Telebrands Corp. v. Federal Trade Commission , 457 F.3d 354 ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                            PUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    TELEBRANDS CORP., a corporation;         
    TV SAVINGS, LLC, a limited liability
    company; AJIT KHUBANI,
    individually and as president of
    Telebrands Corp. and sole member
    of TV Savings, LLC,                             No. 05-2322
    Petitioners,
    v.
    FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,
    Respondent.
    
    On Petition for Review of an Order
    of the Federal Trade Commission.
    (D09313)
    Argued: May 23, 2006
    Decided: August 7, 2006
    Before WILKINS, Chief Judge, DUNCAN, Circuit Judge, and
    Joseph R. GOODWIN, United States District Judge for the
    Southern District of West Virginia, sitting by designation.
    Order enforced by published opinion. Judge Duncan wrote the opin-
    ion, in which Chief Judge Wilkins and Judge Goodwin joined.
    COUNSEL
    ARGUED: Edward Francis Glynn, Jr., VENABLE, L.L.P., Washing-
    ton, D.C., for Petitioners. Leslie R. Melman, FEDERAL TRADE
    2                      TELEBRANDS CORP. v. FTC
    COMMISSION, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. ON BRIEF:
    Theodore W. Atkinson, VENABLE, L.L.P., Washington, D.C., for
    Petitioners. James A. Kohm, Associate Director, Connie M. Vecellio,
    Bureau of Consumer Protection, Walter Gross, III, Bureau of Con-
    sumer Protection, William Blumenthal, General Counsel, John F.
    Daly, Deputy General Counsel for Litigation, FEDERAL TRADE
    COMMISSION, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    OPINION
    DUNCAN, Circuit Judge:
    The petitioners, Telebrands Corporation, TV Savings, LLC and
    Ajit Khubani1 (collectively, "Telebrands"), challenge the scope of a
    Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") Order containing an "all claims,
    all products" fencing-in provision. We enforce the Order.
    I.
    Telebrands markets a wide variety of products to consumers using
    direct-response advertising—product advertisements that offer the
    consumer a vehicle, such as a telephone number, mailing address or
    Internet site, to respond directly to the advertiser.2 It routinely
    employs a "compare and save" strategy to select and market products.
    In other words, Telebrands monitors trends in the marketplace and in
    various advertising channels to identify popular items that it can repli-
    cate cost effectively. Once it locates such a product, Telebrands enters
    the market as a competitor, offering a comparable item at a lower
    price.
    Telebrands employed this strategy when it introduced the Ab
    1
    Khubani is the president of Telebrands Corporation and the sole
    member of TV Savings, LLC.
    2
    Some of Telebrands’s more successful products include Ambervision
    Sunglasses, the Magic Hanger, Dental White Tooth Whitening System,
    the Safety Can Opener, the Audubon Singing Bird Clock, the Better
    Pasta Pot and the Roll-a-Hose Flat Hose.
    TELEBRANDS CORP. v. FTC                         3
    Force, an electronic muscle stimulation ("EMS") abdominal belt, in
    December 2001. The Ab Force consisted of a small battery-powered
    control unit held in place by an elastic belt worn around the abdomi-
    nal area. The control unit cycled an electric current into the abdominal
    muscles, causing them repeatedly to contract and release involuntar-
    ily. When Telebrands introduced the Ab Force, several other EMS
    products, including several abdominal belts, were already on the mar-
    ket. In fact, Khubani first considered marketing an EMS abdominal
    belt in early 2001 when he noticed the AbTronic abdominal belt in
    J.W. Greensheet. J.W. Greensheet is a direct-response television
    industry publication that generates weekly rankings of spots and
    infomercials based on two sources of information: 1) media budget
    data that it receives from advertisers; and 2) its own monitoring of
    national cable and selected broadcast markets.3
    According to J.W. Greensheet, infomercials for three competing
    EMS abdominal belts, AbTronic, Ab Energizer and Fast Abs, were
    highly ranked before and during the time that the Ab Force was being
    marketed. Those infomercials promoted the belts as a method to lose
    weight, fat and inches, and to gain well-defined abdominal muscles,
    all without the need for exercise. Advertisements that aired during
    that time period for some other EMS abdominal belts contained simi-
    lar claims.
    Telebrands elected not to make such claims expressly but sug-
    gested them implicitly by encouraging comparison to the products
    that did so. For example, Ab Force advertisements referenced "those
    fantastic electronic ab belt infomercials on TV." J.A. 991, 1014, 1015.
