DK Automation Complaint

Case 1:22-cv-23760-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/16/2022 Page 1 of 48

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 1:22-cv-23760

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
v.
DK AUTOMATION LLC, a limited liability

company,
AMZ AUTOMATION LLC, a limited liability

company,
THATLIFESTYLENINJA LLC, a limited liability

company,
PROFICIENT SUPPLY LLC, a limited liability

company,
DIGITAL NINJAZ LLC, a limited liability

company,
ZONBASE, INC., a Delaware corporation,
KEVIN DAVID HULSE, a/k/a Kevin David,

individually and as an officer of DK
AUTOMATION LLC, AMZ AUTOMATION
LLC, THATLIFESTYLENINJA LLC,
DIGITAL NINJAZ LLC, and ZONBASE, INC.,
and
DAVID SHAWN ARNETT, individually and as

an officer of DK AUTOMATION LLC, AMZ
AUTOMATION LLC, and PROFICIENT
SUPPLY LLC,
Defendants.
1
COMPLAINT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION,

MONETARY RELIEF, CIVIL PENALTIES, AND OTHER RELIEF
Plaintiff, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”), for its Complaint alleges:
The FTC brings this action under Sections 5(a), (m)(1)(A)-(B), 13(b), and 19 of the Federal
Trade Commission Act (“FTC Act”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 45(a), 45(m)(1)(A)-(B), 53(b) and 57b, which
authorize the FTC to seek, and the Court to order, temporary, preliminary, and permanent
injunctive relief, monetary relief, civil penalties, and other relief for Defendants’ acts or practices
in violation of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a), the FTC’s Trade Regulation Rule
entitled “Disclosure Requirements and Prohibitions Concerning Business Opportunities”
(“Business Opportunity Rule” or “Rule”), 16 C.F.R. Part 437, as amended, the Consumer
Review Fairness Act of 2016 (“CRFA”), 15 U.S.C. § 45b, and prior Commission determinations
concerning unfair and deceptive acts or practices in commerce. The amended Business
Opportunity Rule became effective on March 1, 2012, and has since that date remained in full
force and effect.
SUMMARY OF CASE
1. Since at least February 2020, Defendants Kevin David Hulse (“Hulse”) and David
Arnett (“Arnett”) have lured consumers into purchasing business opportunities, promising to
build purchasers a “100% Turnkey Amazon Empire” that “generates passive income on
autopilot.”
2. Hulse, who appears prominently in marketing videos as Kevin David, holds
himself out as an Amazon expert, an “eight-figure online business expert,” and a “mentor and
coach to hundreds of thousands of entrepreneurs and students around the world.”
2
3. Hulse and Arnett promote themselves as experts with years of experience working
with Amazon, offering to build consumers profitable online Amazon businesses under a variety
of program names, including Amazon Autopilot, AMZ Autopilot, AMZDFY, Amazon
Automation, Amazon Done For You, and Amazon Done With You. These programs range from
$5,000 to $100,000, purportedly providing varying levels of service and access to products.
4. Defendants promise to help set up an Amazon store for purchasers of these
Amazon programs, identify proven “home run products,” negotiate with suppliers, and order,
process, and ship inventory to Amazon. They further promise to expertly manage the Amazon
storefront on behalf of purchasers, while Amazon will provide customers for the store.
Purchasers need only sit back and receive “passive income.”
5. Defendants advertise that the Amazon Done For You program typically generates
50% to 80% in annual returns, generally outperforms the stock market, and that purchasers can
eventually sell their Amazon business for six-figures.
6. Defendants claim that their Amazon Done With You program is best for people
looking to supplement or replace their 9 to 5 income. They promise to teach purchasers how to
open and run a successful Amazon store, while Amazon will provide the customers.
7. Defendants’ earnings claims are false or unsubstantiated. Most purchasers are
unlikely to earn the advertised income, and many, if not most, lose money.
8. In addition, since at least 2017, Defendant Hulse, under the name
THATLifestyleNinja LLC, has offered several less expensive “training” programs on a variety of
subjects, including how to become a successful seller on Amazon, Facebook, and Shopify, and
how to create and sell digital course content online, with costs ranging from $37 to $1,997.
3
Defendants Hulse and THATLifeStyleNinja represent that purchasers are likely to earn hundreds
of thousands of dollars per month and could become millionaires using these online training
programs. These claims too are false or unsubstantiated. Purchasers of Hulse and
THATLifeStyleNinjas’ training programs are unlikely to earn the advertised income. Instead,
they are likely to lose money.
9. Purchasers of Defendants’ programs must agree not to post negative reviews
about the programs. Defendants have threatened or harassed some purchasers for posting
negative reviews. In addition, it appears that at least some of the positive reviews about
Defendants on popular review websites, such as Trustpilot.com, are falsified.
10. From 2017 to 2021, Defendants have taken at least $52 million from program
purchasers.
11. On April 26, 2022, the FTC sent DK Automation LLC, Hulse, and Arnett a
Notice of Penalty Offenses Concerning Money-Making Opportunities (the “Notice”), noting that
Defendants could be subject to civil penalties for violations of the FTC Act in connection with
their marketing claims, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 45(m)(1)(B); 16 C.F.R. § 1.98(e). The Notice
stated that it is an unfair or deceptive trade practice to make false, misleading, or deceptive
representations concerning the profits or earnings a participant in a money-making opportunity
can expect or to engage in certain acts or practices related to consumer testimonials. Defendants
have continued to use deceptive or unsubstantiated earnings claims in their marketing even after
receiving the Notice.
4
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
12. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1331, 1337(a) and 1345.
13. Venue is proper in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)(1) and 15 U.S.C. § 53(b).
PLAINTIFF
14. The FTC is an independent agency of the United States government created by
the FTC Act, which authorizes the FTC to commence this district court civil action by its own
attorneys. 15 U.S.C. §§ 41– 58. The FTC enforces Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. §
45(a), which prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce. The
Commission also enforces the Business Opportunity Rule, 16 C.F.R. Part 437, as amended,
which requires specific disclosures and prohibits certain misrepresentations in connection with
the sale of a business opportunity, and the Consumer Review Fairness Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45b,
which limits provisions in form contracts that restrict a consumers’ ability to communicate
reviews about a business’ products or services.
DEFENDANTS
15. Defendant DK Automation LLC (“DK”) is a Nevada limited liability company
with its principal place of business at 1111 S. Roop St., #100, Carson City, Nevada, 89702. DK
transacts or has transacted business in this District and throughout the United States. At times
relevant to this Complaint, acting alone or in concert with others, DK has advertised, marketed,
distributed, or sold business opportunities to consumers throughout the United States.
5
16. Defendant Amz Automation LLC (“Amz”) is a Wyoming limited liability
company with its principal place of business at 30 N. Gould St., Suite R, Sheridan, Wyoming
82801. Amz transacts or has transacted business in this District and throughout the United States.
At times relevant to this Complaint, acting alone or in concert with others, Amz has advertised,
marketed, distributed, or sold business opportunities to consumers throughout the United States.
17. Defendant THATLifeStyleNinja LLC (“THATLifeStyleNinja”) is a Wyoming
limited liability company with its principal place of business at 30 N. Gould St., Suite R,
Sheridan, Wyoming 82801. THATLifestyleNinja transacts or has transacted business in this
District and throughout the United States. At times relevant to this Complaint, acting alone or in
concert with others, THATLifestyleNinja has advertised, marketed, distributed, or sold business
coaching services to consumers throughout the United States.
18. Defendant Proficient Supply LLC (“Proficient Supply”) is a Wyoming limited
liability company with its principal place of business at 207 20th St. SE, Suite 102, Hickory, NC
28602. Proficient Supply receives consumer payments, pays employees, and stores products
related to Defendants’ business opportunities. Proficient Supply transacts or has transacted
business in this District and throughout the United States. At times relevant to this Complaint,
acting alone or in concert with others, Proficient Supply has advertised, marketed, distributed, or
sold business opportunities to consumers throughout the United States.
19. Defendant Digital Ninjaz LLC (“Digital Ninjaz”) is a Wyoming limited liability
company with its principal place of business at 30 N. Gould St., Suite R, Sheridan, Wyoming
82801. Digital Ninjaz transacts or has transacted business in this District and throughout the
United States. At times relevant to this Complaint, acting alone or in concert with others, Digital
6
Ninjaz has advertised, marketed, distributed, or sold business opportunities to consumers
throughout the United States.
20. Defendant Zonbase, Inc. (“Zonbase”) is a Delaware corporation with its principal
place of business at 16192 Coastal Hwy, Lewes, DE 19958. Zonbase transacts or has transacted
business in this District and throughout the United States. At times relevant to this Complaint,
acting alone or in concert with others, Zonbase has advertised, marketed, distributed, or sold
business opportunities to consumers throughout the United States.
21. Defendant Kevin David Hulse, also known as Kevin David, is the CEO and
founder of DK, Managing Member and owner of Amz, CEO, President and Managing Member
of THATLifeStyleNinja, President of Digital Ninjaz, and owner of Zonbase. He resides in
Miami, Florida. Hulse narrates and appears in Defendants’ marketing videos and other marketing
materials, and signs business documents on behalf of DK, Amz, THATLifeStyleNinja, Zonbase
and Digital Ninjaz.
22. As the sole shareholder of THATLifeStyleNinja, Hulse receives all distributions
and profits from the company. At all times relevant to this Complaint, acting alone or in concert
with others, Hulse has formulated, directed, controlled, had the authority to control, or
participated in the acts and practices of DK, Amz, THATLifeStyleNinja, Digital Ninjaz, and
Zonbase, including the acts and practices set forth in this Complaint. In connection with the
matters alleged herein, Hulse has transacted business in this District and throughout the United
States.
23. Defendant David Shawn Arnett is the President and COO of DK, , co-owner of
Proficient Supply, and co-owner of AMZ. He resides in Miami, Florida. Arnett appears in Amz
7
marketing videos, other marketing materials for Amz and DK, and signs business documents on
behalf of Amz, DK and Digital Ninjaz. Arnett is the signatory on Proficient Supply’s corporate
accounts where consumer payments are deposited. At all times relevant to this Complaint, acting
alone or in concert with others, Arnett has formulated, directed, controlled, had the authority to
control, or participated in the acts and practices of DK, Amz,and Proficient Supply, including the
acts and practices set forth in this Complaint. In connection with the matters alleged herein,
Arnett has transacted business in this District and throughout the United States.
COMMON ENTERPRISE
24. Defendants DK, Amz, THATLifeStyle Ninja, Digital Ninjaz, Zonbase, and
Proficient Supply (collectively, the “Corporate Defendants”) have operated as a common
enterprise while engaging in the deceptive acts and practices and other violations of law alleged
below in this Complaint. Corporate Defendants have conducted the business practices described
below through an interrelated network of companies that have common ownership, officers,
managers, employees, business functions, products and office locations, and that commingled
funds. For example:
• Hulse and Arnett are officers or managers of DK, Amz, Digital Ninjaz, and
Zonbase;
• Amz, THATLifeStyleNinja, and Digital Ninjaz share the same corporate address;
• DK, Amz, Digital Ninjaz and Zonbase offer the same business opportunities;
• Corporate bank accounts for Amz and Proficient Supply were used to accept
consumer payments for DK and Digital Ninjaz;
8
• THATLifeStyleNinja’s programs are often bundled together with the business
opportunities, and DK, Amz, THATLifeStyleNinja, Digital Ninjaz, Zonbase, and
Proficient Supply share employees; and
• Corporate bank accounts for Amz, THATLifeStyleNinja, and Digital Ninjaz are
in Hulse’s name, Amz transferred millions of dollars to THATLifeStyleNinja, and
THATLifeStyleNinja and Digital Ninjaz have commingled funds.
Because the Corporate Defendants have operated as a common enterprise, each of them is liable
for the acts and practices alleged below.
COMMERCE
25. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendants have maintained a substantial
course of trade in or affecting commerce, as “commerce” is defined in Section 4 of the FTC Act,
15 U.S.C. § 44.
DEFENDANTS’ BUSINESS ACTIVITIES
Defendants’ Business Opportunities
26. Since at least February 2020, Defendants Hulse, Arnett, DK, Amz, Digital Ninjaz,
ZonBase and Proficient Supply have deceptively advertised, marketed, distributed, promoted,
and sold business opportunities to consumers throughout the United States.
27. Defendants post video advertisements on the Internet and social media –
including on Google, Facebook, Instagram and YouTube – pitching a “100% turnkey Amazon
Empire Built By Us For You.” A screenshot from one of Defendants’ video ads on Facebook
featuring Hulse and Arnett, taken in October 2021, is depicted below.
9
a-a, go anrzdfy com
100% TURNKEY
AMAZON EMPIRE
BUILT BY US FOR YOU!
I J
are earning SO% to 80% annual returns.
GO.AMZOFY.COM
We Build 100% Auto mated Turn·Key Amazon Learn More
Empircsl
This ad h as mtAt1ple Vl!f!.lOllS. C, 1 of8
28. Many of Defendants’ ads emphasize Hulse’s purported success. Hulse presents
himself as a self-made multimillionaire with the “biggest community [or family] in the world of
Amazon business owners,” and “a million followers worldwide [on YouTube].” He claims that,
before he became a successful entrepreneur, he was an accountant working 9 to 5 in a cubicle.
Defendants’ ads feature luxury cars and mansions, purportedly financed by Hulse’s successful
Amazon businesses. They also state that Hulse is featured in well-known business publications,
including Forbes, Entrepreneur, Business Insider, Nasdaq, Yahoo Finance, and the Wall Street
Journal.
29. Defendants’ ads present Hulse and Arnett as Amazon experts who have helped
“tens of thousands of people just like you.” They show purported examples of Hulse’s and
Arnett’s Amazon accounts, “pulled directly from Amazon’s API [Application Programming
Interface],” with average monthly revenues of $165,000, and “conservative” profit margins of
10
25% for just one of the many purportedly profitable products they sell. The ads promise that
Defendants will choose similar “homerun” products for program purchasers to sell on Amazon.
A screenshot from one such video advertisement, taken in September 2021, is depicted below.
Watch This Video Now to Discover How We'll Help You Build Your Autop_i/ot Amz Business!
flt Click Pla,y and Turn ON the Volume to Wa tch This SHORT Life Changing Video!
Monthty Revenue $ l65.015 Conservative Profit Margin 25'%.

