Digital Altitude and its principals, Michael Force and Mary Dee, deny responsibility for allegedly defrauding consumers out of $54 million, despite acknowledging past misrepresentations. The company and its leaders have lodged several affirmative defenses in court documents, challenging the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) case.

These defenses include a claim that the FTC failed to exhaust administrative remedies. Such a strategy would aim to force the FTC to engage in administrative proceedings before pursuing court injunctions. This could allow Digital Altitude to continue operating while negotiations or administrative reviews take place, a prospect that appears illogical given the serious nature of the allegations. Consumers could face continued harm if the company remains operational during such a process.

The defense of good faith appears particularly questionable. It asks how making income potential claims that are later acknowledged as gross misrepresentations can be considered acting in good faith. Similarly, the notion of informed consent in this context raises concerns, suggesting a defense that victims implicitly agreed to their financial losses. The FTC's position, supported by a court-granted injunction based on the likelihood of prevailing, indicates a strong basis for the case, directly countering the defense that there is no reasonable basis for the FTC's requested relief.

An additional defense, offsets/set-offs, suggests an attempt to reduce the amount of seized assets by claiming Digital Altitude or its principals might already owe victims money. The exact legal application of this defense in this context remains unclear without legal expertise.

Court filings also reveal a significant increase in the estimated consumer losses. The FTC initially placed losses around $14 million. However, ongoing analysis by the Digital Altitude Receiver has revised this figure upward to approximately $54 million. The FTC emphasizes that this latter sum represents a conservative estimate of the actual financial harm inflicted on consumers.