephone bill,\n\nor other\u00b7account.\n\n\n                                                   2\n\f            Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 303 Filed 03/15/22 Page 3 of 24\n\n\n\n       C.      \"Clear(ly) and Conspicuous(ly)\" means that a required disclosure is difficult to\n\nmiss (i.e., easily noticeable) and easily understandable by ordinary consumers, including in all of\n\nthe following ways:\n\n       1.      In any communication that is solely visual or solely audible, the disclosure must\n\n       be made through the same means through which the communication is presented. In any\n\n       communication made through both visual and audible means, such as a television\n\n       advertisement, the disclosure must be presented simultaneously in both the visual and\n\n       audible portions of the communication even if the representation requiring the disclosure\n\n       is made in only one means.\n\n       2.      A visual disclosure, by its size, contrast, location, the length of time it appears,\n\n       and other characteristics, must stand out from any-accompanying text or other visual\n\n       elements so that it is easily noticed, read, and understood.\n\n       3.      An audible disclosure, including by telephone or streaming video, must be\n\n       delivered in a volume, speed, and cadence_ sufficient for ordinary consumers to easily\n\n       hear and understand it.\n\n       4.      In any communication using an interactive electronic medium, such as the\n\n       Internet or software, the disclosure must be unavoidable.\n\n       5.      The disclosure must use diction and syntax understandable to ordinary consumers\n\n       and must appear in each language in which the representation that requires the disclosure\n\n       appears.\n\n       6.      The disclosure must comply with these requirements in each medium through\n\n       which it is received, including all electronic devices and face-to-face communications.\n\n       7.      The disclosure must not be contradicted or mitigated by, or inconsistent with,\n\n\n\n                                                  3\n\f             Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 303 Filed 03/15/22 Page 4 of 24\n\n\n\n        anything else in the communication.\n\n        8.      When the representation or sales practice targets a specific audience, such as\n\n        children, the elderly, or the terminally ill, \"ordinary consumers\" includes reasonable\n\n        members of that group.\n\n        D.      \"Corporate Defendant(s)\" means RagingBull.com, LLC f/k/a Lighthouse Media,\n\n LLC, Sherwood Ventures, LLC, Jason Bond, LLC, and each of their subsidiaries, affiliates,\n\n successors, and assigns.\n\n        E.      \"Defendant(s)\" means Corporate Defendants and Individual Defendants (as\n\n defined below), individually, collectively, or in any combination.\n\n        F.      \"Earnings Claim\" means any representation to consumers, specific or general,\n\n about income, financial gains, percentage gains, profit, net profit, gross profit, or return on\n\n investment. Earnings Claims include, but are not limited to: (a) the details of specific profitable\n\n trades, whether actual or hypothetical; (b) references to quitting one's job, not having to work, or\n\n\u00b7 living off of income from trading; (c) references to increased purchases or savings, including a\n\n home, vacations, or travel; (d) claims that consumers will not lose money if they use a particular\n\ntrading strategy; (e) claims that profits are likely, probable, or the \"mathematical\" result of\n\napplying a particular trading strategy; and (f) any representation, even hypothetical, of how much\n\nmoney a consumer could or would earn.\n\n        G.      \"Individual Defendant(s)\" means Jeffrey M. Bishop, Jason Bond flk/a Jason P.\n\nKowalik, and Kyle W. Dennis, individually, collectively, or in any combination.\n\n        H.      \"Negative Option Feature\" means, in an offer or agreement to sell or provide\n\nany good or service, a provision under which the consumer's silence or failure to take affirmative\n\naction to reject a good or service or to cancel the agreement is interpreted by the seller or\n\n\n                                                 . 4\n\f             Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 303 Filed 03/15/22 Page 5 of 24\n\n\n\nprovider as acceptance or continuing acceptance of the offer.\n\n        I.      \"Settling Corporate Defendants\" means RagingBull.com, LLC \u00a3'k/a Lighthouse\n\nMedia, LLC, Sherwood Ventures, LLC, Jason Bond, LLC, and each of their subsidiaries,\n\naffiliates, successors, and assigns.\n\n        J.      \"Settling Defendants\" means the Settling Corporate Defendants and the Settling\n\nIndividual Defendants.\n\n        K.      \"Settling Individual Defendants\" means Jeffrey M. Bishop and Jason Bond \u00a3'k/a\n\nJason P. Kowalik.\n\n        L.      \"Telemarketing\" means any plan, program, or campaign which is conducted to\n\ninduce the purchase of goods or services by use of one or more telephones, and which involves a\n\ntelephone call, whether or not covered by the Telemarketing Sales Rule.\n\n                                             ORDER\n\nI.      PROHIBITION CONCERNING EARNINGS CLAIMS\n\n        IT IS ORDERED that Settling Defendants, Settling Defendants' officers, agents,\n\nemployees, and attorneys, and all other persons in active concert or participation with any of\n\nthem, who receive actual notice of this Order, whether acting directly or indirectly,\n                                                                               '      in connection\n\nwith promoting or offering for sale any good or service, are permanently restrained and enjoined\n\nfrom making any Earnings Claims or assisting others in making any Earnings Claim, expressly\n\nor by implication, unless:\n\n     A. The Earnings Claim is non-misleading;\n\n     B. At the time the Earnings Claim is made, Settling Defendants:\n\n                I.     have a reasonable basis for the claim;\n\n\n\n\n                                                 5\n\f             Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 303 Filed 03/15/22 Page 6 of 24\n\n\n\n                2.     have in their possession written materials that substantiate the claimed\n\nearnings and that the claimed earnings are typical for consumers similarly situated to those to\n\nwhom the claim is made; and\n\n                3.     make the written substantiation available upon request to the consumer,\n\npotential purchaser, and the FTC; and\n\n      C. Any earnings of the Settling Defendants that form the basis for the Earnings Claim were\n\nachieved in compliance with the law.\n\nII.     PROHIBITION AGAINST MISREPRESENTATIONS\n\n        IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Settling Defendants, Settling Defendants' officers,\n\nagents, employees, arid attorneys, and all other persons in active concert or participation with any\n\nof them; who receive actual notice of this Order, whether acting directly or indirectly, in\n\nconnection with the advertising, marketing, promoting, offering for sale, or selling of any good\n\nor service, are permanently restrained and enjoined from misrepresenting or assisting others in\n\nmisrepresenting, expressly or by implication:\n\n        A.      The level of experience required for consumers to effectively use Settling\n\nDefendants' goods or services;\n\n        B.      The time or effort required for consumers to effectively use Settling Defendants'\n\ngoods or services;\n\n        C.     The amount of capital required for consumers to effectively use Settling\n\nDefendants' goods or services;\n\n        D.     Any material aspect of the nature or terms of a refund, cancellation, or exchange\n\npolicy for the good or service; or\n\n        E.     Any other fact material to consumers concerning any good or service, such as: the\n\n\n                                                 6\n\f             Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 303 Filed 03/15/22 Page 7 of 24\n\n\n\ntotal costs; any material restrictio.ns, limitations, or conditions; or any material aspect of its\n\nperformance, efficacy, nature, or central characteristics.\n\nIII.    REQUIRED DISCLOSURES RELATING TO NEGATIVE OPTION FEATURE\n\n        IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Settling Defendants, Settling Defendants' officers,\n\nagents, employees, and attorneys, and all other persons in active concert or participation with any\n\nof them, who receive actual notice of this Order, whether acting directly or indirectly, in\n\nconnection with promoting or offering for sale any good or service with a Negative Option\n\nFeature, are permanently restrained and enjoined from:\n\n        A.      Representing directly or indirectly, expressly or by implication, that any good or\n\nservice that includes a Negative Option Feature is being offered on a free, trial, no obligation,\n\nreduced, or discounted basis, without disclosing Clearly and Conspicuously, and immediately\n\nadjacent to, any such representation:\n\n                1.      The extent to which the consumer must take any affirmative action to\n\navoid any Charges: a) for the offered good or service, b) of an increased amount after the trial or\n\npromotional period ends, and c) on a recurring basis;\n\n                2.      The total cost (or range of costs) the consumer will be Charged and, if\n\napplicable, the frequency of such Charges unless the consumer timely takes steps to prevent or\n\nstop such Charges; and\n\n                3.     The deadline(s) (by date or frequency) by which the consumer must\n\naffirmatively act in order to stop all recurring Charges.\n\n       B.       Obtaining Billing Information from a consumer for any transaction involving a\n\ngood or service that includes a Negative Option Feature, without first disclosing Clearly and\n\nConspicuously, and immediately adjacent to where a consumer provides Billing Information:\n\n                1.     The extent to which the consumer must take affirmative action to avoid\n                                                   7\n\f             Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 303 Filed 03/15/22 Page 8 of 24\n\n\n\nany Charges: a) for the offered good or service, b) of an increased amount after the trial or\n\npromotional period ends, and c) on a recurring basis;\n\n                2.     The total cost (or range of costs) the consumer will be Charged, the date\n\nthe initial Charge will be submitted for payment, and, if applicable, the frequency of such\n\nCharges unless the consumer timely takes affirmative steps to prevent or stop such Charges;\n\n                3.     