Monthly U nits Sold 796
... u
-·
=~ $-$'• >M- ,,. ~ ..1,11111 ~ D
.. . -·-·.... ·-~
,.,,., ... ,
.,. -v "'
--y
:.C1UJl:I
'1-1.,,....
~
,.
.. -. ,4,0.
_,.,,. ,-
-·
....--
$;«>,;Q ,.-
...., \r ;,Glc,.Jr.,
* n
" -· $111,!f<(•
,,,,., ,uu
~
'\,_,A,
'"
,.,
~~•.Ii~
$ut.,,.,
M
..
Avt1ra1:o Monthly Ronnu,: ~II.Ill Conservative Profit Margin: 25%
Average Monthly Units Sold: 191
Clicl< :ter" 10 Secom<: Our Ne<t Pa,mer!

"Sp'""' IS Extremely limited"
30. Defendants market their business opportunities as an “exclusive partnership” with
“one of the best, if not the best, partnership in the world at creating Amazon businesses” and an
easy way to make “passive income.” For example, Defendants’ advertisements feature
statements such as: “What if I told you that if you qualify, we will do 100% of the work while
you sit back and relax and watch us build you an Amazon empire?” or “WE DO 99% OF THE
HEAVY LIFTING FOR YOU.”
11
31. In numerous instances, Defendants’ ads tell consumers to take advantage of their
offer quickly because this may be the last time this deal will be offered.
32. Defendants’ ads invite consumers to click on a link that redirects them to
Defendants’ website, amzdfy.com, where consumers are instructed to enter their email address
and request a “case study.” A screenshot of the sign-up link, taken in September 2021, is
depicted below.
A~-\ ,
OONE WITH YOU
Exclusive: New For 2021 ...

AMZ AUTOMATION
LEARN HOW WE CAN BUILD
YOU A HANDS-OFF TURN
KEY AMZ BUSINESS!
(Yes Ifs Real, Pay V•!J Close Attention 01 thc Nott Pago~
Enter Your Best Email Address..
SEND MY CASE STUDY >>>
33. Underneath the sign-up link, in small font, are links to a privacy policy, terms of
service, and disclaimer (see infra), but it is not necessary to click on any of those links to receive
the case study. The purported disclaimer states:
12
David and Kevin do not track the typical results of our customers or verify the accuracy
of publicly available student testimonials . . . Where income figures are mentioned (if
any), those income figures are anecdotal information passed on to us concerning the
results achieved by the individual sharing the information. We have performed no
independent verification of the statements made by those individuals. Please do not
assume that you will make those same income figures.
34. In many instances, Defendants’ website, amzdfy.com, indicates there are over one
thousand positive reviews of Defendants’ programs on the popular consumer review website
Trustpilot.com, and contains hundreds of purported client testimonials, such as the testimonials
depicted below (captured in December 2021):
"From a recreational therapist to

successfully escaping the 9-to-5 Grind"
Sean found us when he made up his mind to do
something different that would give him financial
freedom. ,,lf,ou •r•
MVing,
•nydoubts. l hMI
thoMtoo.
Just take the JHp of
He was a recreational therapist stuck in the vicious faith and they will
p,ow fO)OIJ INI
cycle of paychecks, which made him realize he did they can do
not want to kill himself in the corporate rat race wMt tM)'undo.
qe
and wait until he is 60 to financially free. -sean"
Instead of compromising and suffocating with his
current situation, he decided to take solid action
now and start his entrepreneurial journey.
With zero experience a nd knowledge in selling on Amazon, he decid ed to take our help and
autom ate the Amazon business for him.
We are so p roud of Sean, he decided to take action, and refu sed to give up no matter what!
13
Check Out Even More Proof We Know Amz! (Check Out of These Real People!)
__ ______ _- _ ____...,......__ ....