    The initial television and radio advertisements for the Ab Force also
    described abdominal belts as "the latest fitness craze to sweep the
    country," J.A. 991, 1015, and the radio advertisement pointed out that
    the other belts "promis[e] to get our abs into great shape fast—
    without exercise." J.A. 1015. Fit, well-muscled models were shown
    using the Ab Force in the television advertisements; some of those
    3
    Direct-response television types include both spots (also known as
    short form), which are thirty seconds to two minutes in length, and
    infomercials (also known as long form), which are typically twenty-eight
    and one-half minutes in length.
    4                        TELEBRANDS CORP. v. FTC
    models also posed to show off lean physiques, while others performed
    conventional abdominal exercises.
    The FTC issued an administrative complaint alleging that Tele-
    brands had made false and misleading claims in violation of sec-
    tions 5 and 12 of the Federal Trade Commission Act ("FTC Act"), 
    15 U.S.C. §§ 45
    , 52.4 Specifically, the complaint alleged that Telebrands
    had made unsubstantiated claims that the Ab Force caused loss of
    weight, inches or fat, caused well-defined abdominal muscles, and
    was an effective alternative to regular exercise.
    An administrative law judge ("ALJ") found that Telebrands had
    made the claims alleged in the complaint and that the claims were
    material to consumers. Furthermore, the parties had stipulated that
    Telebrands neither possessed nor relied on substantiation of the
    alleged claims, and that, in fact, the use of the Ab Force did not result
    in the claimed benefits. Therefore, the ALJ concluded that the claims
    made by Telebrands were false and misleading in violation of the
    FTC Act.
    The FTC complaint sought broad "fencing-in" relief,5 including a
    provision requiring Telebrands to have "substantiation prior to adver-
    tising ‘any other EMS device, or any food, drug, dietary supplement,
    device, or any other product, service, or program.’" J.A. 717. How-
    ever, the ALJ imposed a narrower provision:
    [Telebrands] . . . in connection with the manufacturing,
    labeling, advertising, promotion, offering for sale, sale, or
    4
    Section 5 of the FTC Act makes unlawful "[u]nfair methods of com-
    petition in or affecting commerce, and unfair or deceptive acts or prac-
    tices in or affecting commerce." 
    15 U.S.C. § 45
    (a)(1). Section 12 of the
    FTC Act makes "[t]he dissemination or the causing to be disseminated
    of any false advertisement within the provisions of [the] section . . . an
    unfair or deceptive act or practice in or affecting commerce within the
    meaning of section 5." 
    15 U.S.C. § 52
    (b).
    5
    "‘Fencing-in’ relief refers to provisions in a final [FTC] order that are
    broader than the conduct that is declared unlawful. Fencing-in remedies
    are designed to prevent future unlawful conduct." Telebrands Corp., No.
    9313, 2005 FTC LEXIS 178, n.3 (F.T.C. Sept. 19, 2004).
    TELEBRANDS CORP. v. FTC                         5
    distribution of Ab Force, any other EMS device, or any
    device, product, service or program promoting the efficacy
    of or pertaining to health, weight loss, fitness, or exercise
    benefits shall not make any representation, in any manner,
    expressly or by implication, about weight, inch, or fat loss;
    muscle definition; exercise benefits; or the health benefits,
    safety, or efficacy of any such product, service, or program,
    unless, at the time the representation is made, [Telebrands]
    possess[es] and rel[ies] upon competent and reliable scien-
    tific evidence that substantiates the representation.
    J.A. 724. On appeal, the FTC affirmed the ALJ’s conclusion that
    Telebrands had violated the FTC Act but entered a Final Order that
    included a broader fencing-in provision:
    [Telebrands] . . . in connection with the manufacturing,
    labeling, advertising, promotion, offering for sale, sale, or
    distribution of Ab Force, any other EMS device, or any
    food, drug, dietary supplement, device, or any other prod-
    uct, service or program, shall not make any representation,
    in any manner, expressly or by implication, about weight,
    inch, or fat loss, muscle definition, exercise benefits, or the
    health benefits, safety, performance, or efficacy of any prod-
    uct, service, or program, unless, at the time the representa-
    tion is made, [Telebrands] possess[es] and rel[ies] upon
    competent and reliable evidence, which when appropriate
    must be competent and reliable scientific evidence, that sub-
    stantiates the representation.