The deadline(s) (by date or frequency) by which the consumer must\n\naffirmatively act in order to stop all recurring Charges;\n\n                4.     The name of the seller or provider of the good or service and, if the name\n\nof the seller or provider will not appear on billing statements, the billing descriptor that will\n\nappear on such statements;\n\n                5.     A description of the good or service;\n\n                6.     Any Charge or cost for which the consumer is responsible in connection\n\nwith th_e cancellation of an order, any service or the return of any good;\n\n                7.     The simple cancellation mechanism to stop any recurring Charges, as\n\nrequired by this Order.\n\n        C.      Failing to send the consumer:\n\n                1.     Immediately after the consumer's submission of an online order, written\n\nconfirmation of the transaction by. email. The email must Clearly and Conspicuously disclose all\n\nthe information required by Subsection B, and contain a subject line reading \"Order\n\nConfirmation\" along with the name of the good or service, and no additional information; or\n\n                2.     Within 2 days after receipt of the consumer's order by mail or telephone, a\n\nwritten confirmation of the transaction, either by email or first class mail. The email or letter\n\nmust Clearly and Conspicuously disclose all the information required by Subsection B. The\n\n\n                                                  8\n\f            Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 303 Filed 03/15/22 Page 9 of 24\n\n\n\nsubject line of the email must Clearly and Conspicuously state \"Order Confirmation\" along with\n\nthe name of the good or service, and nothing else. The outside of the envelope must Clearly and\n\nConspicuously state \"Order Confirmation\" along with the name of the product or service, and\nno\n                                                                                                     n\n   additional information other than the consumer's address, the Defendant's returaddress, and\n\npostage.OBTAINING EXPRESS INFORMED CONSENT FOR A NEGATIVE OPTION\nIV.\n\n       IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Settling Defendants, Settling Defendants' officers,\n\nagents, employees, and attorneys, and all other persons in active concert or participation with any\n\nof them, who receive actual notice of this Order, whether acting directly or indirectly, in\n\nconnection with promoting or offering for sale any good or service with a Negative Option\n\nFeature, are permanently restrained and enjoined from using; or assisting others in using, Billing\n\nInformation to obtain payment from a consumer, unless Settling Defendants first obtain the\n\nexpress informed consent of the consumer to do so. To obtain express informed consent,\n\nSettling Defendants must:\n\n       A.      For all written offers (including over the Internet, such as through a web-based\n\napplication), obtain consent through a check box, signature, or other substantially similar\n\nmethod, which the consumer must affirmatively select or sign to accept the Negative Option\n\nFeature, and no other portion of the offer. Settling Defendants shall disclose Clearly and\n\nConspicuously, and immediately adjacent to such check box, signature, or substantially similar\n\nmethod of affirmative consent, only the following, with no additional information:\n\n               1.      The extent to which the consumer must take affirmative action to avoid\n\nany Charges: a) for the offered good or service, b) of an increased amount after the trial or\n\npromotional period ends, and c) on a recurring basis;\n\n\n                                                 9\n\f            Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 303 Filed 03/15/22 Page 10 of 24\n\n\n\n               2.      The total cost (or range of costs) the consumer will be Charged and, if\n\napplicable, the frequency of such Charges unless the consumer timely takes affirmative steps to\n\nprevent or stop such Charges; and\n\n               3.      The deadline(s) (by date or frequency) by which the consumer must\n\naffirmatively act in order to stop all recurring Charges.\n\n       B.      For all oral offers, prior to obtaining any Billing Information from the consumer:\n\n               1.      Clearly and Conspicuously disclose the information contained in\n\nSubsection B of the Section titled Required Disclosures Relating To Negative Option Feature;\n\nand\n\n               2.      Obtain affirmative unambiguous express oral confirmation that the\n\nconsumer: a) consents to being Charged for any good or service, including providing, at a\n\nminimum, the last 4 digits of the consumer's account number to be Charged, b) understands that\n\nthe transaction includes a Negative Option Feature, and c) understands the specific affirmative\n\nsteps the consumer must take to prevent or stop further Charges.\n\n       C.      For transactions conducted through Telemarketing, Settling Defendants shall\n\nmaintain for 3 years from the date of each transaction an unedited voice recording of the entire\n\ntransaction, including the prescribed statements set out in Subsection B of this Section. Each\n\nrecording must be retrievable by date and by the consumer's name, telephone number, or Billing\n\nInformation, and must be provided upon request to the consumer, the consumer's bank, or any\n\nlaw enforcement entity.\n\nV.     SIMPLE MECHANISM TO CANCEL NEGATIVE OPTION FEATURE\n\n       IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Settling Defendants, Settling Defendants' officers,\n\nagents, employees, attorneys, and all other persons in active concert or participation with any of\n\nthem, who receive actual notice of this Order, whether acting directly or indirectly, in connection\n                                                 10\n\f             Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 303 Filed 03/15/22 Page 11 of 24\n\n\n\nwith promoting or offering for sale any good or service with a Negative Option Feature, are\n\npermanently restrained and enjoined from:\n\n        A.      Fail\\ng to provide a simple mechanism for the consumer to: (1) avoid being\n\nCharged, or Charged an increased amount, for the good or service and (2) immediately stop any\n\nrecurring Charges. Such mechanism must not be difficult, costly, confusing, or time consuming,\n\nand must be at least as simple as the mechanism the consumer used to initiate the Charge(s).\n\n        B.      For consumers who entered into the agreement to purchase a good or service\n\nincluding a Negative Option Feature over the Internet, such as through a web-based application,\n\nSettling Defendants must provide a mechanism, accessible on the same Internet website or\n\nthrough the same web-based application, that consumers can easily use to cancel the product or\n\nservice and to immediately stop all further Charges.\n\n        C.      For consumers who entered into the agreement to purchase a good or service\n\nincluding a Negative Option Feature through an oral offer and acceptance, Settling Defendants\n\nmust:\n\n                1.     Maintain a telephone number that consumers can easily use to cancel the\n\nproduct or service and to immediately stop all further Charges. Settling Defendants must assure\n\nthat all calls to this telephone number are answered during normal business hours and that\n\nconsumers are not placed on hold longer than consumers who call to initiate the Charges or at the\n\nlongest, 10 minutes. Settling Defendants must also assure that any voicemails from consumers\n\nare returned within no more than I business day;\n\n                2.     Maintain a postal address that consumers can easily use to cancel the\n\nproduct or service and to immediately stop all further Charges and that mail to the postal address\n\nis read and addressed regularly; and\n\n\n                                                11\n\f               Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 303 Filed 03/15/22 Page 12 of 24\n\n\n\n                  3.     Provide a mechanism, accessible on the Internet, that consumers can easily\n\nuse to cancel the product or service and to immediately stop all further Charges.\n\n                                 VI.     MONETARY JUDGMENT\n          IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:\n\n          A.      Judgment in the amount of Two Million Four Hundred and Twenty-five\n\nThousand Dollars ($2,425,000) is entered in favor of the Commission against the Settling\n\nDefendants, jointly and severally, for monetary relief.\n\n          B.      Settling Defendants are ordered to pay Two Million Four Hundred and Twenty-\n\nfive Thousand Dollars ($2,425,000) to the Commission, which, as Settling Defendants stip\u00b5late,\n\ntheir undersigned counsel holds in escrow for no purpose other than payment to the Commission.\n\nSuch payment must be made within 7 days of entry of this Order by electronic fund transfer in\n\naccordance with instructions previously provided by a representative of the Commission.\n\n                        VII.   ADDITIONAL MONETARY PROVISIONS\n\n          IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:\n\n          A.      Settling Defendants relinquish dominion and all legal and equitable right, title,\n\nand interest in all assets transferred pursuant to this Order and may not seek the return of any\n\nassets.\n\n          B,      The facts alleged in the Complaint will be taken as true, without further proof, in\n\nany subsequent civil litigation by or on behalf of the Commission, including in a proceeding to\n\nenforce its rights to any payment or monetary judgment pursuant to this Order, such as a\n\nnondischargeability complaint in any bankruptcy case.\n\n          C.      The facts alleged in the Complaint establish all elements necessary to sustain an\n\naction by the Commission pursuant to Section 523(a)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C.\n\n\u00a7 523(a)(2)(A), and this Order will have collateral estoppel effect for such purposes.\n                                                   12\n\f              Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 303 Filed 03/15/22 Page 13 of 24\n\n\n\n        D.       Settling Defendants acknowledge that their Taxpayer Identification Numbers\n\n(Social Security Numbers or Employer Identification Numbers), which Settling Defendants\n\npreviously submitted to the Commission, may be used for collecting-and reporting on any\n\ndelinquent amount arising out of this Order, in accordance with 31 U.S.C. \u00a77701.\n\n        E.       