|
About | Subscribe | Order | Features | Testimonials |
|
(Editor's Note: This article, "Weight-Control Advertisers Hit with $25 Million in Penalties, Consumer Redress," was published in Tab #17, Food, Drugs, Cosmetics, ARTICLE #138, in Advertising Compliance ServiceÔ in 2007. Continuously published since 1981, this Newsletter/Reference Service includes:
|
|
|
Weight-Control Advertisers Hit with $25 Million in Penalties, Consumer RedressCOMPANIES AGREE TO LIMIT FUTURE WEIGHT-CONTROL ADVERTISING CLAIMS FTC recently filed complaints in four separate cases alleging that weight-loss and weight-control claims were not backed up by competent and reliable scientific evidence. Marketers of the four products–Xenadrine EFX, CortiSlim, TrimSpa, and One-A-Day WeightSmart–have settled with FTC, surrendered cash and other assets worth at least $25 million, and agreed to limit their future advertising claims. XENADRINE EFX Two marketers of Xenadrine EFX agreed to pay $8 to $12.8 million to settle FTC charges that Xenadrine EFX's weight-loss claims were false and unsubstantiated. These funds will be used for consumer redress. In a bankruptcy case that doesn't involve FTC, these defendants also agreed to pay at least an additional $22.75 million to settle claims brought by creditors and consumers, including personal injury claims for an earlier ephedra-based product. This product contains, among other ingredients, green tea extract (EGCG), caffeine and bitter orange. It was advertised heavily in print and on TV, including in such publications as People, TV Guide and Cosmopolitan. Advertising for this product also appeared in Spanish-language publications. False or Unsubstantiated Claims FTC's complaint charged that defendants made false or unsubstantiated claims for Xenadrine EFX, including that it was clinically proven to–-
Didn't Show Substantial Weight Loss According to FTC's complaint, Robert Chinery commissioned several studies of Xenadrine EFX–none of which showed substantial weight loss. FTC's complaint alleged that in one of these studies, subjects taking Xenadrine EFX lost an average of only 1.5 pounds over the 10-week study, while a control group taking a placebo lost an average of 2.5 pounds over the same period. Additionally, FTC's complaint alleged that Xenadrine EFX ads falsely claimed that persons appearing in the ads achieved the reported weight loss solely by using Xenadrine EFX. However, according to FTC's complaint, consumer endorsers lost weight by engaging in rigorous diet and/or exercise programs. Moreover, the endorsers were paid from $1,000 to $20,000 in connection with their testimonials, according to FTC's complaint, and Xenadrine EFX ads didn't disclose those payments. The stipulated federal court order with Robert Chinery, Jr. and RTC Research & Development, LLC (RTC) bars–-
Finally, Robert Chinery and RTC agreed not to use their settlement with FTC as a basis for seeking a cash refund of Xenadrine EFX-related income taxes that they previously reported as paid. CORTISLIM AND CORTISTRESS Seven Marketers Agree To Surrender Assets The seven marketers of CortiSlim and CortiStress agreed to surrender assets worth at least $12 million to settle FTC charges that they made false and unsubstantiated claims that their products can cause weight loss and reduce the risk of, or prevent, serious health conditions. In the final three settlement agreements announced by FTC on January 4, 2007, FTC will recover $8.4 million in cash, along with proceeds from the sale of a residence acquired with CortiSlim profits. These settlements also require the two individual defendants to liquidate tax shelters and transfer to FTC funds that remain after paying taxes and penalties. The funds recovered from these seven defendants will be used for consumer redress. Infomercials Were Deceptively Formatted The ad campaign for CortiSlim was a nationwide campaign. It included ads on broadcast and cable TV, radio, print media, and the Internet. FTC's complaint alleged that advertising claims about CortiSlim's ability to cause rapid, substantial, and permanent weight loss in all users were false or unsubstantiated, as were claims about CortiStress's ability to reduce the risk of such conditions as osteoporosis, obesity and cancer. FTC also alleged that CortiSlim and CortiStress infomercials were deceptively formatted to appear as talk shows rather than ads. The final settlements announced by FTC are with Stephen F. Cheng and his company, Window Rock Enterprises, Inc., and with Gregory S. Cynaumon and his company, Infinity Advertising, Inc. All of the settlements bar-–
Additionally, the defendants agreed not to use their settlement with FTC as a basis for seeking a cash refund of income taxes that they reported as paid. TRIMSPA The marketers of TrimSpa agreed to pay $1.5 million to settle FTC charges that their weight-loss claims were unsubstantiated. According to FTC's complaint, the marketers had inadequate scientific evidence to back up their ad claims that TrimSpa causes rapid and substantial weight loss and that one of its ingredients, Hoodia gordonii, enables users to lose substantial amounts of weight by suppressing appetite. Many ads for "TrimSpa Completely Ephedra Free Formula X32" featured testimonials. Celebrity Anna Nicole Smith claimed to have lost 69 pounds in eight months by using TrimSpa. Other ad claims included "Your high speed dream body diet pill" and "It makes losing 30, 50, even 70 pounds (or however many pounds you need to lose) painless." Magazines and Local Newspapers TrimSpa ads appeared on TV, in magazines, on radio, and in local newspapers. TrimSpa was also promoted on a website, at some NASCAR events, and other live events. Claims Must Be Substantiated Additionally, the agreement bars the marketers from making any claims about the