-------
_ ____
.,. ,.
--...-.-- ...
__·---- (.-
_____ ___ , ;,
-----·-·-
------•-·--
....... _........ ___
-------
-Z:.6..1.::.!!"l
.... - -l!'S!:'.::!:.:
.,._
e-,,_,.._..,,..,..
amazon seller
~'"'!::-.:!:-::~=
--····--·
.......--...----
~--·---··
,
a
rd
1w111p,.i-t1Mby-~ 1Nt11'111-
PIO(l,,ctl11ltldawa,,°"-,-fcwmad1Ht
l'fS.,~II011'111-.Vou~...
-brU..ltftllaolllw, . . - 1
____ ___..__
_____ ...
,....,._,..
"'..,....._....,...,...,. ,_
.... _____
____ ,.__..,.,.,..
.._____
■ - lfflUOftsel!« ■
tw..llNn . . . . . wllt!Jlrl.fWrl'
~ o , 1 1 1 : ... .,,.,inglil'Mol
,...,andpOIICAN _ _...,.
§:.:§.2'.f:~:;;..
-o1~~1Nlbuyflll
l<lftZJ'""'beMecMCltll ... dtwng;.e
::":=...:,;;S~-i.-::.::.:-.:.
... _ .. ...... ..
~------Ol'lhirdOI' liiMltM
•·"
U11V..,Mw9"lllf'llon"-tnl
~-0..of""""""IJOOd
Metmffllffl._grao111lallclonhefflrll •
p,oGJCla,ShllDlt- - -A<llllulahl
belie¥edll'ltlMNln...,... She~
"-dlor-•,--LNtmonctl
~201t)lhedicl-
= ■LI
. . . 11,,nPffl(lll-,.,,Stw-1
90il:WI llul _....-Id

poa!MN~lhe...-,.tw
0. ...___,
=:-i~::n~ ..-"'::
icM"rizwrnmiS%AA-w
~ ~ ~~~'."lhllWOl'k·llffdoffl
:dtdd
35. In numerous instances, on Defendants’ website, consumers view another, longer
video, typically narrated by Hulse, that explains the business opportunities in more detail. The
video highlights several products Hulse purportedly sells on Amazon that generate between
$60,000 and $165,000 monthly each, with a “conservative profit margin” of 25%.
36. In the video, Hulse explains that purchasers do not need any experience or time to
devote to this opportunity because he and his team will pick “homerun” products for them, pick
the top supplier in the world to make those products, and create optimized product listings to sell
those products. He emphasizes his team does “99% of the heavy lifting,” while Amazon handles
the purchaser’s website, getting the customers, shipping, packaging, and everything else for the
purchaser.
37. Towards the end, the video states: “EXTREMELY LIMITED SPACES
AVAILABLE” and “TIME IS RUNNING OUT.” At the end of the video is a link to click to
become a “partner” and consumers are prompted to provide their name, email address, and phone
14
number, and answer questions about their net worth. They can also sign up for a free sales
strategy session with an “Amazon Success Manager.”
38. In numerous instances, before consumers meet with the Amazon Success
Manager, Defendants bombard them with additional marketing videos and emails touting the
exponential returns of the business opportunities. For example, emails are titled “How This
Former English Teacher Makes 30k/Month” and “What would you do with a blank check?” Text
messages provide testimonials such as: “This product is in the fitness niche and can do $20k to
$40k in revenue in one month alone! . . . I was able to retire my mother, buy her a house, quit my
9 to 5 job, support my sisters through nursing school and so much more.”
39. Earnings claims Defendants use throughout the sales process include statements
about the amount of money or profit consumers can make and purported testimonials from
successful clients, such as:
• “Our students inside of our Amazon Automation Program are earning 50 to 80% annual
returns and when you compare that to the stock market, which is 5-7%--that’s more than
10 times as much.”
• “I ENDED UP MAKING $50,000 IN ONE MONTH SELLING ON AMAZON . . .”
• “Earn 10x More Than What You Earn Annually From The Stock Market!”
• “We Made $50,000-$100,000 Per Month in Revenue in Just 6 to 12 Months or Sooner in

Our Stores!”
• “Gert literally borrowed money to get started . . . He made more on Amazon this past
year than he had ever made before in his entire life combined.”
• “In that short time, you can see right here on the right, [Matt] made over $150,000 in
revenue in just a single month . . . He made more in one month than he would make in
years in the marines.”
15
40. In addition, Defendants make earnings claims regarding the success of Hulse’s
and Arnett’s Amazon accounts. For example, in marketing videos posted online, Arnett shows
two of his and Hulse’s accounts that purportedly made approximately $400,000 in the last 30
days, and Hulse shows three of their accounts that made over $510,000 in the first 21 days of the
month. Hulse also shares a “Case Study of Kevin and David’s Past Account Performance” that
shows an estimated total return on investment including potential sale of the business of 273%.
41. Defendants also provide consumers with a Case Study titled “How the Amazon
Wholesale Model Works – The Numbers!,” a screenshot of which (taken in January 2021) is
depicted below, and presents purported levels of sales and profits that purchasers of the Amazon
Done For You Program can expect to earn with the Amazon business opportunities. The chart
shows that a consumer who invests $50,000 of “working capital” in this opportunity can expect
$140,458.01 in store revenue after 13 months, $10,913.59 in profit and potentially over $200,000
from the sale of the business.
AD) DONE FDR YOU
How the Amazon Wholesale Model Works - The Numbers!
- 3
4
5
6
1
2
S-
S-
s-
.
$75,000.00
$81,118.88
$87,736.96
..
5 0, 000.00
Onboa,.ding
Inventory Purchasina:
In bound to Amazon
$50,000.00
$54,079.25
$58,491.31
I
so
so
so
$5,827.50
$6,302.94
$6,8 17.16
so
so
so
$ 1, 748.25
S 1,890.88
$2,045. 15
so
so
so
$4,079.25
$4,412.06
$4,772.01
SC
$50,000
Inbound to Amazon
Profit Reinv estment
Profit Reinvestment
Profit Reinve stment
7 $94,894.98 $63,263. 32 $7, 373.34 $2, 212.00 $5, 161.34 Profit Reinvestme nt
8 S102,636,98 $68,424. 66 $7,974.89 S2, 392.47 S5,582,43 Profit Reinv e stment
9 $11 1, 010.62 $74, 007.08 $8,625.53 $2, 587.66 $6,037.87 Profit Reinvestment
10 S120,067.4 3 $80,044.95 $9,3 29.24 S2, 798.77 $6,530.47 Profit Reinvestment
11 S129,863.13 $86,575.42 $10,090. 36 $3,027, 11 $7,063. 26 Profit Reinve stme nt
12
13+
..
$ 140,458.01
$140,458.01
$93, 638.67
~3.638.67
$10, 913. 59
$ 10,!>13.59 I
$3, 274.0 8
$3,274.o&
•According to Popular Online Business Brokerage Empire F lippers -Amazon

I
$7, 639. 51
$7.,639.Sl
--c-1,-
Profit Reinvestment
B u sinesses Sell for Generally 30x - 36x Net Profit on a T railing 12 Month Average.
16
42. After reviewing the videos, marketing materials and case study, consumers speak
with an “Amazon Success Manager,” a representative of Defendants. The Amazon Success
Manager typically explains the various Amazon Automation Programs offered to consumers –
Amazon Done For You (frequently called Diamond, Platinum, and Standard packages) or
Amazon Done With You (frequently called Silver, Gold, and Emerald packages). Defendants
also offer variations on the Platinum package, including Platinum Pro, Platinum Max, and
Platinum Pro Max. These additional packages combine the Amazon business opportunities with
a cryptocurrency service.
43. The Diamond package typically costs $100,000 for the initial set up fee, requires
an additional $50,000 in working capital, and purportedly includes access to Defendants’ most
exclusive products and exclusive relationships with multimillion dollar brands so that consumers
become “the SOLE seller” of those exclusive products. Defendants tell consumers that the “year
1 revenue goal” for this package is $2,000,000.
44. The Platinum package typically costs $40,000 and requires an additional $15,000
in working capital. It includes similar benefits to the Diamond package. The “year 1 revenue
goal” for the Platinum package is $670,000.
45. The Standard package typically costs $25,000 and an additional $7,500 in
working capital. It includes an Amazon seller account and a shared virtual assistant. The revenue
target is $350,000 for the Standard package.
46. Despite Defendants’ representations to the contrary, consumers who purchase the
Done For You packages are typically provided with products that are also sold by other Amazon
17
sellers, including other clients of Defendants, and they typically do not earn the advertised
revenue and profit.
47. The Done With You packages typically range in cost from $5,000 to $20,000 for
the initial investment and $5,000 to $15,000 for working capital. Defendants advertise the Gold,
Silver, and Emerald packages to consumers who are looking to “create a new stream of online
passive income” and “subsidize or replace a 9-5 income” and for “beginners on a budget.”
Defendants promise different levels of service for each package, including product exclusivity,
“two handpicked home-run potential products” for consumers to choose one from, a “proven
blueprint” for finding home run Amazon products consistently, and finding world class
manufacturers.
48. Defendants typically require purchasers of their Amazon business opportunities to
sign an Account Management Service Agreement with DK or Digital Ninjaz (the “Account
Agreement”). The Account Agreement for the Done For You programs provides that DK will
receive 30% of the net profits of the purchaser’s Amazon store on a monthly basis.
49. After purchasers sign the Account Agreement and pay the fees to Defendants,
including the initial fee and working capital, they are required to pay additional fees, including
fees for opening an LLC, state licensing, and Amazon storage. Once consumers’ Amazon stores
are set up, Defendants label them “onboarded.”
50. As of at least May 23, 2022, Defendants also offer business opportunities that
function as a hybrid between the Amazon Done For You and Amazon Done With You programs,
called the ZonBase Program. Defendants advertise on Facebook using sponsored ads under the
name Zonbase. The terms and conditions on zonbase.com tell consumers that Zonbase is a trade
18
name for Digital Ninjaz. Defendants represent that they will “do 75% of the heavy lifting” in
creating a successful Amazon business for purchasers.
51. The ZonBase Program includes ZonBase Pro and ZonBase Elite, both of which
offer “1 or 3 Exclusive Picked for you[] products,” “help with listing your products,” “live
Q&A’s twice per week,” Kevin David’s FBA Masterclass, access to the ZonBase platform, a
software suite that allows purchasers to research “hot” Amazon products, access to a private
Facebook group and “24/7 extensive support.” The ZonBase packages typically cost from $4,800
to $24,500. Defendants claim this program will allow a purchaser to quit their 9 to 5 job, earn a
net profit of 41% on a typical product, and build a successful Amazon business.
52. Defendants’ earnings claims regarding the business opportunities are false or
unsubstantiated. Few, if any, purchasers earn the income Defendants advertise and many, if not
most, lose money. Many purchasers experience long shipping delays, inactive products, low
revenues, and a loss of their initial investment.
Defendants Fail To Provide Disclosure and Earnings Claim Statements
53. Defendants do not provide prospective purchasers who sign their Account
Agreements with disclosure documents required under the Business Opportunity Rule at least
seven calendar days before signing a business opportunity contract or making a payment for the
business opportunity.
54. Defendants have failed to disclose in writing:
a. the seller’s identifying information, including name, business address, and