All money received by the Commission pursuant to this Order may be deposited\n\ninto a fund administered by the Com11,1ission or its designee to be used for consumer relief, such\n\nas redress and any attendant expenses for the administration of any redress fund. If a\n\nrepresentative of the Commission decides that direct redress to consumers is wholly or partially\n\nimpracticable or money remains after such redress is completed, the Commission may apply any\n\nremaining money for such related relief (including consumer information remedies) as it\n\ndetermines to be reasonably related to Settling Defendants' practices alleged in the Complaint.\n\nAny money not _used for relief is to be deposited to the U.S. Treasury. Settling Defendants have\n\nno right to challenge any actions the Commission or its representatives may take pursuant to this\n\nSubsection.\n\n                              VIII. CUSTOMER INFORMATION\n\n        IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Settling Defendants, their officers, agents, employees,\n\nand attorneys, and all other persons in active concert or participation with any of them, who\n\nreceive actual notice of this Order, are permanently restrained and enjoined from directly or\n\nindirectly:\n\n        A.       failing to provide sufficient customer information to enable the Commission to\n\nefficiently administer consumer redress. If a representative of the Commission requests in\n\nwriting any information related to redress, Settling Defendants must provide it, in the form\n\nprescribed by the Commission, within 14 days; and\n\n\n                                                 13\n\f               Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 303 Filed 03/15/22 Page 14 of 24\n\n\n\n          B.      disclosing, using, or benefitting from customer information, including the name,\n\naddress, telephone number, email address, Social Security 11umber, other identifying information, \u00b7\n\nor any data that enables access to a customer's account (including a credit card, bank account, or\n\nother financial account), that any Defendant obtained prior to entry of this Order in connection\n\nwith any activity involving or related to the sale of any trading or investment training service.\n\n          Provided, however, that customer information need not be disposed of, and may be\n\ndisclosed: (1) to the extent requested by a government agency or required by law, regulation, or\n\ncourt order; and (2) to companies that provide services to Corporate Defendants related to\n\ntrading or investment training programs, to the extent that such persons have provided written\n\nconsent for their identifying information to be provided to such companies. Such written consent\n\nwill not be valid for purposes of this Order unless Corporate Defendants have\u00b7 identified to the\n\nperson the name of the company that will receive the identifying information and the reason the\n\ninformation is being shared, prior to the person's execution of the written consent.\n\n                                IX.    NO'.I'ICE TO CUSTOMERS\n\n          IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, within 7 days of entry of this Order, Settling\n\nDefendants shall email notice in the form shown in Attachment A to all persons who purchased\n\nSettling Defendants' services of any type at any time between December 7, 2017, and the date of\n\nthe entry of this Order with the subject line \"What the FTC Settlement Means for Raging Bull\n\nCustomers.\" Within 15 days of entry of this Order, Settling Defendants shall mail the form\n\nshown in Attachment A via first-class mail, postage prepaid with address forwarding requested,\n\nto the last known mailing address of any intended email recipient whose emailed message\n\ndelivery fails. No information other than that contained in Attachment A shaUbe included in or\n\nadded to the notice required by this Section, nor shall any other materials be transmitted with the\n\nnotice.\n                                                  14\n\f            Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 303 Filed 03/15/22 Page 15 of 24\n\n\n\n                                     X.     COOPERATION\n\n        IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Settling Defendants must fully cooperate with\n\nrepresentatives of the Commission in this case and in any investigation related to or associated\n\nwith the transactions or the occurrences that are the subject of the Complaint. Settling\n\nDefendants must provide truthful and complete information, evidence, and testimony. Settling\n\nIndividual Defendants must appear, and Corporate Defendants must cause their officers,\n\nemployees, representatives, or agents to appear for interviews, discovery, hearings, trials, and\n\nany other proceedings that a Commission representative may reasonably request upon 5 days\n\nwritten notice, or other reasonable notice, at such places and times as a Commission\n\nrepresentative may designate, without the service of a subpoena.\n\n                              XI.    MONITOR TERMINATION\n\n        IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the monitorship of Affiliated Monitors, Inc. shall\n\nterminate immediately upon entry of this Order. Affiliated Monitors, Inc. shall serve on Raging\n\nBull a final application for fees and expenses within 14 days after entry of this Order.\n\n                           XII.     ORDER ACKNOWLEDGMENTS\n\n       IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Settling Defendants obtain acknowledgments of\n\nreceipt of this Order:\n\n       A.      Each Settling Defendant, within 7 days of entry of this Order, must submit to the\n\nCommission an acknowledgment of receipt of this Order sworn under pen\u00b7alty of perjury.\n\n       B.      For 10 years after entry of this Order, each Settling Individual Defendant for any\n\nbusiness that such Defendant, individually or collectively with any other Defendants, is the\n\nmajority owner or controls directly or indirectly, and each Settling Corporate Defendant\u00b7must\n\ndeliver a copy of this Order to: (1) all principals, officers, directors, and LLC managers and\n\nmembers; (2) all employees having managerial responsibilities for conduct related to the subject\n                                                15\n\f             Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 303 Filed 03/15/22 Page 16 of 24\n\n\n\nmatter of the Order and all agents and representatives who participate in conduct related to the\n\nsubject matter of the Order; and (3) any business entity resulting from any change in structure\n\nas set forth in the Section titled Compliance Reporting. Delivery must occur within 7 days of\n\nentry cifthis Order for current personnel. For all others, delivery must occur before they assume\n\ntheir responsibilities.\n\n        C.      From each individual or entity to which a Settling Defendant delivered a copy of\n\nthis Order, that Settling Defendant must obtain, within 30 days, a signed and dated\n\nacknowledgment of receipt of this Order.\n\n                               XIII. COMPLIANCE REPORTING\n\n        IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Settling Defendants make timely submissions to the\n\nCommission:\n\n        A.      One year after entry of this Order, each Settling Defendant must submit a\n\ncompliance report, sworn under penalty of perjury:\n\n                I.        Each Settling Defendant must: (a) identify the primary physical, postal,\n\nand email address and telephone number, as designatecj points of contact, which representatives\n\nof the Commission may use to communicate with Settling Defendant; (b) identify all of that\n\nSettling Defendant's businesses by all of their names, telephone numbers, and physical, postal,\n\nemail, and Internet addresses; (c) describe the activities of each business, including the goods\n\nand services offered, the means of advertising, marketing, and sales, and the involvement of any\n\nother Defendant (which each Settling Individual Defendant must describe if he knows or should\n\nknow due to his own involvement); (d) describe in detail whether and how that Settling\n\nDefendant is in compliance with each Section of.this Order; and (e) provide a copy of each Order\n\nAcknowledgment obtained pursuant to this Order, unless previously submitted to the\n\n\n                                                  16\n\f             Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 303 Filed 03/15/22 Page 17 of 24\n\n\n\nCommission.\n\n                2. \u00b7    Additionally, each Settling Individual Defendant must: (a) identify all\n\ntelephone numbers and all physical, postal, email and Internet addresses, including all\n\nresidences; (b) identify all business activities, including any business for which each Settling\n\nIndividual Defendant performs services whether as an employee or otherwise and any entity in\n\nwhich each Settling Individual Defendant has any ownership interest; and (c) describe in detail\n\nhis involvement in each such business, including title, role, responsibilities, participation,\n\nauthority, control, and any ownership.\n\n        B.      For 10 years after entry of this Order, each Settling Defendant must submit a\n\ncompliance notice, sworn under penalty of perjury, within 14 days of any change in the\n\nfollowing:\n\n                I.     Each Settling Defendant must report any change in: (a) any designated\n\npoint of contact; or (b) the structure of any Settling Corporate Defendant or any entity that a\n\nSettling Defendant has any ownership interest in or controls directly or indirectly that may affect\n\ncompliance obligations arising under this Order, including: creation, merger, sale, or dissolution\n\nof the entity or any subsidiary, parent, or affiliate that engages in any acts or practices subject to\n\nthis Order.\n\n                2.     Additionally, each Settling Individual Defendant must report any change\n\nm: (a) name, including aliases or fictitious name, or residence address; or (b) title or role in any\n\nbusiness activity, including any business for which he performs services whether as an employee\n\nor otherwise and any entity in which he has any ownership interest, and identify the name,\n\nphysical address, and any Internet address of the business or entity.\n\n       C.       Each Settling Defendant must submit to the Commission notice of the filing of\n\n\n                                                  17\n\f              Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 303 Filed 03/15/22 Page 18 of 24\n\n\n\n any bankruptcy petition, insolvency proceeding, or similar proceeding by or against such Settling\n\n Defendant within 14 days of its filing.\n\n         D.Any submission to the Commission required by this Order to be sworn under\n\n penalty of perjury must be true and accurate and comply with 28 u:s.C. \u00a7 1746, such as by\n\n concluding: \"I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America\n\n that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on:         \"and supplying the date, signatory's\n\n full name, title (if applicable), and signature.