health benefits, performance, efficacy, safety, or side effects of TrimSpa, Hoodia gordonii, or any dietary supplement, food, drug, or health-related service or program, unless the claims are true, not misleading, and substantiated by competent and reliable scientific evidence. ONE-A-DAY WEIGHTSMART Over Alleged Violation of Earlier FTC Order The Bayer Corporation agreed to pay a $3.2 million civil penalty to settle FTC charges that ads for One-A-Day WeightSmart multivitamins violated an earlier FTC order requiring all health claims for One-A-Day brand vitamins to be substantiated by competent and reliable scientific evidence. Bayer ran a national ad campaign for One-A-Day WeightSmart, which contains EGCG (epigallocatechin gallate), a green tea extract. Bayer also advertised on TV, radio, and the Internet, and in newspapers and magazines, such as RedBook, Family Circle, and TV Guide. The advertising claims at issue in this major FTC action included such claims as:
FTC's complaint alleged that Bayer Corporation marketed One-A-Day WeightSmart with unsubstantiated claims that it
1991 Order Against Predecessor FTC charged that these unsubstantiated claims violate a 1991 Commission order against Bayer's predecessor, Miles Inc. That 1991 order requires that all claims about the benefits of One-A-Day brand products must be substantiated by competent and reliable scientific evidence. Making Unsubstantiated Representations In addition to the $3.2 million civil penalty, Bayer is barred from violating the FTC order and from making unsubstantiated representations regarding the benefits, performance, efficacy, safety, or side effects of any dietary supplement, multivitamin, or weight-control product. BOOST FOR SELF-REGULATORY PROCESS Because of an advertiser's failure to respond, the National Advertising Division (NAD) will refer a particular matter to the appropriate governmental agency (which is often FTC) for possible law enforcement action, pursuant to NAD/NARB Procedures. Indeed, that is what happened in this matter. FTC acknowledged NAD "for its referrals of some of these cases." FTC's VOTES FTC's vote to accept the Bayer settlement was 5-0. At FTC's request, the Department of Justice filed the complaint and proposed consent decree on January 3, 2007, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. FTC's vote to accept the TrimSpa consent agreement, subject to public comment, was 4-0, with Commissioner Rosch recused. FTC's votes to authorize staff to file the CortiSlim stipulated final orders were both 5-0. The stipulated final orders for permanent injunction were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on October 3, 2006 for Stephen Cheng and Window Rock Enterprises, Inc. and on January 3, 2007 for Gregory Cynaumon and Infinity Advertising, Inc. FTC's vote to authorize staff to file the Xenadrine EFX stipulated final order was 5-0. The stipulated final order for permanent injunction was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on December 26, 2006. NOTE: The proposed consent decree and the stipulated final orders are for settlement purposes only and do not constitute admissions by the settling defendants of law violations. They are subject to court approval and have the force of law when signed by the judge. Likewise, the administrative consent agreement is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission of a law violation. When the Commission issues a consent agreement on a final basis, it carries the force of law with respect to future actions. Each violation of such an order may result in a civil penalty of $11,000. LAWYER'S REFERENCE SERVICE FTC v. Robert Chinery, Jr.; Tracy A. Chinery; and RTC Research & Development, LLC, United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, Civil Action No. 05-3460 (GEB), January 4, 2007. FTC v. Window Rock Enterprises, Inc., also d/b/a, Window Rock Health Laboratories, also d/b/a CortiSlim, Infinity Advertising, Inc., Stephen F. Cheng, Shawn M. Talbott and Gregory S. Cynaumon, United States District Court, Central District of California Civil Action No.: CV04-8190 DSF (JTLx), January 4, 2007. In the Matter of Goen Technologies Corporation; Nutramerica Corporation; Trimspa, Inc.; and Alexander Szynalski, also known as Alexander Goen, File No. 042 3127, January 4, 2007. USA (for FTC) v. Bayer Corporation, United States District Court for the District of New Jersey; Civ. Action No. 07-01 (HAA), January 4, 2007. # # #
|
|
JLCom Publishing Co., LLC is the publisher of Advertising Compliance Service. For nearly 29 years, Advertising Compliance Service has been the authoritative and comprehensive source of information for advertising law practitioners, advertisers and advertising agencies -- and their attorneys. In-house counsel and outside counsel alike routinely rely on Advertising Compliance Service. One of the 27 advertising law-related topics that are regularly covered by this newsletter/reference service is found in Tab #17, and is entitled, "Food, Drugs, Cosmetics." |

© Copyright 2007-2010 JLCom Publishing Co., L.L.C. All rights reserved.
IMPORTANT NOTICE: Materials included in this Web Site are intended for general information purposes only and are not intended to provide, and do not constitute, legal or other advice. Persons who need legal or other services should contact a duly licensed professional. Inclusion of links on this Website are to Websites maintained by third parties over whom JLCom Publishing Co., LLC has no control. Such links do not imply endorsement of the material contained therein. JLCom Publishing Co., LLC makes no claims, representations, or warranties as to the accuracy, completeness, or appropriateness of these Web sites or the information these websites contain. Read this disclaimer and our privacy statement before using this site.