    J.A. 773 (emphasis added).
    Telebrands appeals this fencing-in provision, which it refers to as
    an "all claims, all products" provision and the FTC refers to as "com-
    prehensive coverage." Telebrands requests that we modify the FTC’s
    Final Order to replace the challenged provision with the more narrow
    provision imposed by the ALJ or remand to the FTC for the purpose
    of determining the appropriate scope of the provision in light of our
    opinion. Significantly, Telebrands does not appeal the FTC’s conclu-
    sion that Telebrands violated sections 5 and 12 of the FTC Act.
    6                     TELEBRANDS CORP. v. FTC
    II.
    Telebrands argues that the FTC lacked authority to issue the
    broader fencing-in provision because no reasonable relation exists
    between that provision and Telebrands’s violation of sections 5 and
    12. Specifically, it argues that substantial evidence does not support
    two FTC findings relied upon as a foundation for the provision: 1)
    Telebrands intended to make false advertising claims; and 2) Tele-
    brands’s conduct in making implied claims in the marketing of the Ab
    Force is transferable to other product advertising. It also argues that
    the FTC erred as a matter of law in finding that Telebrands’s entry
    into three prior consent orders for unrelated alleged violations on
    unrelated products, and with no admission of liability, constitutes a
    history of prior violations that supports the imposition of the broad
    fencing-in language.
    Congress has "empowered and directed" the FTC to prevent the use
    of "unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce." 
    15 U.S.C. § 45
    (a)(2). In line with that directive, Congress has given the
    FTC primary responsibility for devising orders to address those
    deceptive practices, and the FTC has broad discretion in doing so.
    FTC v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., 
    380 U.S. 374
    , 392 (1965). The FTC’s
    factual findings are conclusive if supported by substantial evidence.
    El Moro Cigar Co. v. FTC, 
    107 F.2d 429
    , 431-32 (4th Cir. 1939).
    Moreover, courts will interfere with the remedy selected by the FTC
    "only where there is no reasonable relation between the remedy and
    the violation." Atlantic Ref. Co. v. FTC, 
    381 U.S. 357
    , 377 (1965).
    The FTC considers three factors in determining whether order cov-
    erage bears a reasonable relationship to the violation it is intended to
    remedy: "(1) the seriousness and deliberateness of the violation; (2)
    the ease with which the violative claim may be transferred to other
    products; and (3) whether the respondent has a history of prior viola-
    tions." Stouffer Foods Corp., 
    118 F.T.C. 746
    , 811 (1994). In review-
    ing FTC orders for the existence of a reasonable relationship between
    the remedy and the violation, courts have relied on these same factors.
    See, e.g., Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. FTC, 
    676 F.2d 385
    , 392 (9th Cir.
    1982); see also, e.g., Kraft, Inc. v. FTC, 
    970 F.2d 311
    , 326 (7th Cir.
    TELEBRANDS CORP. v. FTC                           7
    1992); Bristol-Myers Co. v. FTC, 
    738 F.2d 554
    , 561 (2d Cir. 1984).
    We do likewise.6
    The reasonable relationship analysis operates on a sliding scale—
    any one factor’s importance varies depending on the extent to which
    the others are found. In other words, the more serious a violation, the
    less important transferability and prior history become. See Sears, 
    676 F.2d at 392
     ("The more egregious the facts with respect to a particular
    element, the less important it is that another negative factor be pres-
    ent."). All three factors need not be present for a reasonable relation-
    ship to exist. See 
    id.
     We discuss each factor in turn.
    A.
    We first consider the seriousness and deliberateness of the viola-
    tion. Substantial evidence supports the FTC’s finding that Tele-
    brands’s violations of sections 5 and 12 were serious. As noted by the
    FTC, Telebrands’s violations did not involve overselling some aspect
    of a product that was essentially fit for the advertised purpose. Rather,
    the violations involved claiming, with no substantiation, that the Ab
    Force could deliver certain results that Telebrands later admitted were
    beyond the device’s capabilities. Telebrands stipulated before the ALJ
    that "[t]he Ab Force does not cause loss of weight, inches or fat; [t]he
    Ab Force does not cause well-defined abdominal muscles; [u]se of the
    Ab Force is not an effective alternative to regular exercise; [and Tele-
    brands] did not possess and rely upon substantiation for [claims that
    the Ab Force could deliver those benefits]." J.A. 791.