\n\n         E.      Unless otherwise directed_by a Commission representative in writing, all\n\n submissions to the Commission pursuant to this Order must be emailed to DEbrief@ftc.gov or\n\n sent by overnight courier (not the U.S. Postal Service) to: Associate Director for Enforcement,\n\n\u00b7 Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW,\n\n Washington, DC 20580. The subject line must begin: FTC v. RagingBull.com, LLC, et al.,\n\n X210014 (Bishop and Bond Defendants).\n\n                                     XIV. RECORDKEEPING\n\n        IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Settling Defendants must create certain records for 10\n\n years after entry of the Order and retain each such record for 5 years. Specifically, Settling\n\n Corporate Defendants and each Settling Individual Defendant for any business that he,\n\n individually or collectively with any other Defendants, is a majority owner or controls directly or\n\n indirectly, must create and retain the following records:\n\n        A.       accounting records showing the revenues from all goods or services sold;\n\n        B.       personnel records showing, for each person providing services, whether as an\n\n employee or otherwise, that person's: name; addresses; telephone numbers; job title or position;\n\n dates of service; and (if applicable) the reason for termination;\n\n\n                                                    18\n\f               Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 303 Filed 03/15/22 Page 19 of 24\n\n\n\n          C.      records of all consumer complaints and refund requests, whether received directly\n\nor indirectly, such as through a third party, and any response;\n\n          D.      all records necessary to demonstrate full compliance with each provision of this\n\nOrder, including all submissions to the Commission; and\n\n          E.      a copy of each unique advertisement or other marketing material.\n\n                              XV.      COMPLIANCE MONITORING\n\n          IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, for the purpose of monitoring Settling Defendants'\n\ncompli ance with this Order, and any failure to transfer any assets as required by this Order\n\n          A.      Within 14 days of receipt of a written request from a representative of the\n\nCommission, each Settling Defendant must: submit additional compliance reports or other\n\nrequested information, which must be sworn under penalty of perjury; appear for depositions;\n\nand produce documents for inspection and copying. The Commission is also authorized to\n\nobtain discovery, without further leave of court, using any of the procedures prescribed by\n\nFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 29, 30 (including telephonic depositions), 31, 33, 34, 36, 45,\n\nand 69.\n\n          B.      For matters concerning this Order, the Commission is authorized to communicate\n\ndirectly with each Settling Defendant. Settling Defendants must permit representatives of the\n\nCommission to interview      any   employee or other person affiliated with any Defendant who has\n\nagreed to such an interview. The person interviewed may have counsel present.\n\n          C.      The Commission may use all other lawful means, including posing, through its\n\nrepresentatives as consumers, suppliers, or other individuals or entities, to Settling Defendants or\n\nany individual or entity affiliated with Settling Defendants, without the necessity of\n\n\n\n\n                                                   19\n\f            Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 303 Filed 03/15/22 Page 20 of 24\n\n\n\nidentification or prior notice. Nothing in this Order limits the Commission's lawful use of\n\ncompulsory process, pursuant to Sections 9 and 20 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 49, 57b-l .\n\n       D.      Upon written request from a representative of the Commission any. consumer\n\nreporting agency must furnish consumer reports concerning Jeffrey M. Bishop or Jason Bond,\n\npursuant to Section 604(1) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U:S.C. \u00a71681b(a)(l ).\n\n                          XVI. RETENTION OF JURISDICTION\n\n       IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Court retains jurisdiction of this matter for\n\npurposes of construction, modification, and enforcement of this Order.\n\nSO ORDERED, this /6/kay of         )114,-\ufffd          , 2022.\n\n\n\n\n                                             George L. Russell, III\n                                             United States District Judge\n\n\n\n\n                                               20\n\f      Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 303 Filed 03/15/22 Page 21 of 24\n\n\n\nSO STIPULATED AND AGREED:\n\n\n\nFOR FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION:\n                                FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION\nDate: _March 7, 2022___\n                                J. Reilly Dolan\n                                Acting General Counsel\n\n\n\n                                Colleen Robbins\n                                SungW. Kim\n                                Gordon E. Sommers\n                                Laura C. Basford\n                                Federal Trade Commission\n                                600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW\n                                Mailstop CC-8528\n                                Washington, DC 20580\n                                (202) 326-2548; crobbins@ftc.gov\n                                (202) 326-2211; skim6@ftc.gov\n                                (202) 326-2504; gsommers@ftc.gov\n                                (202) 326-2343; lbasford@ftc.gov\n                                (202) 326-3395 (Facsimile)\n\n                                Attorneys for Plaintiff\n                                Federal Trade Commission\nFOR SETTLING INDIVIDUAL\nDEFENDANTS:\n\nDate: ____                       JEFFREY M. BISHOP\n\n\n                                Jeffrey M. Bishop, individually\n\n\n\n\nDate: ____                      JASON BOND\n\n\n                                Jason Bond, individually\n\n\n\n\n                                  21\n\fDocuSign Envelope ID: 9E7C954C-945A-4945-B3B7-4C3FFD2582D5\n                       Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 303 Filed 03/15/22 Page 22 of 24\n\n\n\n            SO STIPULATED AND AGREED:\n\n\n\n            FOR FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION:\n\n            Date: ____                                       FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION\n                                                             J. Reilly Dolan\n                                                             Acting General Counsel\n\n\n\n                                                              Colleen Robbins\n                                                             .SungW. Kim\n                                                              Gordon E. Sommers\n                                                              Laura C. Basford\n                                                              Federal Trade Commission\n                                                              600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW\n                                                              Mailstop CC-8528\n                                                              Washington, DC 20580\n                                                              (202) 326-2548; crobbins@ftc.gov\n                                                              (202) 326-2211; skim6@ftc.gov\n                                                              (202) 326-2504; gsommers@ftc.gov\n                                                              (202) 326-2343; lbasford@ftc.gov\n                                                              (202) 326-3395 (Facsimile)\n                                                             Attorneys for Plaintiff\n                                                             Federal Trade Commission\n             FOR SETTLING INDIVIDUAL\n             DEFENDANTS:\n                     1/3/2022\n             Date:\n\n\n\n\n                     1/3/2022\n             Date:   ----                                    JASON B      Dus,,,.. ,,,\n                                                                       \ufffd\n                                                                       jt1,l61A, &6\\A,J,\n                                                                          F90CC870BE494C5\n                                                             Jason Bond, individually\n\n\n\n\n                                                                21\n\fDocuSign Envelope ID: 9E7C954C-945A-4945-B3B7-4C3FFD2582D5\n                       Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 303 Filed 03/15/22 Page 23 of 24\n\n\n\n              FOR SETTLING CORPORATE\n              DEFENDANTS:\n\n\n\n              Date: _Jan, 2, 2022.____                            __ls/David G. Barger______\n                                                                  David G. Barger (DCB# 469095) Greenberg\n                                                                  Traurig LLP\n                                                                  1750 Tysons Blvd.\n                                                                  Suite 1200\n                                                                  McLean, VA 22102\n                                                                  Tel: (703) 749-1300\n                                                                  Email: bargerd@gtlaw.com\n                                                                  Andrew G. Berg\n                                                                  2101 L Street, N.W.