In a world where corporate promises often sail smoothly past critical scrutiny, the FTC’s lawsuit against a set of Florida-based companies and their principal figure, Michael J. Connors, offer an important reminder of the real cost of unchecked corporate power. According to the June 2023 federal complaint, Connors—along with several interrelated limited liability companies—allegedly orchestrated a years-long campaign to sell a “miracle” smoking cessation regimen called Smoke Away. Smoke Away was marketed as an all-natural remedy that could eliminate nicotine cravings and withdrawal symptoms, helping people quit smoking quickly and painlessly, often within just seven days.
The FTC claims that, far from being the miracle cure the marketing suggested, these products rested on a foundation of questionable or nonexistent scientific substantiation. Even more troubling, the complaint alleges that the defendants employed paid actors to pose as happy ex-smokers, using glowing video testimonials to demonstrate the product’s efficacy. In essence, the allegations paint a portrait of a corporate machine that deliberately skirted consumer protection laws—namely the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Opioid Addiction Recovery Fraud Prevention Act (OARFPA)—all for profit.
But the Smoke Away controversy is about far more than a single product allegedly sold under false pretenses. The FTC’s complaint draws out a constellation of issues that connect seamlessly to broader systemic failures under neoliberal capitalism: a system that incentivizes corporations to maximize profit first and foremost, sometimes at the expense of truth, ethics, and public health. Deregulation, regulatory capture, and weak enforcement structures have inadvertently created fertile ground for such alleged misconduct to thrive.
Throughout this investigative piece, we will delve into the complaint’s key allegations, situate them within the broader context of corporate accountability, and explore how they expose the intricate mechanics of late-stage capitalism—where a few individuals reap enormous gains while public health and workers’ wellbeing hang in the balance. We will also consider the potential local impacts on consumers, who trusted Smoke Away’s promises, and on communities already grappling with health issues, economic hardship, and a societal environment increasingly dominated by corporate power.
What emerges is a disturbing illustration of how, in a world tilted toward corporate interests, facts can be molded or even invented to serve profit. How many people sank their limited resources into a product that might never have worked as advertised? How many local economies lost wages as people fell prey to a cycle of nicotine dependency while chasing a false cure? These are questions that loom over the entire narrative.
In the end, what the Smoke Away complaint reveals is both cautionary and universal. It is a parable of corporate greed, a testament to the vulnerabilities of consumers, and a reflection of an economic structure that can undermine corporate social responsibility in the relentless quest to maximize shareholder returns.
Corporate Intent Exposed
According to the FTC, the Smoke Away brand was sold under a network of interconnected entities—ProTouch Marketing, LLC; Woodford Hills, LLC; Oakhill Research, LLC; Evergreen Marketing, LLC; Sterling Health, LLC; and Clara Vista Media, LLC—all of which the government alleges operated under the direction and control of Connors. Each corporate arm had distinct roles in advertising, distributing, or processing payments. Yet, they allegedly shared a singular mission: to push a line of dietary supplement–style products (tablets, sprays, and pellets) as the ultimate solution for kicking the smoking habit.
From the complaint’s perspective, the heart of the alleged corporate intent was profit maximization at all costs. The marketing presented Smoke Away as an “easy path” to break free from nicotine—“safe,” “natural,” and “guaranteed.” The basic kit, costing almost $70 in some online marketplaces, contained vitamins, botanicals, and homeopathic pellets. Advertising copy promised these would eliminate the horror stories so common in smoking cessation—withdrawal symptoms, crippling cravings, and the fear of relapse—often in under a week. While the complaint stops short of accusing the defendants of intentionally designing a complete sham, it lays out that they repeatedly made sweeping health claims with no competent and reliable scientific evidence.
In a revealing twist, the government’s lawyers point to video testimonials that seemed almost too good to be true: ex-smokers proclaiming how a lifetime of addiction was erased overnight, how they quickly regained their health and social lives, and how the product’s miraculous efficacy had bested every other method on the market. These “heartfelt stories,” the complaint alleges, were delivered by paid actors. Far from a low-level oversight, this appears in the filing as a central method of consumer deception.