    Moreover, Telebrands mounted an expensive, nationwide advertis-
    6
    Our sister circuits have sometimes considered additional factors based
    on the facts of the cases before them. See, e.g., Removatron Int’l Corp.
    v. FTC, 
    884 F.2d 1489
    , 1499 (1st Cir. 1989) (relying on FTC factors plus
    potential for health hazards, duration of deceptive advertisement’s use,
    average consumer’s ability to evaluate violator’s claims, and extent of
    government regulation of advertised product); Am. Home Prods. Corp.
    v. FTC, 
    695 F.2d 681
    , 706 (3d Cir. 1982) (relying on FTC factors plus
    potential for health hazards). The parties before us do not urge the adop-
    tion of any additional factors, and the FTC factors are sufficient to deter-
    mine whether a reasonable relationship exists on these facts.
    8                      TELEBRANDS CORP. v. FTC
    ing campaign for the Ab Force that was highly successful. Telebrands
    spent over four million dollars on the multimedia advertising cam-
    paign for the Ab Force, which included spots that aired more than ten
    thousand times on cable, satellite and broadcast television outlets in
    major national markets. That campaign resulted in the sale of approxi-
    mately 747,000 units with gross sales, including accessories, exceed-
    ing nineteen million dollars. These facts militate in favor of a finding
    that the violations were serious. See Kraft, 
    970 F.2d at 326
     (approving
    FTC use of size and duration of advertising campaign as basis for
    seriousness finding).
    Substantial evidence also supports the FTC’s deliberateness find-
    ing. Telebrands’s execution of the compare and save strategy, when
    considered in light of its extensive experience with direct-response
    advertising in general and with that strategy in particular, negates any
    suggestion that it unintentionally made the false and misleading
    claims found by the FTC. Telebrands employed the compare and save
    strategy to market the Ab Force because it wanted to capitalize on the
    popularity of existing EMS abdominal belts, devices that its advertise-
    ments referred to as "fantastic." It knew that the infomercials for those
    devices, which it referenced in its advertisements, had claimed that
    they caused the loss of weight, inches or fat, developed well-defined
    abdominal muscles, and offered an effective alternative to regular
    exercise. Telebrands’s assertion that, because it did not explicitly
    make those same claims in the Ab Force advertisements, it did not
    intend for consumers to believe that the Ab Force provided those
    same benefits strains credulity. In fact, Telebrands calculatedly fos-
    tered such beliefs through its choice of visual images for the televi-
    sion advertisements.
    Telebrands, relying on evidence that Khubani rejected a script for
    the Ab Force television advertisements that referred to "get[ting] into
    shape fast without exercise," and "hav[ing] a flatter tummy without
    painful sit-ups," J.A. 512, claims that it intended to make comparisons
    based solely on price and technology. Although this evidence sug-
    gests that Telebrands sought to avoid making explicit health claims,
    it fails to contradict the finding that Telebrands intended to make the
    same claims implicitly. Ab Force television and radio advertisements
    touted the device as being "just as powerful and effective" as the EMS
    abdominal belts sold in infomercials. J.A. 1000, 1015. Those same
    TELEBRANDS CORP. v. FTC                         9
    advertisements lacked any explicitly identified purpose for using the
    Ab Force. That omission left consumers to infer, based on knowledge
    of the infomercials for the other EMS abdominal belts and, in the case
    of the television advertisements for the Ab Force, the visual images
    of fit models with well-defined abdominal muscles using the device,
    the benefit associated with the Ab Force’s power and effectiveness.
    Telebrands also attempts to undermine the FTC’s deliberateness
    finding by raising tangential issues that have little or no bearing on
    that finding. According to Telebrands, the FTC concluded that Tele-
    brands intended for consumers to associate the Ab Force with false
    claims made in the AbTronic, Ab Energizer and Fast Abs advertise-
    ments. Telebrands claims that the FTC premised that conclusion on
    three "linked inferences:" 1) the benefit claims made in the advertise-
    ments for those devices were, in fact, false; 2) the infomercials for
    those devices were among the most frequently aired during the time
    period immediately before and during the Ab Force marketing cam-
    paign; and 3) the existence of other EMS products on the market at
    the time of the Ab Force marketing campaign was irrelevant. It then
    challenges the validity of each inference. Telebrands’s focus on these
    tangential issues appears to be nothing more than an indirect attack
    on the FTC’s conclusion that Telebrands violated sections 5 and 12
    of the FTC Act, a conclusion that Telebrands did not appeal. Never-
    theless, we briefly address each of Telebrands’s arguments.