\n                                                                  Greenberg Traurig LLP\n                                                                  Suite 1000\n                                                                  Washington DC 2003 7\n                                                                  Tel: (202) 331- 3100\n                                                                  Email: berga@gtlaw.com\n                                                                  Miriam G. Bahcall\n                                                                  Brett M. Doran\n                                                                  Greenberg Traurig, LLP\n                                                                  77 West Wacker Drive\n                                                                  Suite 3100\n                                                                  Chicago, IL 60601\n                                                                  Tel: (312) 476-5135\n                                                                  Email: bahcallm@gtlaw.com\n                                                                  Email: doranb@gtlaw.com\n\n                                                              Attorneys for RagingBull.com, LLC, Jeffrey\n                                                              M. Bishop, Jason Bond, Sherwood Ventures,\n                                                              LLC, Jason Bond, LLC\n\n\n\n              Date: 1/3/2022                                                   'J.D::t\ufffd:r:'f\n                                                              'M...-., B\"'.lS\ufffdh.--'-                                   -\n                                                                                       s?r,.?oessoees ..,,e.,.e1\"'\u2022...1--\n                                                                                    \ufffd-\ufffd..                                 -- Jeffrey\n                                                                                op\n                                                              CEO/Owner ofRagingBull.com, LLC and\n                                                              Sherwood Ventures, LLC\n                                                                           GOoo,Slg\"'d by,\n\n\n\n                                                              .s---.--..,,__J_,\ufffd'\"';\ufffd\"\"!*\"'\"'\ufffd,..b. .,.\ufffd\n                                                                                                       , .,!,\"\"\u00b7\u00b7 \u00b7-----Jason\n                                                              Bond\n                                                              Owner/Officer ofRagingBull.com, LLC and\n                                                              Jason Bond LLC\n\n\n                                                             22\n\f          Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 303 Filed 03/15/22 Page 24 of 24\n\n\n\n                                      ATTACHMENT A\n\nSubject: Raging Bull Settlement of FTC Deception Case\nDear <Customer>:\nBecause our records show you've been a customer, we're writing to tell you that the Federal\nTrade Commission (FTC), the nation's consumer protection agency, has sued and reached a\nsettlement with Raging Bull. The FTC says our claims were deceptive because we didn't have\nevidence that people were likely to earn what we said they could.\n\nTo settle the case, Raging Bull and its co-fou.nders Jeff Bishop and Jason Bond have agreed to a\ncourt order that changes how we'll do business:\n\n  \u2022 We will not make claims about earnings without written proof. Ifwe make claims about\n    how much people can earn or say things like \"double your money,\" we must have written\n    proof that a typical customer would get that kind of result. It also means we can't use\n    testimonials or example trades that would lead you to believe those experiences are typical\n    unless we have written proof that they are.\n\n  \u2022 We will also not make other claims about the typical experience using our services\n    without written proof. That includes what you'd need to use our services successfully,\n    including the amount of time, starting money, or.experience.\n\n  \u2022 We will offer an easy way for people to cancel online subscriptions. If you pay for a\n    subscription online, you'll have a clear and simple way to cancel your subscription and\n    prevent recurring charges.\nWhat you should know about investment-related offers\n\nBefore you purchase any investment-related service or any offer that includes claims about\n\nearnings, the FTC encourages you to\n\n   \u2022   Take your time.\n   \u2022   Avoid high-pressure sales pitches that require you to act now or risk losing out.\n   \u2022   Be skeptical about success stories and testimonials.\n   \u2022   Do your research. Search online for the company's name plus words like \"review,\"\n       \"scam,\" or \"complaint.\"\n       Sincerely,\n\n       [signature for Raging Bull, Jason Bond, and Jeff Bishop]\n\n\n       [RagingBull.com, LLC, Jeffrey M. Bishop, Jason Bond]\n\n                                              23\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2022-03-15T07:53:56.445637-07:00","document_number":"303","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"093012331755","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2022-03-15T07:47:50.565212-07:00","date_modified":"2022-08-14T07:12:28.471210-07:00","date_filed":"2022-03-15","time_filed":null,"entry_number":303,"recap_sequence_number":"2022-03-15.005","pacer_sequence_number":853,"description":"Stipulated ORDER for Permanent Injunction, Monetary Judgment, and Other Relief as to Ragingbull.com, LLC, Sherwood Ventures, LLC, Jason Bond, LLC, Jeffrey M. Bishop and Jason Bond. Signed by Judge George Levi Russell, III on 3/15/2022. (kk5s, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/15/2022)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/189976878/","id":189976878,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/18719211/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/195551898/","id":195551898,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/18719211/302/federal-trade-commission-v-dennis/","date_created":"2022-03-15T07:47:50.549840-07:00","date_modified":"2022-08-14T07:12:28.494739-07:00","sha1":"c02415e975bfbdc9c2b21bc59b5d3fc9de43ed31","page_count":8,"file_size":40611,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.487710/gov.uscourts.mdd.487710.302.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.mdd.487710/gov.uscourts.mdd.487710.302.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"        Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 302 Filed 03/15/22 Page 1 of 8\n\n\n\n                    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n                       FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND\n\nFEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,                  *\n\n      Plaintiff,                           *\n\nv.                                         *          Civil Action No. GLR-20-3538\n\nKYLE W. DENNIS, et al.,                    *\n\n      Defendants.                          *\n\n                                         ***\n                                        ORDER\n\n      THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant Kyle W. Dennis\u2019s Motion to\n\nDismiss Plaintiff Federal Trade Commission\u2019s (\u201cFTC\u201d) Amended Complaint and to Strike\n\nthe Amended Complaint\u2019s Request for Monetary Relief (ECF No. 225) and the FTC\u2019s\n\nMotion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint (ECF No. 241). The Motions are ripe for\n\ndisposition, and no hearing is necessary. See Local Rule 105.6 (D.Md. 2021). For the\n\nreasons set forth below, the Court will deny Dennis\u2019s Motion to Dismiss and grant the\n\nFTC\u2019s Motion for Leave to file a second amended complaint.\n\n      This case has a lengthy procedural history, which the Court will condense. On\n\nDecember 7, 2020, the FTC filed suit against Defendants RagingBull.com (\u201cRaging Bull\u201d),\n\nLLC, Jeffrey M. Bishop, Kyle W. Dennis, Jason Bond, MFA Holdings Corp., Jason Bond,\n\nLLC, Winston Corp., Winston Research, Inc., and Sherwood Ventures, LLC. (ECF No. 1).\n\nIn its initial Complaint for Permanent Injunction, the FTC alleged claims for false or\n\nunsubstantiated earnings (Count I); other misrepresentations regarding Raging Bull\u2019s\n\nservices in violation of the Restore Online Shoppers\u2019 Confidence Act, 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 8401 et\n\f        Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 302 Filed 03/15/22 Page 2 of 8\n\n\n\nseq. (Count II); and failure to provide a simple cancellation method in violation of 15\n\nU.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 8403(3) and 57a (Count III). (Compl. \u00b6\u00b6 105\u201317, ECF No. 1). The FTC\n\nsimultaneously filed an Emergency Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order with Asset\n\nFreeze (ECF No. 2). On December 8, 2020, the Court issued a Temporary Restraining\n\nOrder (\u201cTRO\u201d). (ECF No. 21). The resulting TRO imposed an asset freeze on the personal\n\nbank accounts of Bond, Bishop, and Dennis, appointed a Temporary Receiver to take\n\ncontrol of Raging Bull\u2019s operations, and enjoined all Defendants from engaging in certain\n\nadvertising practices. On December 10, 2020, Defendants Raging Bull, Bishop, Bond,\n\nSherwood Ventures, LLC, Winston Corp., and Winston Research, Inc. filed a Motion to\n\nStay Enforcement or Modify the TRO, which Dennis later joined. (ECF Nos. 28, 35). On\n\nDecember 15, 2020, the Court denied the Motion to Stay. (ECF No. 56).\n\n      On December 13, 2020, Dennis, Winston Research, Inc., and Winston Corp. filed\n\nan Opposition to the Entry of a Preliminary Injunction. (ECF No. 47). On December 17,\n\n2020, the Court modified the TRO to release MFA Holdings Corporation from the TRO\u2019s\n\nasset freeze and receivership provisions. (ECF No. 64).\n\n      On January 5, 2021, Raging Bull, Bishop, and Bond filed an Emergency Motion for\n\nClarification of the Temporary Restraining Order, which Dennis later joined. (ECF Nos.\n\n107, 112). On January 13, 2021, Defendants filed a joint response to the Court\u2019s TRO.\n\n(ECF No. 123). On January 25, 2021, the Court issued an Order granting in part and\n\ndenying in part the Emergency Motion for Clarification of the TRO and released some\n\nfunds to Defendants to pay litigation costs. (ECF No. 138). On February 1, 2021, the\n\nTemporary Receiver filed his Initial Status Report. (ECF No. 156).\n\n\n                                            2\n\f           Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 302 Filed 03/15/22 Page 3 of 8\n\n\n\n       On February 4, 2021, the FTC filed an Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 164). The\n\nAmended Complaint removed MFA Holdings Corp. as a Defendant. (Redline Am. Compl.\n\nat 2, ECF No. 164-2). On February 17, 2021, Dennis filed an Emergency Motion for a\n\nProtective Order \u201cto halt the FTC\u2019s improper attempt to conduct a deposition\u201d of him,\n\nwhich the Court denied on February 25, 2021. (Emergency Mot. Protective Order at 1, ECF\n\nNo. 171; ECF No. 184).\n\n       On March 26, 2021, the Court held the preliminary injunction hearing. (ECF No.