By Michael Higgins
Tribune staff reporter

September 9, 2006

An infomercial entrepreneur from Barrington, IL preyed upon the sick with false claims that his Q-Ray bracelet could relieve pain and should repay at least $22.5 million in ill-gotten gains, a federal judge ruled Friday.

Que Te "Andrew" Park sold more than a million bracelets from 2000 to 2003 through infomercials that claimed the "ionized bracelet" could relieve pain caused by everything from arthritis to chemotherapy.

But at a trial earlier this year, Park failed to show the Q-Ray was any different than an ordinary bracelet, U.S. Magistrate Judge Morton Denlow ruled Friday.

The claim that the Q-Ray was "ionized" was part of a scheme "to defraud consumers out of millions of dollars by preying on their desire to find a simple solution to alleviate their physical pain," Denlow wrote in a 136-page opinion. "Park made up the theory that the bracelet works like acupuncture or Eastern medicine. He has no testing or studies to support his theory."

Park's testimony on the subject of ionization was "contradictory and full of obfuscation," Denlow said.

The Federal Trade Commission sued Park and QT Inc. for false advertising in 2003, citing a Mayo Clinic study that said the product worked no better than a placebo.

In his ruling, Denlow ordered Park, QT Inc. and two related companies to repay all of their profits from the sale of the Q-Ray bracelet from January 2000 to June 2003--an amount the judge put at $22.5 million. The defendants could owe even more--up to $87 million--depending on how many Q-Ray customers seek refunds, according to the ruling.

Denlow also permanently barred the defendants from claiming the bracelet--which sold for $50 to $250 each--relieves pain. The FTC had won a temporary order to that effect shortly after filing suit.

Park and his attorneys could not be reached Friday for comment. But at trial, they criticized the Mayo study and argued that Park was entitled to rely on positive responses from customers to justify his claims. They also said the Q-Ray's advertising should be considered true even if the product worked through a placebo effect, which occurs when people feel better simply because they expect a pill or therapy to help them.

But Denlow rejected that contention saying the product's placebo effect merely showed that consumers were tricked into believing that an "inherently ineffective bracelet" relieves pain.

That pleased Ed Mierzwinski, consumer program director for U.S. Public Interest Research Group, an advocacy group in Washington.

"The judge upheld an important consumer protection rule," Mierzwinski said. "People [in pain] are going to going to clutch at straws, and when you hold out a straw and charge $99 for it, you're going to make a lot of money--even though it's only a straw."

It is not clear from court records how much money Park and his companies have on hand.

At trial, FTC attorney Heather Hippsley said that at one point, Park and his wife, Jung Joo Park, had taken profits of about $5 million each from the company, and that some of that money went to buy an apartment in Spain.

But Hippsley would not elaborate on Friday. She also would not say how much of QT Inc.'s assets the FTC had frozen when the litigation began, saying that figure was confidential.

"We'll just pursue collection as we do in any case," Hippsley said.

In addition, Denlow found Jung Joo Park, who earned $98,000 per year as a QT Inc. official, not liable for the false claims. The judge said she was "not shown to be an active participant in the deceptive and misleading practices."

Hippsley also declined to comment on what effect, if any, that would have on collection efforts.

If the judge's ruling stands, FTC officials will use Q-Ray customer lists to contact consumers and offer full or partial refunds depending on the money available. If money is left over, it will go to the government, Hippsley said.

At trial, QT Inc. attorney Michael Ficaro argued that the mechanism behind the bracelet was not the issue.

"More than three out of four people got relief from this product," Ficaro told Denlow. "And the other quarter who didn't got their money back. ... How in the world does that violate the [false advertising] act?"

The Better Business Bureau of Chicago and Northern Illinois has fielded complaints from people who said the product didn't work or who had trouble getting refunds, including 128 in 2003, said Steve Bernas, a bureau vice president.

"The judge basically said what consumers have been telling us since 2001," Bernas said.

----------

mjhiggins@tribune.com

Copyright © 2006, Chicago Tribune

It's about time...