telephone number;
b. whether the seller makes earnings claims, along with an “Earnings Claims
Statement” required by the Rule;
c. a list of civil, criminal, and FTC actions within the last 10 years;
d. the seller’s cancellation or refund policy; and
19
e. a list of purchasers and contact information of individuals who purchased

the business opportunity within the last 3 years.
55. Although Defendants and their representatives have routinely made claims to
prospective purchasers about likely earnings, they have failed to provide prospective purchasers
with an Earnings Claim statement, as required by the Business Opportunity Rule, which includes
the beginning and ending dates when the represented earnings were achieved, and the number
and percentage of all persons who purchased the business opportunity and achieved the stated
level of earnings. Defendants have also failed to disclose written substantiation of their earnings
claims as required under the Business Opportunity Rule.
56. Defendants admitted in a Q and A session and in phone calls during the sales
process that they do not maintain or provide a written disclosure document or Earnings Claim
statement to consumers.
Defendants’ Cryptocurrency Program
57. In January 2022, Defendants launched a cryptocurrency program that, in many
instances, is bundled with a business opportunity, the Platinum Amazon Automation program.
Hulse narrates the videos and offers consumers a “Crypto Automation” package, which is “[b]est
for people who want to build CRYPTO WEALTH but don’t want to look at charts all day.” The
videos include statements such as: “How To Make a Full Time Passive Income On Autopilot”
and “Automated Crypto Passive Income.”
58. Defendants offer consumers use of Defendants’ “#1 secret passive income crypto
trading bot,” an automated trading program, in which Defendants promise “[o]ver 80% of [their]
Trades Are Profitable.” Hulse states that the crypto trading bot allowed him to profit every single
20
day and “make absolute insane returns,” even during the crypto crash in January 2022 and that
consumers do not need any technical skills or experience with cryptocurrency to make a profit.
59. As of at least May 23, 2022, Defendants started offering their automated crypto
trading bot to purchasers under their Autocoinbot Tier 1 and Autocoinbot Tier 2 Programs.
Defendants market their trading bot as “a fully automated, fully-automatic algorithm” attached to
a purchaser’s trading account that “will trade for you 24-7 so you will generate your profits even
while you sleep.” Defendants claim that purchasers should expect “65% to 84% [in returns] per
year as profit,” and state that returns may be as high as 125%. The Autocoinbot Tier 1 Program
typically costs $9,800 plus a fee of $297/month, and the Autocoinbot Tier 2 Program costs
$19,800. In some instances, Defendants charge between $20,000 to $85,000 to access their
crypto trading bot. Defendants claim that purchasers who buy both the ZonBase and Autocoinbot
programs will be able to replace their 9 to 5 jobs immediately with earnings from these
programs.
60. Hulse narrates videos on YouTube where he purports to teach consumers how to
trade cryptocurrency. For example, Hulse narrates videos titled, “Easy Way to Make $1,000
PROFIT DAILY Using Crypto Trading Bots,” “Easy $500 A Day Crypto Day Trading for
Beginners (Step by Step Guide),” “How to Make $5k Per Month Staking Crypto,” My 100x
Gains Playlist,” and “Simple Method to Make $100 A Day Trading Crypto Coins as a Beginner
(10x Gains).”
61. After viewing Defendants’ cryptocurrency videos, consumers are directed to the
website for Defendants’ cryptocurrency program. At the very bottom of the website, below the
fold, in small typeface, are “Earnings and Legal Disclaimers” that state:
21
Earnings and income representations . . . are aspirational statements only of your earning
potential. The success of AutoCoinBot, testimonials and other examples are exceptional,
non-typical results and are not intended to be and are not a guarantee that you or others
will achieve the same results.
62. Below that disclaimer, in small typeface, is a link to a separate disclaimer page
that a consumer must affirmatively click on to view, but the consumer is not required to do so.
The THATLifeStyleNinja “Training” Programs
63. Since at least July 2017, in addition to offering business opportunities,
Defendants Hulse and THATLifeStyleNinja have marketed “training” programs through
YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, mobile communications, or their websites,
https://www.officialkevindavid.com, under the brand names Digital Course Secrets, Facebook
Ads, Marketing Agency, Amazon Agency, Ecom Agency, Amazon FBA Ninja Masterclass, and
Infinity Mastermind trainings.
64. These trainings typically cost $1,997 and purport to teach consumers how to make
money online. For example, the ads for the Digital Course Secrets training promise to teach
consumers how to create and sell a digital course on any topic they are familiar with – from
weight loss to social media. No prior experience is necessary to be successful.
65. Consumers view Hulse’s marketing videos online or on social media and are
directed to click the sign-up link for more information. Below the sign-up link, at the bottom of
the screen, is a disclaimer that states: “We do not track the typical results of our customers or
verify the accuracy of publicly available student testimonials . . . All information is mentioned
for informational and educational purposes only.” In addition, in small typeface, below the fold,
is a link to a separate “Disclaimer” page that a consumer must affirmatively click on to view, but
the consumer is not required to do so.
22
66. Consumers click the sign-up link or are automatically directed to
THATLifeStyleNinja’s website, https://www.officialkevindavid.com. Thereafter, consumers are
prompted to enter their credit card information and check a box to agree to certain Terms of
Service. Consumers do not have to view the Terms of Service in order to check the box or
purchase a program, and they must affirmatively click a link to review the Terms of service. The
Terms of Service state that refunds for courses such as Digital Course Secrets will only be
granted if less than 40% of the course has been reviewed and imposes “action-based”
requirements to receive a refund. THATLifeStyleNinja’s website and videos, however, heavily
advertise a 100% money-back guarantee without mentioning any of those “conditions.”
67. The Digital Course Secrets and Infinity Mastermind trainings include earnings
claims, such as:
• “Many of these people started from zero, these people that had a 9-5 job, a full-time job
making forty or fifty grand a year, they’ve become millionaires from this program,
multiple of them.”
• “So this is a real stripe account, this isn’t like a screenshot or something weird like that.
You can see that’s yesterday. So yesterday is $49,400 [in profit].”
• “Jose Pena . . . grew up from nothing in the Dominican Republic, and ended up making
$96,000 in a single month with his course.”
• “He [a client] even sent me a screenshot of one of his stores that did just shy of four
million dollars.”
• “We can talk about Earnest. He made $54,373 in profit from his digital product [in 30
days].”
68. THATLifeStyleNinja’s earnings claims are false or unsubstantiated. Purchasers
are unlikely to earn the advertised income, and instead typically lose their entire investment.
Defendants Lack Substantiation For Their Earnings Claims for All Programs
69. Defendants’ purported disclaimers are not clear and conspicuous, and do not cure
their misrepresentations regarding the earnings that purchasers are likely to realize.
23
70. At the very bottom of amzdfy.com, below the fold, in small typeface that
consumers might notice only if they scroll down past dozens of purported positive consumer
testimonials are certain “Earnings and Legal Disclaimers.” They state:
Earnings and income representations made by DK Automation LLC and their