\n\n218). The Court issued an Order the same day finding that the FTC had not satisfied its\n\nburden of showing that the equities weighed in favor of its requested preliminary injunctive\n\nrelief. (Order at 3\u20134, ECF No. 214). Nonetheless, the Court noted that Raging Bull had\n\nconsented to be enjoined from certain prohibited business activities, to submit to\n\ncompliance monitoring, to follow a business plan, and to appoint a monitor. (Id. at 7\u201311).\n\n       On April 16, 2021, Dennis, Winston Corp., and Winston Research, Inc. filed a\n\nMotion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 225). On April 23, 2021, they also\n\nfiled a Notice of Supplemental Authority in Support of the Motion to Strike the Amended\n\nComplaint\u2019s Request for Monetary Relief. (ECF No. 227). On May 18, 2021, the FTC\n\nvoluntarily dismissed Winston Corp. and Winston Research, Inc. (ECF No. 235). The same\n\nday, the FTC filed an Opposition to Dennis\u2019s Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 236). 1 On June\n\n1, 2021, Dennis filed a Reply. (ECF No. 237).\n\n\n       1\n        According to the FTC, on April 23, 2021, it informed defense counsel that it was\nseeking to amend the Complaint in light of a significant Supreme Court decision. The FTC\nsought Defendants\u2019 consent to a temporary stay of all deadlines until such time that a\nSecond Amended Complaint could be filed. (FTC Opp\u2019n Resp. Dennis Defs.\u2019 Mot. Dismiss\n\n                                             3\n\f          Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 302 Filed 03/15/22 Page 4 of 8\n\n\n\n         On June 11, 2021, the FTC filed a Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint.\n\n(ECF No. 241). On June 25, 2021, Dennis Opposed the Motion for Leave. (ECF No. 249).\n\nOn July 9, 2021, the FTC filed its Reply. (ECF No. 258).\n\n         On January 21, 2022, all parties, except for Dennis, filed a Notice of Proposed\n\nSettlement in Principle. (ECF No. 286). The Notice indicated that the FTC was seeking\n\napproval by the Commission of a stipulated final order for permanent injunction to settle\n\nthe FTC\u2019s claims against Raging Bull, Sherwood Ventures, LLC, Jason Bond, LLC,\n\nBishop, and Bond. (Notice Proposed Settlement at 1, ECF No. 286). The FTC noted that\n\nDennis is not a party to the proposed stipulated final order. (Id. at 1 n.1). On March 8, 2022,\n\nBishop, Bond, and Raging Bull filed another Notice indicating that the FTC had approved\n\nthe proposed stipulated order for permanent injunction. (ECF Nos. 293, 294). The parties\n\nto the settlement seek the Court\u2019s approval of the stipulated order and note that the\n\nproposed order \u201cwill resolve all matters in dispute in this action between the stipulating\n\nparties.\u201d (Notice Proposed Stipulated Order at 1, ECF No. 294). Again, the stipulating\n\nparties note that Dennis is not a party to the proposed settlement and therefore the FTC\n\nwould continue to pursue its claims against him. (Id. at 1 n.1). They further note that\n\nDennis\u2019s Motion to Dismiss and the FTC\u2019s Motion for Leave are pending before the Court.\n\n(Id.).\n\n         There is a \u201cfederal policy in favor of resolving cases on the merits instead of\n\ndisposing of them on technicalities.\u201d Mayfield v. Nat\u2019l Ass\u2019n for Stock Car Auto Racing,\n\n\nStrike [\u201cOpp\u2019n\u201d] at 3, ECF No. 236). Although all other Defendants consented to the\ntemporary stay, Dennis, Winston Research Inc., and Winston Corp. did not. (Id.).\n\n                                              4\n\f        Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 302 Filed 03/15/22 Page 5 of 8\n\n\n\nInc., 674 F.3d 369, 379 (4th Cir. 2012) (quoting Matrix Cap. Mgmt. Fund, LP v.\n\nBearingPoint, Inc., 576 F.3d 172, 193 (4th Cir. 2009)). Consistent with this policy, the\n\nCourt gives a plaintiff \u201cevery opportunity to cure a formal defect in his pleading. This is\n\ntrue even though the court doubts that plaintiff will be able to overcome the defects in his\n\ninitial pleading.\u201d Ostrzenski v. Seigel, 177 F.3d 245, 253 (4th Cir. 1999) (citation omitted).\n\nThe Court only denies leave to amend a complaint when \u201cit appears to a certainty that\n\nplaintiff cannot state a claim.\u201d Id. (citation omitted).\n\n       Consonant with the federal policy in favor of resolving cases on their merits, Rule\n\n15(a)(2) provides that \u201c[t]he court should freely give leave [to amend a complaint] when\n\njustice so requires.\u201d Justice does not require permitting leave to amend when amendment\n\nwould prejudice the opposing party, the moving party has exhibited bad faith, or\n\namendment would be futile. See Edell & Assocs., P.C. v. Law Offs. of Peter G. Angelos,\n\n264 F.3d 424, 446 (4th Cir. 2001).\n\n       Leave to amend would be futile when an amended complaint could not survive a\n\nmotion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. See U.S. ex rel. Wilson v. Kellogg Brown &\n\nRoot, Inc., 525 F.3d 370, 376 (4th Cir. 2008). \u201cLeave to amend, however, should only be\n\ndenied on the ground of futility when the proposed amendment is clearly insufficient or\n\nfrivolous on its face.\u201d Johnson v. Oroweat Foods Co., 785 F.2d 503, 510 (4th Cir. 1986)\n\n(citations omitted); see TFFI Corp. v. Williams, No. DKC-13-1809, 2015 WL 5008708, at\n\n*2 (D.Md. Aug. 20, 2015) (\u201cAlthough the viability of Plaintiff\u2019s claims will be tested by\n\nthe anticipated dispositive motions, Plaintiff\u2019s motion for leave to amend alleges enough\n\nplausible facts against the remaining defendants to not be futile.\u201d).\n\n\n                                               5\n\f         Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 302 Filed 03/15/22 Page 6 of 8\n\n\n\n        Here, the FTC adds additional allegations regarding Dennis\u2019s involvement in\n\npromoting Raging Bull\u2019s services. (Redline Second Am. Compl. at 6, ECF No. 241-2). The\n\nFTC alleges that \u201cDennis is also the lone \u2018guru\u2019 or purported trading expert featured on the\n\nBiotech Breakouts brand of services at Raging Bull, which has bilked over $40 million\n\nfrom consumers in the past three years.\u201d (Id.). The FTC further alleges that \u201cDennis appears\n\non all of the sales and marketing materials\u201d regarding the \u201cBiotech Breakouts\u201d brand, that\n\nhe has held himself out as the \u201cDirector and Co-Founder\u201d of that brand, and that he\n\ndescribed himself as the \u201cBiotech Breakouts Guru.\u201d (Id.). The FTC alleges that Dennis has\n\nreaped $13,600,000 in profits from Defendants\u2019 services. (Id. at 6\u20137). The FTC also\n\nprovides many more specifics regarding Dennis\u2019s involvement in marketing Defendants\u2019\n\nservices. (See id. at 20\u201326). As the FTC offers several additional details regarding Dennis\u2019s\n\ninvolvement in allegedly improper marketing practices, it does not appear that the proposed\n\namendment is clearly insufficient or frivolous on its face.\n\n        In determining whether an amendment is prejudicial, the Court considers the nature\n\nof the amendment and its timing. Laber v. Harvey, 438 F.3d 404, 427 (4th Cir. 2006). The\n\nfurther a case has progressed, the more likely it is that amendment will be prejudicial.\n\nMayfield, 674 F.3d at 379 (citation omitted). \u201cA common example of a prejudicial\n\namendment is one that \u2018raises a new legal theory that would require the gathering and\n\nanalysis of facts not already considered by the [defendant, and] is offered shortly before or\n\nduring trial.\u2019\u201d Laber, 438 F.3d at 427 (alteration in original) (quoting Johnson, 785 F.2d at\n\n510).\n\n\n\n\n                                             6\n\f        Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 302 Filed 03/15/22 Page 7 of 8\n\n\n\n       By contrast, an amendment is not prejudicial \u201cif it merely adds an additional theory\n\nof recovery to the facts already pled and is offered before any discovery has occurred.\u201d Id.;\n\nsee Kalos v. Law Offs. of Eugene A. Seidel, P.A., No. JCC-09-833, 2009 WL 4683551, at\n\n*3 (E.D.Va. Dec. 3, 2009) (\u201cBecause the trial date is not yet set and no discovery has been\n\ntaken, the Court finds that allowing leave to amend the Amended Complaint would not be\n\nunduly prejudicial to Defendants.\u201d). Additionally, an amendment is not prejudicial if the\n\nplaintiff does not add new claims or parties. See Heavener v. Quicken Loans, Inc., No.\n\nGMG-12-0068, 2013 WL 1314563, at *3 (N.D.W.Va. Mar. 26, 2013) (\u201cDefendants will\n\nnot be prejudiced by the amendments as Plaintiff has only added more facts to support his\n\nclaim\u2014he has not alleged new claims or added new parties.\u201d). Here, discovery has not yet\n\nbegun and the FTC has added no new parties. Accordingly, the Court finds that granting\n\nthe FTC leave to amend will not prejudice Dennis.\n\n       Further, it does not appear that the FTC\u2019s delay in amending its Complaint was due\n\nto bad faith. Rather, the FTC notes that it informed Defendants, including Dennis, of its\n\nintention to further amend the Complaint and requested a stay of all deadlines until it was\n\nable to file. All Defendants, save Dennis, consented to the stay to allow the FTC the time\n\nneeded to further amend the Complaint. Accordingly, although the FTC failed to timely\n\namend the Complaint as of right, its delay appears reasonable. As the FTC has not acted in\n\nbad faith and otherwise meets the requirements for leave to amend, the Court will grant the\n\nFTC\u2019s Motion.\n\n       With the Court\u2019s decision to grant the FTC\u2019s Motion, Dennis\u2019s Motion to Dismiss\n\nis rendered moot. See Venable v. Pritzker, No. GLR-13-1867, 2014 WL 2452705, at *5\n\n\n                                             7\n\f          Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 302 Filed 03/15/22 Page 8 of 8\n\n\n\n(D.Md. May 30, 2014) (\u201cWhen a plaintiff files an amended complaint, it generally moots\n\nany pending motions to dismiss because the original complaint is superseded.\u201d), aff\u2019d, 610\n\nF.App\u2019x 341 (4th Cir. 2015). Accordingly, the Court will deny Dennis\u2019s Motion to Dismiss\n\nthe First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 225) without prejudice as moot.\n\n         For the foregoing reasons, it is this 15th day of March, 2022, by the United States\n\nDistrict Court for the District of Maryland, hereby:\n\n         ORDERED that the FTC\u2019s Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint (ECF\n\nNo. 241) is GRANTED;\n\n         IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Dennis\u2019s Motion to Dismiss and to Strike the\n\nAmended Complaint\u2019s Request for Monetary Relief (ECF No. 225) is DENIED AS\n\nMOOT; and\n\n         IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Dennis shall FILE an Answer or other pleading\n\nin response to the FTC\u2019s Second Amended Complaint within twenty-one (21) days of this\n\nOrder.