SAMPLE ARTICLE

---

BULLETIN #729

---

SUPPLEMENT MARKETER FOUND IN CONTEMPT OF COURT ORDER
BARRING DECEPTIVE HEALTH CLAIMS

FEDERAL JUDGE RULES IN FTC's FAVOR

A federal judge ruled in favor of FTC, finding supplement marketer Lane Labs-USA Inc., and its president Andrew Lane in contempt of a court order that bars them from making deceptive health claims.

ORIGINAL FTC CHARGES

In 2000, FTC originally charged Lane Labs with making unsupported and false claims that BeneFin and Skin Answer--a shark cartilage product and a skin cream--could prevent, treat, or cure cancer, and were clinically proven to do so. Lane Labs and Andrew Lane settled the charges by agreeing to a court order that barred them from making unsupported health claims about any food, drug or dietary supplement.

FTC FILED CIVIL CONTEMPT CHARGES IN 2007

In 2007, FTC filed civil contempt charges against the defendants. FTC alleged that they violated the 2000 order based on their advertising and marketing of AdvaCAL. AdvaCAL is a calcium supplement the defendants promoted as vastly superior to competing calcium products and prescription drugs used to treat osteoporosis. Those charges were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

In November, 2011, the district court ruled that defendants violated the 2000 order by making unsupported claims that AdvaCAL is three-to-four times more absorbable than other calcium supplements, and distorting the results of tests and studies on AdvaCAL and competing calcium supplements. In addition, the district court rejected defendants' claim that they substantially complied with the order, because their violations were not merely technical or inadvertent.

Article Continues Below

RECENT DECISION FOLLOWS OCTOBER 2010 RULING FROM THIRD CIRCUIT

The recent decision follows an October 2010 ruling from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. That ruling overturned the district court's original denial of FTC's contempt motion. The Third Circuit found that the defendants had violated the order by making unsupported claims that AdvaCAL was comparable or superior to prescription drugs. The appeals court then sent the case back to the district court, which ruled last month that the defendants were in contempt. The district court will rule later on the amount of monetary damages for which the defendants are liable.

LAWYER's REFERENCE SERVICE

FTC v. Lane Labs-USA, Inc., Cartilage Consultants, Inc., and I. William Lane and Andrew J. Lane, United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, Case No. 00CV3174, FTC File No. 982 3558, FTC File No. X000086, December 14, 2011.

 

Volume XXX
Issue 1
January 2, 2012
Page 14-15

 

---

Advertising Compliance Service is a REFERENCE COMPENDIUM of JLCom Publishing Co., L.L.C.

---

 

NOTICE: This publication is not intended to provide legal advice. Persons who need legal services should contact a duly licensed professional.

 

© Copyright 2012 JLCom Publishing Co., L.L.C. All rights reserved.