Office of the Attorney General, State of Florida, Department of Legal Affairs v. Wellness Program Services, LLC

── Office of the Attorney General, State of Florida, Department of Legal Affairs v. Wellness Program Services, LLC ── Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida Date: June 03, 2026 Category: General DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF LEGAL AFFAIRS, Appellant, v. WELLNESS PROGRAM SERVICES, LLC, CHRISTOPHER KENNEDY, JEFFREY TARADAY, and MARIANO PIOMPINO, Appellees. No. 4D2024-0484 [June 3, 2026] Appeal and cross-appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Jack Ben Tuter, Judge; L.T. Case No. 062021CA015440AXXXCE. Josie Adelle Warren and Michelle Moore, Senior Assistant Attorneys General, West Palm Beach, for appellant/cross-appellee. Scott James Edwards of Scott J. Edwards, P.A., Boca Raton, for appellees/cross-appellants Christopher Kennedy and Jeffrey Taraday. No appearance for appellee Mariano Piompino. No appearance for appellee Wellness Program Services, LLC. FORST, J. Appellant, the Office of the Attorney General, Department of Legal Affairs (“OAG”), appeals the trial court’s final judgment, arguing the court erred in entering judgment for Appellee Mariano Piompino and declining to award disgorgement relief against Appellees/Cross-Appellants Christopher Kennedy and Jeffrey Taraday. Cross-Appellants Kennedy and Taraday cross-appeal the same judgment, arguing the trial court’s permanent injunction against them is overbroad. For the reasons that follow, we reverse the judgment for Piompino. We affirm as to all other issues without discussion.  Background OAG filed a Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (“FDUTPA”) suit against two companies, Wellness Program Services, LLC d/b/a Trusii and Tru Fit Solutions, LLC d/b/a Trusii International (collectively “Trusii”), as well as the three individual Appellees, who were Trusii’s owners and corporate officers. Trusii was a “wellness company” that, beginning in 2016, sold machines to Florida consumers that infuse molecular hydrogen into water. Trusii imported the machines from a Korean company called HygenTech. OAG did not argue that molecular hydrogen water has no potential health benefits or that the machines customers received had no value. Instead, OAG alleged that Trusii deceived consumers by: (1) making scientifically unsupported claims about its machines’ sweeping health benefits on its website; (2) employing a “bait and switch” tactic whereby customers were induced into buying and financing machines with promises of reimbursement through a “case study” program that Trusii then modified to many consumers’ detriment; and (3) misleading customers into believing Trusii had a nationwide apparatus for servicing issues with the machines when, in reality, it did not. After the corporations defaulted, a bench trial was held on the issue of Appellees’ individual liability. Taraday and Kennedy were represented by shared counsel and testified in their own defense, while Piompino represented himself and did not testify, though his questioning of witnesses frequently resembled testimony. OAG presented testimony by two individual customers. The customers described how Trusii tricked them with its “case study.” Initially, Trusii promised to reimburse customers for the full cost of their financing installment payments in return for customers providing feedback to Trusii about their experience and making certain marketing posts on social media. However, Trusii later made unilateral changes to the case study, creating additional marketing requirements and, most notably, stating that anyone who provided negative feedback would be removed from the case study. When the trial court pressed Taraday about the rule that negative feedback would result in removal from the case study, Taraday conceded this was true, but argued it was a response to a coordinated campaign by a former Trus