\n\n\n\n                                                                /s/\n                                                  George L. Russell, III\n                                                  United States District Judge\n\n\n\n\n                                              8\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2022-03-15T07:54:47.901784-07:00","document_number":"302","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"093012331749","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2022-03-15T07:47:50.535264-07:00","date_modified":"2022-08-14T07:12:28.488107-07:00","date_filed":"2022-03-15","time_filed":null,"entry_number":302,"recap_sequence_number":"2022-03-15.006","pacer_sequence_number":849,"description":"ORDER granting 241 FTC's Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint; denying as moot 225 Dennis's Motion to Dismiss and to Strike the Amended Complaint's Request for Monetary Relief; directing Dennis to file an Answer or other pleading in response to the FTC's Second Amended complaint within 21 days. Signed by Judge George Levi Russell, III on 3/15/2022. (kk5s, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/15/2022)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/189976877/","id":189976877,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/18719211/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/195551897/","id":195551897,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/18719211/301/federal-trade-commission-v-dennis/","date_created":"2022-03-15T07:47:50.516482-07:00","date_modified":"2024-08-30T22:59:27.096903-07:00","sha1":"16a9faed34754d8529d05ce2386b31e2c00f4135","page_count":2,"file_size":110344,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.487710/gov.uscourts.mdd.487710.301.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.mdd.487710/gov.uscourts.mdd.487710.301.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":"recap-thumbnails/gov.uscourts.mdd.487710/195551897.thumb.1068.png","thumbnail_status":1,"plain_text":"                    Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 301 Filed 03/15/22 Page 1 of 2\n'\n\n\n                               IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n                                   FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND\n\n      FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION                        *\n                                                      *\n                  Plaintiff,                          *\n                                                      *\n                      v.                              *   Case No. GLR 20-03538\n                                                      *\n      RAGING BULL, LLC & AFFILIATED                   *\n      INDIVIDUALS & ENTITIES.                         *\n                                                      *\n                  Defendants.                         *\n                                                      *\n      *       *            *     *   *    *     *     *      *     *    *        *     *   *\n                               STIPULATED ORDER ON FIRST & SECOND\n                                APPLICATIONS FOR FEES & EXPENSES\n                                     OF TEMPORARY RECEIVER\n\n             Upon consideration of the applications for fees and expenses submitted on\n\n    behalf of Temporary Receiver Peter E. Keith on February 23, 2021 [ECF 183] and\n\n    June 25, 2021 [ECF 24 7] and the entire record of this case, it is hereby:\n\n             1.        ORDERED that Defendant RagingBull.com, LLC shall, within\n\n    fourteen days of the entry of this Order, pay to the Temporary Receiver the lump\n\n    sum amount of $971,614.45, in full satisfaction of the applications for fees and\n\n    expenses submitted on behalf of Temporary Receiver Peter E. Keith on February 23,\n\n    2021 [ECF 183] and June 25, 2021 [ECF 247]; and it is hereby\n\n             2.        ORDERED that the applications for fees and expenses submitted on\n\n    behalf of Temporary Receiver Peter E. Keith on February 23, 2021 [ECF 183] and\n\n    June 25, 2021 [ECF 247] shall be and hereby are fully and completely satisfied upon\n\n    receipt of the payment ordered herein; and it is hereby\n\n\n\n\n    779544\n\f              Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 301 Filed 03/15/22 Page 2 of 2\n\n\n\n         3.      ORDERED that Copies of this Order shall be delivered to all parties\n\nof record.\n\n                          JbfJ... day of\n         So Ordered this _____                  /YI \ufffd         , 2022.\n\n\n\n\n                                           \ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\n                                          George L. Russell\n                                          Judge\n\n\n\n\n779544                                      2\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2022-03-15T07:53:15.033073-07:00","document_number":"301","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"093012331740","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2022-03-15T07:47:50.500903-07:00","date_modified":"2022-08-14T07:12:28.517206-07:00","date_filed":"2022-03-15","time_filed":null,"entry_number":301,"recap_sequence_number":"2022-03-15.007","pacer_sequence_number":847,"description":"Stipulated ORDER on 247 First and Second Applications for Fees and Expenses of Temporary Receiver; directing Defendant RagingBull.com, LLC to pay to the Temporary Receiver the lump sum of $971,614.45, within 14 days. Signed by Judge George Levi Russell, III on 3/15/2022. (kk5s, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/15/2022)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/189976876/","id":189976876,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/18719211/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/195551896/","id":195551896,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/18719211/300/federal-trade-commission-v-dennis/","date_created":"2022-03-15T07:47:50.483801-07:00","date_modified":"2022-08-14T07:12:28.535263-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"300","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"093012330234","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2022-03-15T07:47:50.467919-07:00","date_modified":"2022-08-14T07:12:28.528799-07:00","date_filed":"2022-03-14","time_filed":null,"entry_number":300,"recap_sequence_number":"2022-03-14.001","pacer_sequence_number":845,"description":"NOTICE by Peter Keith, Esq Notice of Agreement & Filing of Stipulated Order on First & Second Applications for Fees & Expenses of Temporary Receiver (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Casey, Meghan) (Entered: 03/14/2022)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/189976875/","id":189976875,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/18719211/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/195551895/","id":195551895,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/18719211/299/federal-trade-commission-v-dennis/","date_created":"2022-03-15T07:47:50.452001-07:00","date_modified":"2022-08-14T07:12:28.552953-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"299","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2022-03-15T07:47:50.436541-07:00","date_modified":"2022-08-14T07:12:28.542387-07:00","date_filed":"2022-03-12","time_filed":null,"entry_number":299,"recap_sequence_number":"2022-03-12.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"PAPERLESS NOTICE - Upon consideration of ECF Nos. 296 and 298, the in-person status conference set for March 15, 2022 is cancelled. However, the Court will hold a status conference by telephone on March 15, 2022 at 9:30 a.m. The Court directs Plaintiff to initiate the call. (dafs, Chambers) (Entered: 03/12/2022)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/189775879/","id":189775879,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/18719211/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/195347585/","id":195347585,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/18719211/298/federal-trade-commission-v-dennis/","date_created":"2022-03-11T13:58:13.755922-08:00","date_modified":"2022-08-14T07:12:28.570017-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"298","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"093012325467","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2022-03-11T13:58:13.736369-08:00","date_modified":"2022-08-14T07:12:28.560476-07:00","date_filed":"2022-03-11","time_filed":null,"entry_number":298,"recap_sequence_number":"2022-03-11.001","pacer_sequence_number":840,"description":"RESPONSE re 296 Supplemental FTC Agreement with Raging Bull Defendants' Withdrawal of Request for Status Conference and Request to Appear Remotely if Necessary filed by Federal Trade Commission.(Basford, Laura) (Entered: 03/11/2022)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/189775878/","id":189775878,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/18719211/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/195347584/","id":195347584,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/18719211/297/federal-trade-commission-v-dennis/","date_created":"2022-03-11T13:58:13.716154-08:00","date_modified":"2022-08-14T07:12:28.586145-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"297","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"093012325440","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2022-03-11T13:58:13.690495-08:00","date_modified":"2022-08-14T07:12:28.580323-07:00","date_filed":"2022-03-11","time_filed":null,"entry_number":297,"recap_sequence_number":"2022-03-11.002","pacer_sequence_number":837,"description":"RESPONSE re 295 Response of Defendant Kyle W. Dennis filed by Federal Trade Commission.(Basford, Laura) (Entered: 03/11/2022)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/189631093/","id":189631093,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/18719211/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/195201151/","id":195201151,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/18719211/296/federal-trade-commission-v-dennis/","date_created":"2022-03-10T09:51:27.478007-08:00","date_modified":"2022-08-14T07:12:28.602673-07:00","sha1":"35d789baccc3c7cb9c1903a23fa1efc65500628f","page_count":5,"file_size":173135,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.487710/gov.uscourts.mdd.487710.296.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.mdd.487710/gov.uscourts.mdd.487710.296.