It is notable that the marketing campaign was not just a solitary website or a fluke advertisement. According to the documents, the Smoke Away marketing blitz spanned social media (e.g., Facebook, YouTube), major online retailers (Amazon, Walmart, eBay), internet ads (Google Search and Display), and even radio and text campaigns. Some marketing included references to “millions” of smokers who had purportedly quit using Smoke Away over the past two decades—a figure that, if proven unsupportable, could alone constitute a massive deception.
Taken in its entirety, the complaint casts the corporate operation as having one overriding intent: to craft a compelling narrative that would hook as many consumers as possible, with full knowledge that the claims might not stand up to rigorous scientific or regulatory scrutiny. Yet the alleged scheme highlights a deeper theme that resonates far beyond this single product line: under late-stage capitalism, the short-term pursuit of profit can override moral guardrails. This environment, marked by lax oversight and the sheer volume of products saturating the market, can reward risky—even unlawful—tactics.
The Corporations Get Away With It
It is not the first time, the complaint asserts, that Connors has been on the government’s radar. Back in 2005, a Federal Trade Commission settlement order prohibited him from making unfounded claims about smoking cessation without competent and reliable scientific evidence. Yet, as described in the new complaint, Smoke Away’s marketing simply carried forward the same theme: that the product allowed quick, effortless quitting.
This raises a pressing question: How do corporations like these, especially after a regulatory slap on the wrist, manage to keep doing business in ways alleged to violate earlier directives? The answer points to systemic loopholes. Corporate restructuring, opaque webs of limited liability companies, and expansions into different retail platforms can all create a shell game. Regulators must trace a labyrinth of corporate arms to pin down accountability. Additionally, the complaint reveals that despite the 2005 order, marketing teams pressed ahead with nearly identical claims.
An added layer is the alleged violation of OARFPA, the Opioid Addiction Recovery Fraud Prevention Act, which outlaws deceptive practices in substance use disorder treatments. Under the DSM-5, nicotine dependence is considered a “tobacco use disorder,” meaning it’s included in the broader realm of substance use disorders covered by OARFPA. The complaint contends that the defendants deceptively marketed Smoke Away as a reliable treatment for this disorder. Yet for many, the realization that nicotine addiction is classified as a substance use disorder might be new. This underscores how quickly opportunistic enterprises can exploit regulatory blind spots; the underlying act was designed largely to address the opioid crisis, but it can also apply to anything labeled as a substance use disorder treatment.
Another key factor is resource asymmetry: agencies like the FTC are responsible for policing an immense marketplace of goods and services with limited staffing and funding, a challenge magnified under neoliberal capitalism. The complaint’s timeline suggests that by the time regulators opened a new case, years of alleged misconduct had already transpired, generating untold revenue for the sellers and potentially costing consumers millions.
Add to that a legal environment in which corporations can pay relatively modest settlements (compared to their revenues), reorganize or rename their enterprises, and then continue to operate as before. In this model, sporadic enforcement actions can become just another line item—“the cost of doing business.”
The Cost of Doing Business
One of the most sobering revelations from this complaint is the sheer scale of money that allegedly changed hands due to these unsubstantiated health claims. Smoke Away kits sold for around $68.85 in their most basic form, sometimes higher for “upgraded” versions with additional homeopathic pellets or sprays. A well-oiled marketing campaign, spanning national radio ads to online retailer listings, cast a very wide net of potential buyers. If thousands—or tens of thousands—of people bought into this dream of an easy, rapid-fire solution to nicotine cravings, the revenue could quickly climb into the millions.
From an economic standpoint, the allegations place this scenario in the realm of classic “profit-maximizing strategy” under neoliberal capitalism. The companies had multiple offerings, from a “Basic Kit” to the “Basic Kit Plus” and possibly more elaborate options, capturing consumers at every price point. The complaint indicates that the product’s marketing heavily emphasized how it was cheaper than prescription alternatives, appealing to smokers who might be desperate to quit but wary of high medical costs. This pricing and marketing synergy presumably funneled a large volume of people toward the product.