advertisers/sponsors/members/owners are aspirational statements only of your earnings
potential. The success of DK Automation, testimonials and other examples used are
exceptional, non-typical results are not intended to be and are not a guarantee that you or
others will achieve the same results.
71. Defendants include the same disclaimer, in small typeface, at the end of a video
for their Crypto Program.
72. Similarly, Hulse and THATLifeStyle Ninja’s training programs, available on
https://www.officialkevindavid.com, include earnings disclaimers that consumers can, but are
not required to, view by affirmatively clicking a link titled “Disclaimer” located at the bottom of
the page. The “Disclaimer” states that:
Where income figures are mentioned (if any), those income figures are anecdotal
information passed on to us concerning the results achieved by the individual sharing the
information. We have performed no independent verification of the statements made by
those individuals.
73. Hulse and THATLifeStyleNinja’s videos also contain small, almost illegible
language at the bottom of the segment of the video featuring consumer testimonials:
D1scla1m[)f Results mu, not be typical nc, expected for every person, we <I J 1, Jt track or venfv t;pical results of our students This 1s not a "get ndl
quick" scheme All 1nformabon prov~ 100 1s based on best prndlces and for edJcabonal-purposes only
74. While neither clear nor conspicuous and not designed to be noticed or opened by
prospective purchasers, Defendants’ disclaimers acknowledge that they have not collected any
data to substantiate whether the earnings claims they make are truthful, typical, and
representative.
24
Defendants’ Attempts to Suppress Negative Reviews and Falsify Positive Reviews
75. In numerous instances, DK’s Account Agreement, a form contract, includes a
mutual non-disparagement clause, which requires the following:
both Parties agree not to disparage or denigrate either Party orally or in writing and that
neither Party nor anyone acting on either Party’s behalf will publish, post, or otherwise
release any material in written or electronic format, make speeches, gain interviews or
make public statements that mentions the company.
76. In July 2021, Defendants threatened a dissatisfied purchaser who paid them
$150,750 for the Amazon Done For You Program, and did not make any net operating profit
over the course of two years, with a lawsuit for violating the non-disparagement clause. The
purchaser previously received a mass email from DK to numerous DK clients. He “replied all” to
the email and asked the other clients about their profitability with the program. Many clients
responded that they were not making a profit and discussed Defendants’ poor management of the
clients’ Amazon stores. Several months later Defendants emailed the group and said that clients
were not allowed to talk to each other. Thereafter, Defendants emailed the purchaser claiming
that he had violated the non-disparagement clause of his Account Agreement and threatened that
Defendants “will litigate for damages . . . that will be far in excess to that of the original joining
fee.”
77. In approximately February 2022, Defendants included an addendum to their
Platinum Package agreement titled, “Non-Disclosure Agreement.” This separate addendum must
be signed by purchasers in addition to signing the contract. Clause I.F states, “[t]he Client agrees
not to disparage, defame or demean DK Automation, its owners, managers, or development of
products to any third-party in any manner whatsoever.”
78. THATLifeStyleNinja’s website requires program purchasers to enter into a form
25
contract online that includes a mutual non-disparagement clause that bars or restricts the ability
of the consumer from providing reviews, performance assessments, and similar analyses of the
company’s goods, services, or conduct.
79. The mutual non-disparagement clause states:
The parties agree that they neither will engage in any conduct or communications with a
third party . . . designed to disparage the other. Neither Client nor any of Client’s
associates . . . will directly or indirectly. . . communicate in any way . . . any remark. . .
that might reasonably be construed to be derogatory or critical of, or negative toward, the
Company or any of its programs, members, owner[,] directors, officers, Affiliates,
subsidiaries, employees, agents or representatives.
80. Many dissatisfied consumers have requested refunds from THATLifeStyleNinja.
The company has often denied such requests. Some dissatisfied purchasers have filed complaints
with the Better Business Bureau (the “BBB”). The company at times has agreed to provide
refunds to purchasers who complained to the BBB on the condition that they remove their
complaints.
81. The online consumer review platform Trustpilot.com includes many positive
reviews about Hulse’s and THATLifeStyleNinja’s programs. However, Trustpilot notified Hulse
and THATLifeStyleNinja that it received hundreds of falsified positive reviews about their
programs. In addition, Hulse and THATLifeStyleNinja have routinely flagged negative reviews
that automatically result in TrustPilot removing the review until the consumer responds with
documentation to verify their negative review. This onerous process often results in TrustPilot
removing those negative reviews permanently because consumers either do not respond or
cannot provide the type of documentation necessary.
82. The BBB’s business page for THATLifeStyleNinja has an alert that says, “BBB
received a significant volume of customer reviews about this business that we were unable to
26
authenticate” and “[b]ecause BBB is unable to establish a reasonable degree of confidence about
the validity of these reviews, we are not able to publish them.” In addition, the BBB alert says,
“it has come to BBB’s attention that the business is offering compensation or incentives to
individuals who post reviews.”
Hulse’s Central Role in Defendants’ Scheme
83. Hulse is the signatory on the bank accounts for Amz, THATLifeStyleNinja, and
Digital Ninjaz, opened all the payment processing accounts to process consumer payments for
Amz, DK, THATLifeStyleNinja, and Digital Ninjaz, and registered Defendants’ domains,
including amzdfy.com, officialkevindavid.com, zonbase.com, and digitalninjaz.io. He narrates
Defendants’ marketing videos, signs Defendants’ marketing correspondence, and promises
consumers that he can make them significant earnings via Defendants’ business opportunities or
other training programs. A screenshot from Hulse’s marketing video for AMAZON FBA, taken
in December 2021, is shown below:
27
PROMISE I
DURING THIS TRAINING I WILL ~
MAKE YOU ABELIEVER... ~
I Will Prove To You That YO Can Create A
Successful Amazon FBA Business, Completely
From Scratch ven If The ave ZERO
~ ~~ 1 c or Technical Skill...
84. Hulse is aware of complaints from dissatisfied purchasers filed with the BBB and
he has responded directly to the BBB about such complaints. He is also aware of the BBB’s and
Trustpilot’s concerns about falsified positive reviews and incentives provided for positive
reviews. As the signatory on Amz, THATLifeStyle Ninja, and Digital Ninjaz’s bank accounts,
Hulse is also aware of the high number of chargebacks filed with consumers’ credit card
companies requesting the return of their payment to Defendants, and the termination of corporate
payment processing accounts due to high chargebacks. He is also aware of the requirements
imposed by the Business Opportunity Rule on the sellers of business opportunities. When asked
by a consumer during an online “Q&A Session” on May 4, 2021 whether Defendants provide the
required Disclosure Document and Earnings Claim Document, Hulse responded that Defendants
were not offering a business opportunity.
28
Arnett’s Central Role in DK and Amz’s Scheme
85. Arnett is Hulse’s business partner, and mostly handles employees, warehouse,
shipping, and fulfillment duties. He appears in the marketing videos for Amz and Defendants’
cryptocurrency programs, the marketing materials for Amz and DK (including emails and “case
studies” highlighting the performance of Defendants’ business opportunities), and signs business
documents on behalf of Amz, DK, Digital Ninjaz, and Proficient Supply. Arnett is the signatory
on the Proficient Supply corporate account that takes purchasers’ working capital deposits.
Below is a screenshot, taken in December 2021, of DK’s website featuring Arnett and his
purported successes:
86. Arnett is aware of complaints from purchasers of Defendants’ business
opportunities regarding not receiving the advertised income and losing money, and he has
personally responded to such complaints.
87. Arnett signed account agreements with consumers on behalf of DK and Digital
Ninjaz. DK and Digital Ninjaz’s Account Agreements typically contain a form contract that
includes a non-disparagement clause. Arnett, on behalf of DK, threatened at least one consumer
29
with a lawsuit for communicating with Defendants’ clients about their experiences with
Defendants’ programs in violation of the non-disparagement clause.
Defendants Continue to Violate the Law
88. On April 26, 2022, the FTC sent letters to Defendants with copies of the Notice of
Penalty Offenses Concerning Money-Making Opportunities and Notice of Penalty Offenses
Around Endorsements and Testimonials (attached hereto as Attachment A). The letters and
Notices of Penalty Offenses identified specific acts or practices that the Commission has
determined are unfair or deceptive and violate Section 5 of the FTC Act.
89. As detailed in the Notices, the Commission determined, in a series of litigated
decisions, that it is an unfair or deceptive trade practice to make false, misleading, or deceptive
representations concerning the profits or earnings that may be anticipated by a participant in a
money-making opportunity (i.e., a person who has been accepted or hired for, has purchased, or
otherwise is engaging in the money-making opportunity). It is also an unfair or deceptive trade
practice to use testimonials to make unsubstantiated or deceptive performance claims or to state
that the experience described by the endorsers represents the typical or ordinary experience of
users of the product or service.
90. The above acts or practices were prohibited by final cease and desist orders issued
in cases in which the Commission determined these acts were unfair or deceptive and unlawful
under Section 5(a)(1) of the FTC Act. The letters warned Defendants of their potential liability
for civil penalties under Section 5(m)(1)(B) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(m)(1)(B), for
knowingly engaging in acts or practices determined by the Commission to be unfair or deceptive
and unlawful, as described in Paragraph 88 of this Complaint.
30
91. Despite learning of the FTC’s investigation and despite receiving the Notices of
Penalty Offenses, Defendants continue to make false or unsubstantiated earnings claims and
claims regarding performance and experience through testimonials.
92. Based on the facts and violations of law alleged in this Complaint, the FTC has
reason to believe that Defendants are violating or are about to violate laws enforced by the
Commission.
VIOLATIONS OF THE FTC ACT
93. Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a), prohibits “unfair or deceptive acts
or practices in or affecting commerce.”
94. Misrepresentations or deceptive omissions of material fact constitute deceptive
acts or practices prohibited by Section 5(a) of the FTC Act.
95. Acts or practices are unfair under Section 5 of the FTC Act if they cause or are
likely to cause substantial injury to consumers that consumers cannot reasonably avoid
themselves and that is not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or competition.
15 U.S.C. § 45(n).
96. As set forth below, Defendants have engaged and continue to engage in violations
of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act in connection with the advertising, marketing, and sale of their
business opportunities and training programs.
COUNT ONE
False or Unsubstantiated Earnings Claims
97. In numerous instances in connection with the advertising, marketing, promotion,
offering for sale, or sale of Defendants’ business opportunities and training programs,
31
Defendants represent directly or indirectly, expressly or by implication, that purchasers of
Defendants’ business opportunities and Defendants’ training programs are likely to earn
substantial income.
98. The representations set forth in Paragraph 97 are false, misleading, or were not
substantiated at the time the representations were made.
99. Therefore, the making of the representations as set forth in Paragraph 97 of this
Complaint constitutes a deceptive act or practice in violation of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15
U.S.C. § 45(a).
COUNT TWO
Unfairness
100. In numerous instances, Defendants have used manipulation, threats, intimidation,
and non-disparagement clauses to discourage purchasers from speaking about or publishing
truthful or non-defamatory, negative comments or reviews about Defendants and their services.
Defendants have also falsified positive reviews, artificially removed negative reviews through
flagging, and intimidated purchasers who reach out to fellow purchasers about their experiences
with Defendants’ services.
101. Defendants’ actions cause or are likely to cause substantial injury to consumers
that consumers cannot reasonably avoid themselves and that is not outweighed by countervailing
benefits to consumers or competition.
102. Therefore, Defendants’ acts or practices as set forth in Paragraph 100 constitute
unfair acts or practices in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 45(a), (n).
32
VIOLATIONS OF THE BUSINESS OPPORTUNITY RULE
103. Defendants are “sellers” who have sold or offered to sell “business opportunities”
as defined by the Business Opportunity Rule, 16 C.F.R. § 437.1(c) and (q). Under the Business
Opportunity Rule, a “seller” is a person who offers for sale or sells a business opportunity. 16
C.F.R. § 437.1(q). Under the Rule, a “business opportunity” means a “commercial arrangement”
in which a “seller solicits a prospective purchaser to enter into a new business;” the “prospective
purchaser makes a required payment;” and the “seller, expressly or by implication, orally or in
writing, represents that the seller or one or more designated persons will . . .[p]rovide outlets,
accounts, or customers, including, but not limited to, Internet outlets, accounts, or customers, for
the purchaser’s goods or services[.]” 16 C.F.R. § 437.1(c).
104. Among other things, the Business Opportunity Rule requires sellers to provide
prospective purchasers with a disclosure document in the form and using the language set forth
in the Business Opportunity Rule and its Appendix A, and any required attachments. In the
disclosure document, the seller must disclose to prospective purchasers five categories of
information, including: basic identifying information about the seller, any earnings claims the
seller makes, the seller’s litigation history, any cancellation and refund policy the seller offers,
and contact information of prior purchasers. 16 C.F.R. § 437.3(a)(1)-(5). Furthermore, this
information must be disclosed at least seven (7) days before the prospective purchaser signs a
contract or makes a payment. 16 C.F.R. § 437.2. The pre-sale disclosure of this information
enables a prospective purchaser to contact prior purchasers and take other steps to assess the
potential risks involved in the purchase of the business opportunity.
33
105. Defendants have made earnings claims in connection with the sale of their
business opportunities, as defined by the Business Opportunity Rule, 16 C.F.R. § 437.1(f). Under
the Business Opportunity Rule, an “earnings claim” means “any oral, written, or visual
representation to a prospective purchaser that conveys, expressly or by implication, a specific
level or range of actual or potential sales, or gross or net income or profits.” 16 C.F.R. § 437.1(f).
106. The Business Opportunity Rule prohibits sellers from making earnings claims
unless the seller: (1) has a reasonable basis for the claim at the time it is made; (2) has in its
possession written materials to substantiate the claim at the time it is made; (3) furnishes an
Earnings Claim statement to prospective purchasers in conjunction with the disclosure document,
containing, among other things, information regarding the time frame captured by the earnings
claim, the characteristics of the purchasers, and the number and percentage of all persons who
purchased the business opportunity within the time frame who achieved at least the stated level
of earnings; and (4) makes written substantiation of the earnings claim available to any
prospective purchaser who requests it. 16 C.F.R. § 437.4(a).
107. Defendants have also made earnings claims in connection with the sale of their
business opportunities in the general media, as defined by the Business Opportunity Rule, 16
C.F.R. § 437.1(h). Under the Business Opportunity Rule, “general media” means “any
instrumentality through which a person may communicate with the public, including, but not
limited to, television, radio, print, Internet, billboard, Web site, commercial bulk email, and
mobile communications.” 16 C.F.R. § 437.1(h).
108. The Business Opportunity Rule prohibits sellers from making earnings claims in
the general media unless the seller: (1) has a reasonable basis for the claim and has in its
34
possession written materials to substantiate the claim at the time it is made; (2) furnishes an
Earnings Claim Statement, in conjunction with the disclosure document, to prospective
purchasers setting forth additional information, such as the number and percentage of purchasers
who achieved the claimed earnings and the time period in which the earnings were achieved; and
(3) makes written substantiation of the earnings claim available to any prospective purchaser
who requests it. 16 C.F.R. § 437.4(b).
109. Pursuant to Section 18(d)(3) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 57a(d)(3), a violation of
the Business Opportunity Rule constitutes an unfair or deceptive act or practice in or affecting
commerce in violation of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a).
110. Section 5(m)(1)(A) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(m)(1)(A), as modified by
Section 4 of the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, 28 U.S.C. § 2461, and
the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015, Public Law
114-74, sec. 701, 129 Stat. 599 (2015), and Section 1.98(d) of the FTC’s Rules of Practice, 16
C.F.R. § 1.98(d), effective January 10, 2022, authorizes the award of monetary civil penalties of
not more than $46,517 for each violation of the Business Opportunity Rule assessed after
January 10, 2022, including penalties whose associated violation predated January 10, 2022.
111. Defendants’ violations of the Business Opportunity Rule set forth below were
committed with the knowledge required by Section 5(m)(1)(A) of the FTC Act, U.S.C.
§ 45(m)(1)(A).
35
COUNT THREE
Misrepresentations Regarding Income or Profits
112. In numerous instances in connection with the offering for sale, sale, or promotion
of a business opportunity, Defendants have misrepresented, directly or indirectly, expressly or by
implication, the amount of sales, gross or net income, or profits a prospective purchaser may earn
or that prior purchasers have earned.
113. Therefore, Defendants’ acts and practices, as described in Paragraph 112 above,
violate the Business Opportunity Rule, 16 C.F.R. § 437.6(d).
COUNT FOUR
Disclosure Document Violations
114. In numerous instances in connection with the offer for sale, sale, or promotion of
business opportunities, Defendants have failed to furnish prospective purchasers with a
disclosure document and any required attachments, within the time period prescribed by the
Business Opportunity Rule.
violate the Business Opportunity Rule, 16 C.F.R. §§ 437.2 and 437.3(a).
COUNT FIVE
Earnings Disclosure Violations
116. In numerous instances, Defendants have made earnings claims to prospective
purchasers in connection with the offering for sale, sale, or promotion of a business opportunity
while, among other things: (1) lacking a reasonable basis for the earnings claim at the time it was
made; (2) lacking written substantiation for the earnings claim at the time it was made; or
36
(3) failing to provide an Earnings Claim statement to the prospective purchaser, as required by
the Business Opportunity Rule.
117. Therefore, Defendants acts and practices, as described in Paragraph 116 above,
violate the Business Opportunity Rule, 16 C.F.R. § 437.4(a). §§ 45(a).
COUNT SIX
General Media Earnings Claims Violations
118. Defendants have made earnings claims in the general media in connection with
the offering for sale, sale, or promotion of a business opportunity while failing to state in
immediate conjunction with those claims the beginning and ending dates when the represented
earnings were achieved, and the number and percentage of all persons who purchased
Defendants’ business opportunity prior to that ending date who achieved at least the stated level
of earnings.
violate the Business Opportunity Rule, 16 C.F.R. § 437.4(b).
COUNT SEVEN
Misrepresentations of the Cost, Performance, or Central Characteristics Violations
120. In numerous instances in connection with the offer for sale, sale, or promotion of
a business opportunity, Defendants have misrepresented the cost, performance, efficacy, nature,
or central characteristics of the business opportunity or the goods or services offered to a
prospective purchaser.
violate the Business Opportunity Rule, 16 C.F.R. § 437.6(h).
37
VIOLATIONS OF THE CONSUMER REVIEW FAIRNESS ACT
122. “CRFA” defines “covered communication” as “a written, oral, or pictorial review,
performance assessment of, or other similar analysis of, including by electronic means, the
goods, services, or conduct of a person by an individual who is party to a form contract with
respect to which such person is also a party.” 15 U.S.C. § 45b(a)(2).
123. The CRFA defines “form contract” to mean “a contract with standardized terms
(i) used by a person in the course of selling or leasing the person’s goods or services; and
(ii) imposed on an individual without a meaningful opportunity for such individual to negotiate
the standardized terms.” 15 U.S.C. § 45b(a)(3).
124. The CRFA renders void any provision of a form contract if such provision
prohibits or restricts the ability of an individual who is a party to the form contract to engage in a
covered communication. 15 U.S.C. § 45b(b)(l).
125. The CRFA prohibits any person from offering a form contract containing a
provision described as void in sub-section (b) of the CRFA. 15 U.S.C. § 45b(c).
126. Pursuant to the CRFA, a violation of sub-section (c) of the CRFA shall be treated
as a violation of a rule defining an unfair or deceptive act or practice prescribed under Section
18(a)(1)(B) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 57a(a)(l)(b), and the FTC shall enforce the CRFA in the
same manner, by the same means, and with the same jurisdiction, powers, and duties as the FTC
Act. 15 U.S.C. § 45b(d).
127. Defendants have offered “form contract[s],” as that term is defined in the CRFA.
15 U.S.C. § 45b(a)(3).
38
128. Section 5(m)(1)(A) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(m)(1)(A), as modified by
114-74, sec. 701, 129 Stat. 599 (2015), and Section 1.98(d) of the FTC’s Rules of Practice, 16
C.F.R. § 1.98(d), effective January 10, 2022, authorizes the award of monetary civil penalties of
not more than $46,517 for each violation of the Consumer Review Fairness Act assessed after
January 10, 2022, including penalties whose associated violation predated January 10, 2022.
129. Defendants’ violations of the Consumer Review Fairness Act set forth below
were committed with the knowledge required by Section 5(m)(1)(A) of the FTC Act, U.S.C. §
45(m)(1)(A).
COUNT EIGHT
Violations of the CRFA
130. In numerous instances, including as described in Paragraphs 75 to 82, Defendants
have offered, in the course of selling their business opportunities, “form contracts,” containing
provisions that prohibit or restrict the ability of an individual who is a party to the form contract
to engage in a covered communication.
131. Defendants have thereby violated the CRFA, 15 U.S.C. § 45b(c).
VIOLATIONS OF PRIOR COMMISSION DETERMINATIONS CONCERNING