    Telebrands argues that the FTC’s failure to introduce evidence that
    the weight loss and exercise claims made in the Ab Energizer,
    AbTronic and Fast Abs advertisements were false precludes the con-
    clusion that references to those advertisements demonstrated Tele-
    brands’s intent to make false claims. We disagree. The issue is
    whether Telebrands intended to make false and misleading claims.
    Substantial evidence supports the fact that it intended to insinuate that
    the Ab Force could deliver the same weight loss and exercise benefits
    claimed in the advertisements for the other EMS abdominal belts.
    Even if the AbTronic, Ab Energizer and Fast Abs could deliver those
    benefits, the claims would be false as applied to the Ab Force because
    Telebrands stipulated that "[t]he Ab Force does not cause loss of
    weight, inches or fat; [t]he Ab Force does not cause well-defined
    abdominal muscles; [u]se of the Ab Force is not an effective alterna-
    tive to regular exercise; [and Telebrands] did not possess and rely
    10                    TELEBRANDS CORP. v. FTC
    upon substantiation for [claims that the Ab Force could deliver those
    benefits]." JA 791.
    Telebrands challenges the validity of the second and third infer-
    ences, arguing that it did not intend to refer to the AbTronic, Ab Ener-
    gizer and Fast Abs, and thus, to the benefit claims made in the
    infomercials for those devices, when it referenced "those fantastic
    electronic ab belt infomercials on TV." It argues that the FTC’s find-
    ing that the AbTronic, Ab Energizer and Fast Abs infomercials were
    among the most frequently aired on television lacks support in the
    record, and that the FTC gave insufficient weight to the fact that other
    EMS products were being marketed during the same time period as
    those devices. Whether the AbTronic, Ab Energizer and Fast Abs
    infomercials were the most frequently aired on television is irrelevant.
    Khubani admitted that Telebrands used J.W. Greensheet to get a gen-
    eral idea of what was on television, even though he did not necessar-
    ily believe the absolute order of the rankings was reliable. That
    publication highly ranked the infomercials for the AbTronic, Ab
    Energizer and Fast Abs. Moreover, Khubani admitted that seeing the
    AbTronic in the publication’s rankings influenced Telebrands’s deci-
    sion to market the Ab Force. To be effective, the compare and save
    strategy requires a point of reference with which the consumer is
    familiar. This evidence suggests that Telebrands believed that the
    AbTronic, Ab Energizer and Fast Abs infomercials aired frequently
    enough to provide that familiarity. The fact that other EMS products
    were being marketed during that same time period fails to advance
    Telebrands’s claim that its violations were not deliberate, especially
    given the fact that at least some, if not all, of the advertisements for
    other EMS abdominal belts made health claims similar to those made
    in the AbTronic, Ab Energizer and Fast Abs infomercials.
    B.
    We next consider the second factor relevant to the existence of a
    reasonable relationship between the remedy and the violation, the
    transferability of Telebrands’s conduct to other products. Substantial
    evidence supports the FTC’s finding that Telebrands’s conduct is
    transferable. The FTC found that the marketing strategy for the Ab
    Force has potential applicability to almost any kind of product or ser-
    vice, including many that Telebrands already markets. Indeed, the
    TELEBRANDS CORP. v. FTC                          11
    compare and save strategy is one of Telebrands’s standard marketing
    tools. An unfair practice is transferable when other products can be
    marketed using similar techniques. See Sears, 
    676 F.2d at 392
    , 394-
    95.
    Telebrands argues that the FTC’s factual findings are insufficient
    to justify the Order’s broad fencing-in language because those find-
    ings relied upon a peculiar fact pattern surrounding the marketing of
    the Ab Force that is unlikely to be repeated. Specifically, it contends
    that the circumstances were unique because it marketed the Ab Force
    at the same time as three competing products that 1) were substan-
    tially similar in appearance, 2) were advertised on frequently aired
    infomercials using similar visual images of attractive men and
    women, and 3) made claims that were subsequently the subject of
    FTC enforcement action.7
    Again, Telebrands attempts to shift the focus of our analysis to
    minutiae. The circumstances that enabled Telebrands to mount such
    an effective marketing effort for the Ab Force are immaterial to our
    analysis of transferability, except in as much as they reflect on Tele-
    brands’s ability to recognize and use such circumstances to its advan-
    tage in making false and misleading claims. The pertinent issue with
    respect to transferability is whether Telebrands’s conduct—evoking
    explicit benefit claims made in the advertisements for other products
    and using visual images to imply, without substantiation, that the
    Telebrands product will produce those same benefits—can be used by
    Telebrands to sell other goods and services. The record amply sup-
    ports the FTC’s conclusion that it can.