For the corporation, the net effect is a potential windfall. The upfront cost of manufacturing herbal supplements and homeopathic pellets is often minimal, especially compared to the price tags they command in the health-and-wellness marketplace. Much of the budget presumably went into promotional activities—ads, text message campaigns, elaborate websites, and paid video testimonials. And if the government can prove its case, the ultimate question is whether these marketing claims deliberately crossed the line from the usual “puffery” of advertising into outright deception.
Beyond direct economic fallout on consumers, these allegations hint at broader social costs that often remain invisible. People who struggle with nicotine addiction might have spent limited discretionary income on a product that did little to address their addiction. When the product failed to deliver on its promises, these individuals might have felt discouragement and possibly delayed seeking legitimate medical or counseling support. This is where the complaint’s references to OARFPA become relevant: it’s not just about losing money but about interfering with genuine addiction treatment efforts.
On a grander level, these patterns reflect a central pillar of neoliberal capitalism: privatized gains, socialized losses. The corporate entities scoop up the profits, while the burdens—health consequences, lost resources, dashed hopes—are absorbed by individuals and communities. It is an economic blueprint that repeats across industries: the financial sector, pharmaceuticals, tech giants, fossil fuels, and more. Whenever alleged corporate misconduct thrives under the radar, it is regular citizens who pay the price.
Systemic Failures
The Smoke Away story shines a glaring light on regulatory gaps in the consumer product space. Federal agencies such as the Federal Trade Commission are tasked with ensuring marketplace integrity and protecting individuals from unfair or deceptive practices. Yet the sheer vastness of commerce—amplified by digital platforms—can overwhelm existing enforcement capabilities.
According to the complaint, a single network of companies managed to advertise, promote, and sell a questionable remedy for years. Even with the 2005 FTC order, the line of Smoke Away products apparently continued to flourish. While regulators eventually stepped in, the question remains: Why did it take so long for them to do so? The answer is not that regulators lacked the will but that they confront an ever-expanding digital frontier.
Neoliberal capitalism often reduces the capacity of public institutions by promoting deregulation and budget cuts. As a result, agencies encounter both practical and political hurdles when investigating large-scale, multi-platform deception. Lobbying, political influence, and labyrinthine corporate structures can also stymie attempts at accountability.
The complaint underscores another systemic issue: self-regulation in the dietary supplement and wellness sector. Unlike prescription drugs that require pre-market approval, supplements in the United States operate under more lenient oversight, generally requiring no upfront verification of efficacy before marketing. While the FDA and FTC can bring enforcement actions, these are often reactive, occurring only after consumer complaints or red flags arise. This environment allows an aggressive marketer to push boundaries, generating profit for as long as possible before the slow-moving wheels of regulation catch up.
Even the involvement of OARFPA—legislation largely associated with the opioid epidemic—highlights how unscrupulous actors can exploit a niche in federal law. Consumers might not have known that nicotine addiction qualifies as a form of substance use disorder, thereby placing cessation products under the law’s scope. The defendants’ alleged actions stand as a cautionary tale: once a business identifies a regulatory gray area or a mismatch between a law’s perceived scope and its actual language, that business can profit from the confusion.
Ultimately, these systemic failures feed into the broader story of late-stage capitalism: big promises and bigger profits, with oversight that often arrives after significant damage is done. The role of the state in markets—supposedly shrinking under neoliberal policies—grows paradoxically more critical when private players push the boundaries so aggressively that consumer welfare is jeopardized.
This Pattern of Predation Is a Feature, Not a Bug
The allegations in the complaint are not a stand-alone phenomenon. They resonate with a well-worn script under neoliberal capitalism: corporates pitch a “silver bullet” solution to a deeply human problem, offer dramatic success stories and borderline miraculous claims, reap immense revenue, and—when confronted—justify themselves by deflecting or paying penalties.