UNFAIR OR DECEPTIVE ACTS OR PRACTICES IN COMMERCE
132. Pursuant to Section 5(m)(1)(B) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(m)(1)(B), if the
Commission has determined in a proceeding under section 5(b) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. §
45(b), that an act or practice is unfair or deceptive and issued a final cease and desist order, with
respect to the act or practice, then a person, partnership, or corporation that engages in such act
39
or practice with actual knowledge that such act or practice is unfair or deceptive and is unlawful
under Section 5(a)(1) of the FTC Act shall be liable for civil penalties.
133. In prior litigated decisions the Commission has determined that the acts or
practices described in Paragraphs 26 to 87 above, are unfair or deceptive and violate Section
5(a)(1) of the FTC Act and issued final cease and desist orders with respect to those acts or
practices.
134. Pursuant to Section 5(m)(1)(B) of the FTC Act, for the purpose of computing civil
penalties, each and every instance that Defendant has made a misrepresentation identified in the
Notices to a consumer, since receiving the letters and Notices, constitutes an act or practice that
the Commission has determined in a prior proceeding to be unfair or deceptive and unlawful
under Section 5(a)(1) of the FTC Act.
135. Section 5(m)(1)(B) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(m)(1)(B), as modified by
114-74, sec. 701, 129 Stat. 599 (2015), and Section 1.98(e) of the FTC’s Rules of Practice, 16
C.F.R. § 1.98(e), effective January 10, 2022, authorizes the award of monetary civil penalties of
not more than $46,517 for each violation of prior Commission determinations concerning unfair
and deceptive acts or practices in commerce.
40
COUNT NINE
Violations of Prior Commission Determinations Known to Defendants
136. As set forth in Paragraphs 88 to 92, at least since receiving the letters and Notices,
Defendants had actual knowledge that, in connection with the advertising or promotion of
money-making opportunities, making false, misleading, or deceptive earnings claims is an unfair
or deceptive act or practice, unlawful under Section 5(a)(1) of the FTC Act, and subject to civil
penalties.
137. In numerous instances, as set forth in Paragraphs 26 to 87, Defendants
represented, directly or indirectly, expressly or by implication, that purchasers of Defendants’
services are likely to make substantial profits.
138. In truth and in fact, in numerous instances in which Defendants made the
representations set out in Paragraphs 26 to 87, purchasers of Defendants’ services were not likely
to make substantial profits.
139. In numerous instances, as set forth in Paragraphs 34, 38, 39 and 67, Defendants
used testimonials to make performance claims, or to represent explicitly or implicitly that the
experience described by endorsers of one of Defendants’ products or services represented the
typical or ordinary experience of users of the products or services.
140. In truth and in fact, in numerous instances in which Defendants used testimonials
as set forth in Paragraph 34, 38, 39 and 67, the testimonials made unsubstantiated or otherwise
deceptive performance claims, or misrepresented explicitly or implicitly that the experience
described by endorsers of one of Defendants’ products or services represented the typical and
ordinary experience of users of the products or services.
41
141. Defendants engaged in the acts and practices described in Paragraphs 26 to 87
with the actual knowledge, as set forth in Paragraphs 88 to 92, that in prior litigated decisions the
Commission has determined that the acts or practices are unfair or deceptive and violate Section
5(a)(1) of the FTC Act and issued final cease and desist orders, other than consent orders, with
respect to those acts or practices. Defendants are therefore liable for civil penalties under Section
5(m)(1)(B) of the FTC Act. 15 U.S.C. § 45(m)(1)(B).
CONSUMER INJURY
Consumers are suffering, have suffered, and will continue to suffer substantial injury as a
result of Defendants’ violations of the FTC Act, the Business Opportunity Rule, and the
Consumer Review Fairness Act. Absent injunctive relief by this Court, Defendants are likely to
continue to injure consumers and harm the public interest.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Wherefore, Plaintiff requests that the Court:
A. Enter a permanent injunction to prevent future violations of the FTC Act, the
Business Opportunity Rule, and the Consumer Review Fairness Act by Defendants in
accordance with Section 13(b) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 53(b);
B. Grant preliminary injunctive and ancillary relief;
C. Award monetary and other relief in accordance with Section 19 of the FTC Act,
15 U.S.C. § 57b.
D. Award Plaintiff civil penalties from Defendants for every violation of the
Business Opportunity Rule, 16 C.F.R. Part 437, as amended, the Consumer Review Fairness Act,
15 U.S.C. § 45b, Section 5(m)(1)(A) of the FTC Act, U.S.C. § 45(m)(1)(A), and the Notice of
42
Penalty Offenses Concerning Money-Making Opportunities and Notice of Penalty Offenses
Around Endorsements and Testimonials, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §§ 45(m)(1)(A)-(B) and 16
C.F.R. § 1.98(e).
E. Award any additional relief as the Court determines to be just and proper..
Respectfully submitted,
Dated: November 16, 2022

