304, 78 L.Ed.2d 29 (1983) (“It is a well-established principle of statutory construction that ‘[t]he common law ... ought not to be deemed repealed, unless the language of a statute be clear and explicit for this purpose.’ ” (quoting Fairfax’s Devisee v. Hunter’s Lessee, 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 603, 623, 3 L.Ed. 453 (1812))). Pequignot also attempts to bolster his position by citing cases interpreting other statutes as providing for separate violations or offenses per article or product. See, e.g., United States v. Mirama Enters., 387 F.3d 983, 989 (9th Cir.2004) (finding that a manufacturer’s failure to report a defect in thousands of juicers constituted thousands of violations of the Consumer Product Safety Act); United States v. Reader’s Digest Ass’n, 662 F.2d 955, 966 (3d Cir.1981) (<HOLDING>). This argument is unavailing for two reasons.
holding that each mailing of a simulated check was a separate violation of an ftc order under the federal trade commission act holding that statutory damages were appropriate for each discrete violation of that states deceptive trade practices act holding that antitrust violations are unfair methods of competition under the ftc act holding that the ftc may proceed under  13b for any violation of a statute administered by the ftc holding that each converterdecoder manufactured or distributed in violation of  553 is a separate violation of the statute