Corporate greed and corruption are, in fact, structural features of the system rather than anomalies. In that sense, the case of Smoke Away draws from the same well as corporate misconduct in industries as varied as pharmaceuticals, finance, and agricultural chemicals. Like the manufacturers who once touted miracle cures for arthritis or weight loss without adequate scientific backing, the Smoke Away operation stands accused of packaging hope and marketing it at a premium—while ignoring the potential harm to real people.
Moreover, the complaint reveals that Connors allegedly did not alter his approach even after being targeted by the FTC in the past. Such persistence underscores a cynicism within certain corporate sectors: the possibility that paying fines and rebranding is cheaper than fundamentally changing a deceptive strategy. If the cost of noncompliance is less than the financial benefits gained, some corporations will treat regulatory penalties as a mere business expense.
Neoliberal capitalism’s emphasis on deregulation, privatization, and relentless profit pursuit can further incentivize this behavior. Markets reward speed and scale, not caution and moral deliberation. As a result, unscrupulous operators can flourish in the short term, saturating the market with questionable products. By the time serious enforcement occurs, they may already have expanded, restructured, or quietly liquidated certain lines of business.
The complaint against Connors and his companies may simply be another entry in a long list of systemic abuses. Unless broader reforms tackle the root cause—an economic system that glorifies profit above all else—cases like Smoke Away will continue to pop up, draining consumer trust in legitimate treatments, harming public health, and contributing to the rising wealth disparity that is tearing society’s social fabric apart.
The PR Playbook of Damage Control
When allegations like these surface, corporations typically respond with a time-honored sequence of public relations tactics. Although the complaint itself does not detail the defendants’ internal communications or crisis-management strategies, the historical record of similar corporate controversies offers a telling roadmap:
- Denial or Minimization: Often, companies downplay the severity of allegations, framing them as misunderstandings or minor regulatory disagreements.
- Rebranding and Restructuring: If the name “Smoke Away” becomes too tarnished, they might pivot to a new brand identity. Shell companies or new product lines can help bypass negative publicity.
- Settlement Without Admission: In many enforcement cases, especially with agencies like the FTC, companies pay fines or agree to injunctions “without admitting wrongdoing.” This approach preserves plausible deniability, allowing them to maintain an appearance of corporate responsibility.
- Token Corporate Social Responsibility: To appear compliant and compassionate, some firms might donate to anti-smoking charities or launch surface-level “health awareness” campaigns. These gestures aim to restore public trust while incurring minimal costs compared to broader operational changes.
This cycle of damage control is not unique to the Smoke Away scenario. Indeed, it is the hallmark of a profit-driven marketplace, where negative publicity and legal entanglements become reputational and financial liabilities to be managed, rather than moral or ethical wake-up calls that demand systematic change.
The question, however, is whether the federal complaint this time might break the cycle by imposing a penalty or injunction with enough force to deter future misconduct. Regulatory bodies have signaled a growing impatience with repeat offenders—especially those who have previously entered into settlement agreements yet continue to run parallel operations. If the defendants are found liable, the cost of doing business in this case might be steeper, potentially sparking deeper changes in how supplement-style products are marketed to vulnerable populations.
Yet it is equally possible that the defendants, like many before them, will find new channels and new angles, quietly continuing the same core strategies—just under different brand names and different corporate shells. It is precisely that dynamic that has consumer advocates raising the alarm over whether existing enforcement frameworks are up to the task of protecting the public interest.
Corporate Power vs. Public Interest
Peel back the layers of glitzy ads and corporate press releases, and you find a fundamental tension: the pursuit of profit can easily clash with the public’s need for truthful information. In health and wellness markets, this tension can be especially damaging: if claims about a product’s efficacy are embellished or patently false, people’s health is on the line.
The complaint emphasizes how the Smoke Away marketing allegedly preyed on the hopes and fears of individuals desperate to quit smoking—a dependence that not only drains them financially but may also jeopardize their long-term health. Whether it’s a mother trying to improve her child’s environment, a worker fearing for job stability because of smoke breaks, or an older adult worried about lung cancer, the emotional stakes are enormous.