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"           Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 296 Filed 03/09/22 Page 1 of 5\n\n\n\n                        IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND\n\nFEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,                         )\n                                                  )\n               Plaintiff,                         )\n                                                  )\n      v.                                          )     Case No. 1:20-cv-03538 - GLR\n                                                  )\nRAGINGBULL.COM, LLC f/k/a                         )\nLIGHTHOUSE MEDIA LLC, et al.,                     )\n                                                  )\n               Defendants.                        )\n                                                  )\n\n                SUPPLEMENT TO NOTICES OF SETTLEMENT AND\n              WITHDRAWAL OF REQUEST FOR STATUS CONFERENCE\n\n       Defendants RagingBull.com, LLC (\u201cRaging Bull\u201d), Jeffrey M. Bishop, and Jason Bond\n\n(collectively, the \u201cRaging Bull Defendants\u201d) respectfully submit this supplement to (a) inform the\n\nCourt that the March 9, 2022 filing by Defendant Kyle Dennis titled \u201cResponse to Plaintiff\u2019s\n\nMotion for Permanent Injunction Against Raging Bull Defendants\u201d (ECF No. 295) has no impact\n\non and need not delay the Court\u2019s entering of the Proposed Stipulated Order which was lodged\n\nwith the Court by the Federal Trade Commission on March 8, 2022 and resolves all claims in this\n\nmatter as to the Raging Bull Defendants (ECF No. 294), and (b) withdraw the request for a status\n\nconference, as the reason the Raging Bull Defendants requested such status conference is now\n\nmooted by the Commissioners\u2019 approval of the Proposed Stipulated Order; and in support state as\n\nfollows:\n\n       1.      After months of negotiation, on January 3, 2022, the Raging Bull Defendants signed\n\na proposed Stipulated Order (\u201cProposed Stipulated Order\u201d) to settle the FTC\u2019s claims and\n\nsubmitted it to the FTC Staff.\n\n       2.      As the FTC notified the Court in its January 21, 2022 Notice of Settlement (ECF\n\nNo. 286), the Raging Bull Defendants reached a settlement in principle with the FTC Staff. The\n\f         Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 296 Filed 03/09/22 Page 2 of 5\n\n\n\nFTC Staff noted that it had recommended that the Commission approve the settlement, which\n\nwhen entered by this Court would resolve all of the FTC\u2019s claims against the Raging Bull\n\nDefendants in this matter.\n\n       3.      On January 24, 2022, the Raging Bull Defendants filed their Unopposed Motion\n\nfor Extension of Time for Compliance Monitor to File Sixth Report. (ECF No. 287.) The Raging\n\nBull Defendants requested that extension to give the FTC Commissioners more time to approve\n\nthe settlement so as to eliminate the significant costs which would be incurred by the Monitor (and\n\npaid by the Raging Bull Defendants) in connection with the Sixth Report.\n\n       4.      On January 28, 2022, the Court \u201cApproved\u201d the FTC\u2019s Notice of Proposed\n\nSettlement in Principle as to the Raging Bull Defendants and stated \u201cShould the Commission\n\napprove, the parties shall SUBMIT a Notice of Settlement as to the necessary Defendants.\u201d (ECF\n\nNo. 289.)\n\n       5.      On February 25, 2022, the Raging Bull Defendants filed their Unopposed Motion\n\nfor a Second Extension of Time for Compliance Monitor to File Sixth Report and Request for\n\nStatus Conference. (ECF No. 290.) The Raging Bull Defendants again stated as their reason for\n\ntheir request that the extension would give the FTC more time to approve the settlement and would\n\navoid unnecessary litigation and monitorship costs. The Raging Bull Defendants also requested a\n\nstatus conference to discuss settlement in the event the FTC had not approved the Proposed\n\nStipulated Order by the beginning of the week of March 7, 2022.\n\n       6.      The Court granted the Raging Bull Defendants\u2019 request for a second extension of\n\ntime and set a status conference on settlement for March 15, 2022. (ECF No. 292.)\n\n\n\n\n                                                2\n\f         Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 296 Filed 03/09/22 Page 3 of 5\n\n\n\n        7.      On March 7, the FTC staff notified the Raging Bull Defendants that the\n\nCommission had approved the proposed Stipulated Order that Raging Bull stipulated to and signed\n\non January 3, 2022.\n\n        8.      On March 8, consistent with the Court\u2019s January 28 order (ECF 289), the Federal\n\nTrade Commission (\u201cFTC\u201d) filed a Notice of Lodging Proposed Stipulated Order for Permanent\n\nInjunction, Monetary Judgment, and Other Relief as to the Raging Bull Defendants (\u201cNotice of\n\nLodging\u201d). (ECF No. 294.) Attached as Exhibit A to the Notice of Lodging is the Proposed Order\n\nwhich when entered by the Court will resolve all matters in dispute in this action between the\n\nstipulating parties.\n\n        9.      Given that the Proposed Stipulated Order is now before the Court and the\n\nCommission has approved the settlement, the stated reason for the requested status conference is\n\nmoot. The Raging Bull Defendants, therefore, withdraw their request for a status conference. The\n\nFTC agrees that the status conference is unnecessary at this time.\n\n        10.     Also, on March 8, 2022, Defendant Kyle W. Dennis, who is not a party to the\n\nProposed Stipulated Order, filed a motion entitled \u201cResponse to Plaintiff\u2019s Motion for Permanent\n\nInjunction Against Raging Bull Defendants. (ECF No. 295.)\u201d In his filing, Mr. Dennis requests\n\nthat \u201cthe Court should condition approval of the proposed order upon dismissal of the FTC\u2019s claims\n\nagainst Mr. Dennis or, alternatively, the Court should enter an order dismissing those claims and\n\ndenying the FTC\u2019s pending motion to amend.\u201d (Id. at 8.)\n\n        11.     The Raging Bull Defendants submit that the Proposed Stipulated Order should be\n\nentered by the Court without regard to any pending motions or other filings by Mr. Dennis. The\n\nProposed Stipulated Order is not contingent on anything and Mr. Dennis\u2019 request should not hold\n\nup its entry, which the Raging Bull Defendants agreed to for the expressed purpose of avoiding\n\n\n\n\n                                                3\n\f        Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 296 Filed 03/09/22 Page 4 of 5\n\n\n\ncontinued litigation and monitor costs which would continue to mount. Moreover, approving the\n\nProposed Stipulated Order in advance of any pending motions would not prejudice either of the\n\nremaining parties; namely, the FTC or Mr. Dennis.\n\n\nDated: March 9, 2022                                Respectfully submitted,\n\n                                                    RagingBull.com, LLC, Jeffrey M. Bishop,\n                                                    and Jason Bond\n\n                                                    By: /s/ Brett M. Doran\n                                                    David G. Barger (DCB# 469095)\n                                                    Greenberg Traurig LLP\n                                                    1750 Tysons Blvd, Suite 1200\n                                                    McLean, VA 22102\n                                                    Tel: (703) 749-1300\n                                                    Email: bargerd@gtlaw.com\n\n                                                    Andrew G. Berg (admitted pro hac vice)\n                                                    2101 L Street, N.W.\n                                                    Suite 1000\n                                                    Washington DC 20037\n                                                    Tel: (202) 331- 3100\n                                                    Email: berga@gtlaw.com\n\n                                                    Miriam G. Bahcall (admitted pro hac vice)\n                                                    Brett M. Doran (admitted pro hac vice)\n                                                    Greenberg Traurig, LLP\n                                                    77 West Wacker Drive\n                                                    Suite 3100\n                                                    Chicago, IL 60601\n                                                    Tel: (312) 476-5135\n                                                    Email: bahcallm@gtlaw.com\n                                                    Email: doranb@gtlaw.com\n\n\n\n\n                                              4\n\f        Case 1:20-cv-03538-GLR Document 296 Filed 03/09/22 Page 5 of 5\n\n\n\n                               CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\n       I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 9th day of March 2022 a true and accurate copy of the\n\nforegoing Supplement to Notices of Settlement and Withdrawal of Request for Status Conference,\n\nwas properly served on all parties through the ECF system.\n\n\n                                                   /s/ Brett M. Doran\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2022-03-10T09:51:51.888661-08:00","document_number":"296","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"093012321502","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2022-03-10T09:51:27.454353-08:00","date_modified":"2022-08-14T07:12:28.591558-07:00","date_filed":"2022-03-09","time_filed":null,"entry_number":296,"recap_sequence_number":"2022-03-09.001","pacer_sequence_number":835,"description":"Supplemental to Notices of Settlement and Withdrawal of Request for Status Conference (Doran, Brett) (Entered: 03/09/2022)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/189506974/","id":189506974,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/18719211/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/195075160/","id":195075160,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/18719211/295/federal-trade-commission-v-dennis/","date_created":"2022-03-09T09:51:12.881387-08:00","date_modified":"2022-08-14T07:12:28.622602-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"295","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"093012318736","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2022-03-09T09:51:12.843091-08:00","date_modified":"2022-08-14T07:12:28.611759-07:00","date_filed":"2022-03-08","time_filed":null,"entry_number":295,"recap_sequence_number":"2022-03-08.001","pacer_sequence_number":832,"description":"RESPONSE re 294 Notice (Other) Response to Motion for Entry of Stipulated Permanent Injunction filed by Kyle W. Dennis.(Schwartz, Matthew) (Entered: 03/08/2022)","tags":[]}],"entries_total":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/?count=on&docket=18719211&page_size=40"}