A) Review the excerpt from the U.S. Supreme Court case Woodford v. Ngo and, answer the following questions.
1. What is the exhaustion doctrine and how was that doctrine at issue in the Woodford v. Ngo case?
2. According to the Supreme Court, what two public policy purposes are served by the exhaustion doctrine? Explain fully (don't just list the two purposes).
3. According to the Supreme Court, how were these two public policy purposes served by requiring prisoners like Ngo to exhaust their remedies?
B) EnviroGreen is a company that is marketing an automobile fuel additive tablet called EngiVite. EnviroGreen advertises EngiVite on the Internet as a "multivitamin for your car." EnviroGreen makes the following claims in its advertising:
"Adding one tablet of EngiVite in each tank of gas will improve the burn rate in your car's combustion chamber. Double blind, statistical testing proved your fuel economy will increase by 10% to 30%."
"EngiVite is proven to reduce maintenance costs and reduce your car's harmful tailpipe emissions. Independent Emissions Testing Facilities have found you can reduce emissions by up to 75%."
The FTC contends that the EngiVite tablets do not improve fuel economy or reduce emissions, and that no scientific studies were ever conducted to establish the effectiveness of EngiVite.
After reviewing the Chapter 44 textbook material and the FTC publication "Advertising and Marketing on the Internet: Rules of the Road" (linked below), answer the following questions (in your own words):
1. Which consumer law from Chapter 44 would apply to this situation, and what guidelines would be used to determine whether EnviroGreen violated this consumer law?
2. If FTC's investigation indicates that EnviroGreen violated the law, what procedure would FTC follow?
3. If FTC succeeds in proving that EnviroGreen violated the law, what remedies may FTC pursue?