In an ideal world, corporate accountability would mean consistent transparency. Companies making health claims would be required to present peer-reviewed studies and disclaimers, ensuring that consumers can make informed decisions. Under neoliberal capitalism, however, corporate accountability can crumble, overshadowed by aggressive campaigns that trade on emotional manipulation. Deceptive testimonials—particularly if performed by paid actors—can saturate a market before regulators can muster a formal response.
Moreover, the intangible power that large marketing budgets wield in modern culture cannot be overstated. Slick marketing can drown out legitimate voices of caution, especially in the domain of addiction and substance abuse. Public health agencies and smaller nonprofits struggle to match the reach and persuasive flash of corporate messaging. This imbalance allows alleged misrepresentations to endure.
When corporate power overshadows public interest, the very act of choosing a product becomes less about an individual consumer’s free will and more about who controls the narrative. If tens of thousands of people are told that Smoke Away is the best solution, and they encounter no visible disclaimers or critical reviews, the scale tilts. In a more regulated environment, we might see disclaimers or enforced transparency. But in a neoliberal marketplace, the impetus is on the consumer to fend for themselves—at their own peril.
The Human Toll on Workers and Communities
Although the official complaint is laser-focused on deception against consumers, the broader story naturally intersects with social justice considerations. If people trying to quit smoking wasted their money and emotional energy on Smoke Away, what ripple effects might that have had? We can analyze at least three layers of potential impact:
- Individual Smokers: Those living paycheck to paycheck might have spent resources on a product that didn’t truly address their nicotine addiction. In failing to deliver, it delayed legitimate help and fueled further despair or self-blame—especially for those who, upon relapsing, might believe the failure was entirely their own fault.
- Families and Communities: Smoking often intersects with broader health disparities. Communities with lower socioeconomic status, less access to healthcare, and fewer resources might be particularly susceptible to marketing that promises an easy fix. If those local consumers are collectively spending significant funds on an unverified product, local economies suffer a loss in disposable income that could have circulated into more productive community investments.
- Workers in the Company’s Supply Chain: While large corporate entities profit the most, those who package, distribute, or advertise the product may see little benefit. Should the litigation result in a shutdown or reorganization, the rank-and-file workforce could be left unemployed. Or, in an all-too-common scenario, they might be pressured to shift to a new brand or product line without any explanation.
Corporate ethics often come into conflict with these human considerations, particularly under a system that glorifies efficiency and growth. The community-level repercussions seldom appear in any corporate memo or press release (nor, frequently, in a complaint dedicated to the narrower legal question of “deceptive practices”). Yet from a social justice perspective, these are the real costs: health outcomes, family stability, economic well-being, and an eroding sense of trust in institutions.
By extension, each tale of corporate deception becomes part of a larger narrative of wealth disparity, showing how unscrupulous or dishonest practices can deepen social divides. People with fewer resources face increased vulnerability to marketing hype, are more likely to bear the brunt of any resultant harm, and have minimal recourse if their money is lost.
Global Trends in Corporate Accountability
The issues raised by the Smoke Away allegations do not stop at American borders. Across the globe, corporations selling questionable health remedies have similarly tested the limits of national regulators. Whether the product is a purported miracle cure for diabetes in Asia, an “instant weight-loss solution” in Europe, or an unsubstantiated COVID-19 remedy in Africa, the pattern is reminiscent. Consumers who are desperate, ill, or simply hopeful make easy targets for unproven claims.
In this broader ecosystem, neoliberal capitalism’s emphasis on trade liberalization and corporate freedoms often dwarfs global enforcement. While U.S. agencies like the FTC can (and do) coordinate with foreign regulators, the patchwork of laws, resources, and political will globally creates opportunities for unscrupulous companies to shift operations or marketing strategies to more lenient jurisdictions.
At the same time, consumer advocacy organizations worldwide are pushing back. Grassroots movements in various countries have challenged corporate misinformation and demanded tighter rules on health and wellness marketing. Europe, in some respects, has traditionally held stricter guidelines on product labeling and ad claims, but even there, enforcement can be inconsistent.
