Background
The Florida Attorney General filed a Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA) enforcement action against Trusii, a “wellness company” that sold machines infusing molecular hydrogen into water, and three individual corporate officers. OAG alleged Trusii deceived consumers by: (1) making scientifically unsupported health claims on its website; (2) employing a “bait and switch” tactic through a “case study” program that promised reimbursement but was later modified to consumers’ detriment; and (3) misleading customers about nationwide servicing capabilities.
After the corporate entities defaulted, a bench trial was held on individual liability of the three officers. The trial court found two officers (Kennedy and Taraday) liable and imposed permanent injunctions but declined to award disgorgement. As to the third officer (Piompino), the trial court entered judgment in his favor, finding insufficient evidence of his personal participation in the deceptive practices.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth DCA reversed the judgment in favor of Piompino, finding the trial court’s factual findings were not supported by competent, substantial evidence. The court found that the record demonstrated Piompino was actively involved in the company’s operations during the relevant period—including involvement in the case-study program modifications and customer-facing communications—sufficient to establish individual liability under FDUTPA’s framework for holding corporate officers personally responsible for deceptive practices they directed or participated in.
The court affirmed the injunctions against Kennedy and Taraday and affirmed the denial of disgorgement without further discussion.
Key Takeaways
- Corporate officers can be held individually liable under FDUTPA where they personally direct, participate in, or have knowledge of deceptive trade practices—mere corporate-officer status alone is insufficient, but active involvement in operations is enough.
- The Attorney General’s FDUTPA enforcement power extends to individual officers even where the corporate entity has defaulted.
- Trial courts’ findings regarding individual participation in deceptive practices will be reversed where not supported by competent, substantial evidence in the record.
Why It Matters
This case is significant for Florida consumer protection enforcement and corporate governance. It demonstrates that the Attorney General will pursue individual officers—not just corporate entities—in FDUTPA actions, and that appellate courts will closely scrutinize trial court findings that shield officers from personal liability. For business practitioners advising companies in the wellness, supplement, or health-claims space, this case underscores the personal exposure corporate officers face when companies make unsupported health claims or modify consumer programs to consumers’ detriment. Officers cannot hide behind the corporate form when they are actively participating in the deceptive conduct.