Colleen Robbins, Special Bar # A5500793
Sophia Siddiqui, Special Bar # A5501607
Federal Trade Commission
600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Mailstop CC-8528
Washington, DC 20580
(202) 326-2548; [email protected]
(202) 326-2230; [email protected]
Attorneys for Plaintiff

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
43
ATTACHMENT A
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

NOTICE OF PENALTY OFFENSES
CONCERNING MONEY-MAKING OPPORTUNITIES
The Federal Trade Commission has determined that the following practices used in the
advertising or promotion of money-making opportunities are deceptive or unfair and are
unlawful under Section 5(a)(l) of the Federal Trade Commission Act.
1. It is an unfair or deceptive trade practice to make false, misleading or deceptive

representations concerning the profits or earnings that may be anticipated by a participant
in a money-making opportunity (i.e., a person who has been accepted or hired for, has
purchased, or otherwise is engaging in the money-making opportunity). 1 For example:
a. It is an unfair or deceptive trade practice to misrepresent, explicitly or implicitly,

that participants will be or are likely to be profitable (i.e., to earn or receive more
income through the use of the money-making opportunity than the amount of any
purchase price and expenses).2
b. It is an unfair or deceptive trade practice to misrepresent, explicitly or implicitly,

that a substantial number of participants have made or can make the represented
profits or eamings.3
c. It is an unfair or deceptive trade practice to represent, explicitly or implicitly, the

earnings which may be secured by participants, when the representation is made
1 Macmillan, Inc., et al., 96 FTC 208, 232, 301-02, 325-29, 331 (1980); Encyclopaedia
Britannica, Inc., et al., 87 FTC 421,450, 486-88, 505, 510, 531-32 (1976); National Dynamics
Corp., 82 FTC 488, 512-13, 543-44, 568 (1973), as modified at 85 FTC 1052, 1059-61 (1975);
Ger-Ro-Mar, Inc., 84 FTC 95, 113-14, 117-119, 123-125, 132-135, 138, 149-150, 160-162
(1974), affirmed in relevant part at 518 F.2d 33 (2d Cir. 1975), as modified at 86 FTC 841
(1975); Holiday Magic, 84 FTC 748, 948, 984, 1032-1034, 1065, 1069 (1974), as modified at 85
FTC 90 (1975); Universal Credit Acceptance Corp., 82 FTC 570, 591-600, 633, 668-70 (1973);
Universal Elec. Corp., 78 FTC 265, 271-74, 294,297 (1971); Windsor Distrib. Co., 77 FTC 204,
212-17, 220-23 (1970); Waltham Watch Co., 60 FTC 1692, 1703-05, 1710, 1724-25, 1727-28,
1730 (1962); Abel Allan Goodman Trading As Weavers Guild, 52 FTC 982,984, 987-88, 991-
92, 996-97 (1956), order affirmed 244 F.2d 584 (2d Cir. 1957); Washington Mushroom Indus.,
Inc., 53 FTC 368,370,376, 379-80, 383-84, 386 (1956); Von Schrader Mfg. Co., 33 FTC 58, 63-
66 (1941).
2 Encyclopaedia Britannica, 87 FTC 421 , 450, 486-87, 505,510, 531-32 (1976); Ger-Ro-Mar,
84 FTC 95, 113-14, 117-119, 123-125, 132-135, 138, 149-150, 160-162 (1974); Universal
Credit, 82 FTC 570, 592-93, 595, 632-33, 668-70 (1973); Universal Elec., 78 FTC 265, 271-74,
294-95, 297 (1971); Waltham Watch, 60 FTC 1692, 1703-05, 1710-11 , 1716, 1724-25, 1727-28,
1730 (1962).
3 National Dynamics, 82 FTC 488, 511-13, 543-44, 564,568 (1973), as modified at 85 FTC
1052, 1059-61 (1975).

without knowledge, or with only limited knowledge, of the actual profits or

earnings usually and ordinarily received by participants.4
d. It is an unfair or deceptive trade practice to misrepresent, explicitly or implicitly,

that participants will or are likely to earn any specific amount or percentage. 5
e. It is an unfair or deceptive trade practice to misrepresent, explicitly or implicitly,

that the represented profits or earnings are the ordinary, typical, or average profits
or earnings made by participants. 6 This includes by means of the representation
of an earnings figure or the attribution of earnings figures to specific participants,
both of which impliedly represent that such figures are likely, are earned by a
substantial number of participants, or are the typical, ordinary, or average results,
absent clear and conspicuous disclosure of the relevant context, such as the time
and effort actually expended by participants who made the amount represented,
the percentage of participants making the amount represented, and the amount
typically and ordinarily made by participants.7
f. It is an unfair or deceptive trade practice to misrepresent the profits or earnings

that may be anticipated by a prospective participant by failing to disclose
conditions or limitations affecting such income, such as expenses to be borne by
the participant. 8
2. It is an unfair or deceptive trade practice to misrepresent, explicitly or implicitly, that