In the case of Smoke Away, if it was marketed or sold internationally, it might have run afoul of similar consumer protection laws overseas. Although the American complaint focuses on U.S. sales, any multinational dimension could broaden the circle of accountability—or reveal a labyrinth of shell companies that cross borders to exploit varying regulations.
The intersection of corporate accountability and public health is thus a global conversation. Without stronger international frameworks, unscrupulous operators can evade national jurisdictions and continue to prey on consumers. This underscores the importance of systemic reforms that go beyond single-nation enforcement, emphasizing the urgent need to update international regulatory regimes to keep pace with global commerce.
Pathways for Reform and Consumer Advocacy
While the Smoke Away legal case stands as a warning, it also reveals a roadmap for reform—if policymakers, regulators, and citizens are prepared to act. Meaningful change will require a multi-pronged approach:
- Robust Enforcement and Penalties: Regulatory bodies like the FTC need consistent funding and authority to pursue bad actors early and aggressively. Financial penalties must be proportionate to the revenue generated, so that paying a settlement becomes more than just a minor business expense.
- Stricter Oversight of Health-Related Marketing: Especially for dietary supplements, the legal and regulatory framework could be tightened to require that any health claim be supported by peer-reviewed evidence. Before a product hits the market, the burden should fall on companies to prove efficacy when they make strong therapeutic claims, rather than on regulators to prove deception later.
- Transparent Supply Chains and Corporate Disclosures: When a set of companies is owned or controlled by a single individual, as alleged in the complaint, it can become a puzzle for regulators to determine who is truly accountable. Requiring clearer ownership disclosure in corporate filings—and making these easily searchable—would reduce that confusion.
- Whistleblower Protections and Incentives: Workers on the inside often have the best vantage point to identify deceptive practices. Strengthening whistleblower protections and offering incentives could empower employees to speak up before harmful products flood the market.
- Stronger Consumer Education: Public awareness campaigns, funded by government or nonprofit partnerships, can help consumers spot red flags, such as dramatic “cure-all” claims and hidden disclaimers. If everyday people can quickly identify questionable advertising, the market for such products narrows.
- Democratic Accountability: On a grander scale, citizens can push for structural changes—like limiting corporate political influence, implementing robust social safety nets, and expanding universal healthcare—so that individuals are less desperate for unverified solutions.
Ultimately, truly dismantling the pattern alleged in the Smoke Away complaint demands a shift in how society measures corporate success. Rather than fixating solely on quarterly profits, we might require that companies meet enforceable standards of corporate social responsibility, with real consequences for ethical breaches. This broader cultural transformation is essential if we wish to prevent future outrages.
Despite the bleak picture, the tides are slowly turning. High-profile enforcement actions generate media attention. Class-action lawsuits can lead to public settlements and ongoing scrutiny. Grassroots activism is more connected than ever via social media, fueling awareness campaigns that cut through corporate noise. Consumers may still be at risk, but they are not voiceless.
The question is whether the lessons of the Smoke Away story will spark deeper systemic reforms, or whether we will see a repeat of the same cyclical dance: allegations, fines, rebranding, and then business as usual. The stakes are high for local communities, public health, and the integrity of our global marketplace.
📢 Explore Corporate Misconduct by Category
🚨 Every day, corporations engage in harmful practices that affect workers, consumers, and the environment. Browse key topics:
- 🔥 Product Safety Violations – When companies cut costs at the expense of consumer safety.
- 🌿 Environmental Violations – How corporate greed fuels pollution and ecological destruction.
- ⚖️ Labor Exploitation – Unsafe conditions, wage theft, and workplace abuses.
- 🔓 Data Breaches & Privacy Abuses – How corporations mishandle and exploit your personal data.
- 💰 Financial Fraud & Corruption – Corporate fraud schemes, misleading investors, and corruption scandals.
The FTC has a press release about this story: https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/06/ftc-acts-stop-owner-marketers-smoke-away-deceptively-claiming-products-enable-users-quit-smoking