When Vemma, BK Boreyko and Tom Alkazin filed their defenses to the FTC’s case against them, one of the more
disturbing defenses raised
was that somehow consumers were to blame for their losses.

The FTC and/or the consumers it purports to represent have failed to mitigate their losses, if any.

Any losses sustained by the FTC and/or the consumers it purports to represent were caused by the acts or omissions of third parties over whom the Corporate Defendants had no control or right to control.

Consumers represented by the FTC knowingly and voluntarily, and possibly unreasonably, exposed themselves to any claimed losses with knowledge or appreciation of the risk involved.

The above is how Vemma worded the defense. Boreyko and Alkazin filed similarly worded defenses.

The FTC objected to this shirking of responsibility onto consumers (many of which were/are Vemma affiliates).

The FTC argues that these are not valid affirmative defenses because relief under the FTC Act is equitable and dependent on the amount of gain by Defendants, not loss by consumers.

The good news is the court has agreed, with neither Vemma, Boreyko or Alkazin permitted to defend themselves by blaming Vemma consumers for their own losses.

In their objection to defenses raised, the FTC sought ‘
to strike all but one of the affirmative defenses raised in the Answers filed by
‘ Vemma, Boreyko and Alkazin.

Here they weren’t so successful, with the court ruling that only one affirmative defense be struck.

The Court finds that Defendants gave the FTC fair notice of their affirmative defenses with one exception: Defendants’ allegations that the FTC’s claims for injunctive and other relief are unconstitutional or otherwise not authorized or available at law or equity.

These allegations lack any specificity and thus provide the FTC with inadequate information to prepare its case—indeed, it was only in Defendants’ briefs that the Court could begin to discern these affirmative defenses.

Accordingly, the Court will grant the FTC’s Motion with regard to these affirmative defenses.

Vemma, Boreyko and Alkazin have been granted leave to ‘
amend their Answers if they can state these affirmative defenses with enough specificity to give fair notice to the FTC
‘.

In their filed defenses, Vemma, Boreyko and Alkazin all claimed that the FTC failed to state a claim for relief.

The FTC argued this was ‘
not a proper affirmative defense
‘, with Judge Tuchi agreeing.

the Court agrees with the conclusion of other district courts in the Ninth Circuit that failure to state a claim is properly raised as a challenge to a plaintiff’s prima facie claim, not as an affirmative defense to it.

The “failure to state a claim defense” was ordered struck with ‘
no leave to amend
‘.

Another defense raised by Vemma, Boreyko and Alkazin was that they “acted in good faith”.

The FTC objected to this, claiming it ‘
is not a valid affirmative defense because good faith is not a defense to FTC Act liability.

🤖 Quick Answer

What defense did Vemma raise regarding consumer losses in the FTC case?
Vemma claimed consumers failed to mitigate losses and assumed risks knowingly. They argued losses resulted from third-party actions beyond corporate defendants' control. This controversial defense essentially blamed consumers for their own financial harm rather than accepting responsibility for deceptive business practices.

Why did the FTC object to Vemma's mitigation defense?
The FTC objected because the defense inappropriately shifted liability to consumers who were allegedly victims of deceptive practices. Companies cannot avoid responsibility by claiming consumers should have protected themselves better or that external factors caused damages when predatory schemes were involved.

How did Boreyko and Alkazin respond to the FTC allegations?
BK Boreyko and Tom Alkazin filed similarly worded defenses to Vemma's, attempting to place responsibility on consumers for their

🔗 Related Articles

- Brandon Frye cops $600,000 DIS default judgment
- Cardiffs denied stay, Poujade up for contempt & trial date
- Cardiffs allege fraud occurred prior to preliminary injunction
- Eddie Alexandre cops $243 mill judgment in CFTC’s EminiFX case
- FTC want Vemma’s “irrelevant evidence” excluded (Koscot)