    Khubani acknowledged that one of Telebrands’s modes of opera-
    tion involves targeting existing products that it can imitate profitably.
    7
    The FTC filed actions seeking permanent injunctive and equitable
    monetary relief against the marketers of the Ab Energizer, AbTronic and
    Fast Abs, "alleging that their advertisements made false representations
    that the devices were an effective alternative to exercise and caused users
    to lose weight, inches, and fat." J.A. 732. It settled separately with the
    marketers of the Ab Energizer and Fast Abs for permanent injunctions
    and equitable monetary relief. It was awarded a permanent injunction
    and a judgment of monetary relief in the AbTronic case.
    12                     TELEBRANDS CORP. v. FTC
    Indeed, this approach is one reason that Telebrands incurs the expense
    of subscribing to publications that monitor direct-response advertis-
    ing. In implementing the compare and save strategy for the Ab Force,
    Telebrands deliberately selected a popular product category with fre-
    quently advertised comparative products. The product category
    became popular due, at least in part, to the claims that were subse-
    quently the subject of FTC enforcement action. Frequent advertising
    of the comparative products created consumer familiarity, an element
    essential to the compare and save strategy. Because the other devices
    were already on the market, Telebrands controlled the degree of simi-
    larity between the Ab Force and the other EMS devices and between
    the visual images used in the Ab Force campaign and those used for
    advertising the other devices. Thus, the fact pattern surrounding the
    marketing of the Ab Force does not represent a unique set of circum-
    stances that is unlikely to be repeated; it represents a concerted effort
    by Telebrands to recognize, create and use circumstances to competi-
    tive advantage. Only Telebrands’s imagination and budget would
    limit its ability to use similar tactics in the future.
    Telebrands also argues that the FTC’s Order attempts to fence-in
    a legal practice, the compare and save strategy, "on the theory that the
    practice could be used deceptively at some point in the future."
    Appellant’s Br. at 53. This argument is simply inaccurate. The FTC
    Order does not prohibit Telebrands from employing a compare and
    save strategy. It only places off-limits Telebrands’s use of the com-
    pare and save strategy, or any other strategy, to make representations
    about its products without competent and reliable evidence to sub-
    stantiate those representations. In other words, the Order only prohib-
    its the use of the compare and save strategy in a manner that violates
    the FTC Act.
    C.
    Finally, Telebrands challenges the FTC’s application of the third
    factor in determining whether a reasonable relationship exists
    between the remedy and the violation, the existence of any history of
    prior violations. Telebrands argues that the FTC erred as a matter of
    law in finding that Telebrands’s entry into three prior consent orders
    for unrelated alleged violations on unrelated products, and with no
    TELEBRANDS CORP. v. FTC                        13
    admission of liability, supports the imposition of the broad fencing-in
    language.
    The FTC concluded that the first "two factors—the serious and
    deliberate nature of [Telebrands’s] violations and the ease with which
    they can be transferred to any one of the myriad of services and prod-
    ucts offered by [Telebrands]—are sufficient, without more, to justify
    comprehensive coverage in [the] final order." J.A. 765. Nevertheless,
    it proceeded to conclude that Telebrands’s history of entering into
    multiple prior consent orders with the FTC supported such coverage.
    We agree with the FTC’s conclusion that the extent of the first two
    factors establishes that a reasonable relationship exists between the
    remedy and the violation. See Kraft, 
    970 F.2d at 327
     (holding that
    seriousness, deliberateness and transferability of violations were suffi-
    cient to establish reasonable relationship between remedy and viola-
    tion despite no history of prior violations). Accordingly, we need not
    reach the issue of whether the FTC erred as a matter of law in consid-
    ering the consent orders.
    III.
    For the foregoing reasons, we deny Telebrands’s petition to modify
    the FTC’s Final Order. The Order is
    ENFORCED.