sales of a money-making opportunity will be made to only a limited number of
prospective participants (including, for example, that sales will be made to only a limited
number of prospective participants in a geographic region), when sales will be made to
any person who is willing and able to pay.9
4
Von Schrader Mfg. Co., 33 FTC 58, 63-66 (1941).
5
Encyclopaedia Britannica, 87 FTC 421 ,450, 486-87, 505,510, 531-32 (1976); National
Dynamics, 82 FTC 488, 511-13, 543,564,568 (1973), as modified at 85 FTC 1052, 1059-61
(1975); Holiday Magic, 84 FTC 748,948,984, 1032-1034, 1065, 1069 (1974); Universal Credit,
82 FTC 570,592, 594-95, 632-33, 668-70 (1973); Universal Elec. , 78 FTC 265, 272-74, 294,
297 (1971); Windsor, 77 FTC 204, 214-17, 220-21, 223 (1970).
6
Macmillan, 96 FTC 208, 232, 235-36, 245-46, 254-55, 301-02, 325-29, 331 (1980); National
Dynamics, 82 FTC 488, 511-13, 543-44, 564,568 (1973), as modified at 85 FTC 1052, 1059
(1975); Abel Allan Goodman, 52 FTC 982,984, 987-88, 991-92, 996-97 (1956), order affirmed
244 F.2d 584 (2d Cir. 1957); Washington Mushroom, 53 FTC 368, 370, 376, 379-380, 383-84,
386 (1956); Von Schrader, 33 FTC 58, 63-66 (1941).
7
Macmillan, 96 FTC 208,232, 301-02, 326-29, 331 (1980); National Dynamics, 82 FTC 488,
511-13, 543-44, 563-64, 568 (1973), as modified at 85 FTC 1052, 1059-61 (1975).
8 Encyclopaedia Britannica, 87 FTC 421, 445-50, 486-87, 505,510, 531-32 (1976).
9
Universal Elec., 78 FTC 265, 273-74, 295-97 (1971); Windsor, 77 FTC 204,213, 215-17, 220-
21, 223 (1970); Waltham Watch, 60 FTC 1692, 1704-05, 1710-11, 1723, 1725, 1727-28, 1730
(1962); Washington Mushroom, 53 FTC 368, 370-71, 379-380, 386 (1956).

prospective participants will be screened or evaluated for suitability to use or benefit
from the money-making opportunity. 10

participants do not need experience in order to earn income. 11
5. It is an unfair or deceptive trade practice to misrepresent, explicitly or implicitly, that a

prospective participant must act immediately to purchase or to be considered for a
money-making opportunity. 12

purchasing a money-making opportunity is risk-free or involves little risk. 13
7. It is an unfair or deceptive trade practice to misrepresent, explicitly or implicitly, the

position being offered to prospective participants in a money-making opportunity, such as
by failing to disclose that it is a sales position when such is the case. 14
8. It is an unfair or deceptive trade practice to misrepresent, explicitly or implicitly, the

amount or type of training that will be given to participants in a money-making
opportunity. 15
10 Macmillan, 96 FTC 208, 272-73, 320,327,331 (1980); Universal Credit, 82 FTC 570, 608-
09, 633,637,668, 673 (1973); Windsor, 77 FTC 204,213,215,217, 220-21, 223 (1970);
Waltham Watch, 60 FTC 1692, 1704-05, 1710-11, 1725, 1727-28, 1730 (1962).
11 Universal Elec., 78 FTC 265, 272-74, 295, 297 (1971); Washington Mushroom, 53 FTC 368,
370-71, 378-80, 386 (1956).

12 Universal Credit, 82 FTC 570,610, 632-33, 637-38, 668, 673 (1973).
13 Universal Credit, 82 FTC 570, 594, 611-12, 633, 638, 668, 673 (1973).
14 Encyclopaedia Britannica, 87 FTC 421, 486-88, 505, 510, 531 (1976).
15 Encyclopaedia Britannica, 87 FTC 421, 486-88, 505, 509-10, 531-32 (1976).
Notice of Penalty Offenses Concerning Deceptive or Unfair Conduct around

Endorsements and Testimonials
The Federal Trade Commission has determined that the following acts or practices in the
use of endorsements and testimonials are deceptive or unfair and are unlawful under Section 5 of
the Federal Trade Commission Act.
• It is an unfair or deceptive trade practice to make claims which represent, expressly or

by implication, that a third party has endorsed a product or its performance when such
third party has not in fact endorsed such product or its performance. 1
• It is an unfair or deceptive trade practice for an advertiser to misrepresent that an

endorsement represents the experience, views, or opinions of users or purported users
of the product. 2
• It is an unfair or deceptive trade practice to misrepresent an endorser as an actual

user, a current user, or a recent user of a product or service.3
• It is an unfair or deceptive trade practice for an advertiser to continue to advertise an

endorsement unless the advertiser has good reason to believe that the endorser
continues to subscribe to the views presented in the endorsement. 4
• It is an unfair or deceptive trade practice for an advertiser to use testimonials to make

unsubstantiated or otherwise deceptive performance claims even if such testimonials
are genuine. 5
• It is an unfair or deceptive trade practice to fail to disclose a connection between an

endorser and the seller of an advertised product or service, if such a connection might
materially affect the weight or credibility of the endorsement and if the connection
would not be reasonably expected by consumers. 6
• It is an unfair or deceptive trade practice to misrepresent explicitly or implicitly

through the use of testimonials that the experience described by endorsers of a
product or service represents the typical or ordinary experience of users of the
product or service. 7
1
Mytinger & Casselberry, Inc., 57 F.T.C. 717 (1960); Ar-Ex Cosms., Inc., 48 F.T.C. 800 (1952); A. P.
W Paper Co., Inc., 38 F.T.C. 1 (1944); Wilbert W Haase Co., Inc., 33 F.T.C. 662 (1941).
2
R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 46 F.T.C. 706 (1950).
3 Id.; Clifldale Assocs., Inc., 103 F.T.C. 110 (1984).
4
Nat'! Dynamics Corp., 82 F.T.C. 488 (1973).
5
Cliffdale Assocs., Inc., 103 F.T.C. 110; Macmillan, Inc., 96 F.T.C. 208 (1980); Porter & Dietsch, Inc.,
90 F.T.C. 770 (1977), aff'd, 605 F.2d 294 (7th Cir. 1979).
6
Clifldale Assocs., Inc., 103 F.T.C. 110.
7
Id.; Porter & Dietsch, Inc., 90 F.T.C. 770; Nat'/ Dynamics Corp., 82 F.T.C. 488 (1973), modified at 85
F.T.C. 1052 (1975).

DK Automation Complaint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DK Automation Complaint

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

DK Automation Complaint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 1:22-cv-23760-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/16/2022 Page 1 of 48

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case No. 1:22-cv-23760

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,

DK AUTOMATION LLC, a limited liability

AMZ AUTOMATION LLC, a limited liability

THATLIFESTYLENINJA LLC, a limited liability

PROFICIENT SUPPLY LLC, a limited liability

DIGITAL NINJAZ LLC, a limited liability

ZONBASE, INC., a Delaware corporation,

KEVIN DAVID HULSE, a/k/a Kevin David,

DAVID SHAWN ARNETT, individually and as

COMPLAINT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION,

entitled “Disclosure Requirements and Prohibitions Concerning Business Opportunities”

force and effect.

2. Hulse, who appears prominently in marketing videos as Kevin David, holds

coach to hundreds of thousands of entrepreneurs and students around the world.”

of program names, including Amazon Autopilot, AMZ Autopilot, AMZDFY, Amazon

4. Defendants promise to help set up an Amazon store for purchasers of these

Purchasers need only sit back and receive “passive income.”

eventually sell their Amazon business for six-figures.

7. Defendants’ earnings claims are false or unsubstantiated. Most purchasers are

8. In addition, since at least 2017, Defendant Hulse, under the name

they are likely to lose money.

9. Purchasers of Defendants’ programs must agree not to post negative reviews

Defendants on popular review websites, such as Trustpilot.com, are falsified.

representations concerning the profits or earnings a participant in a money-making opportunity

receiving the Notice.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

§§ 1331, 1337(a) and 1345.

Florida pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)(1) and 15 U.S.C. § 53(b).

reviews about a business’ products or services.

15. Defendant DK Automation LLC (“DK”) is a Nevada limited liability company

distributed, or sold business opportunities to consumers throughout the United States.

16. Defendant Amz Automation LLC (“Amz”) is a Wyoming limited liability

17. Defendant THATLifeStyleNinja LLC (“THATLifeStyleNinja”) is a Wyoming

Sheridan, Wyoming 82801. THATLifestyleNinja transacts or has transacted business in this

coaching services to consumers throughout the United States.

18. Defendant Proficient Supply LLC (“Proficient Supply”) is a Wyoming limited

related to Defendants’ business opportunities. Proficient Supply transacts or has transacted

sold business opportunities to consumers throughout the United States.

Ninjaz has advertised, marketed, distributed, or sold business opportunities to consumers

throughout the United States.

business opportunities to consumers throughout the United States.

of THATLifeStyleNinja, President of Digital Ninjaz, and owner of Zonbase. He resides in

and Digital Ninjaz.

22. As the sole shareholder of THATLifeStyleNinja, Hulse receives all distributions

Proficient Supply (collectively, the “Corporate Defendants”) have operated as a common

funds. For example:

consumer payments for DK and Digital Ninjaz;

• THATLifeStyleNinja’s programs are often bundled together with the business

opportunities, and DK, Amz, THATLifeStyleNinja, Digital Ninjaz, Zonbase, and

Proficient Supply share employees; and

in Hulse’s name, Amz transferred millions of dollars to THATLifeStyleNinja, and

THATLifeStyleNinja and Digital Ninjaz have commingled funds.

for the acts and practices alleged below.

DEFENDANTS’ BUSINESS ACTIVITIES

Defendants’ Business Opportunities

and sold business opportunities to consumers throughout the United States.

featuring Hulse and Arnett, taken in October 2021, is depicted below.

____ _- _ __...,...... ....