FTC Issues Compliance Guide For Its Petroleum Market Manipulation Regulations; FTC Approves Final Consent Order in Matter Concerning K+S Aktiengesellschaft and International Salt Company, LLC

FTC Issues Compliance Guide For Its Petroleum Market Manipulation Regulations

The Federal Trade Commission’s staff has prepared a guide to help businesses and individuals comply with the anti-fraud provisions of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) and the FTC’s Petroleum Market Manipulation Rule.

The EISA authorizes the FTC to issue regulations to prohibit manipulative or deceptive conduct in wholesale petroleum markets and makes it unlawful to report false or misleading information related to the wholesale price of crude oil, gasoline, or petroleum distillates to federal agencies in certain circumstances. The FTC’s Petroleum Market Manipulation Rule, which became effective November 4, 2009, prohibits fraudulent or deceptive conduct (including false or misleading statements of material fact) in connection with wholesale purchases or sales of crude oil, gasoline, or petroleum distillates. The Rule also bans intentional failures to state a material fact when the omission makes a statement misleading and distorts or is likely to distort market conditions for any product covered by the Rule.

The FTC’s Guide to Complying with Petroleum Market Manipulation Regulations answers commonly asked questions and examines various scenarios to help those trading in wholesale petroleum markets comply with the regulations. The Guide is available on the FTC’s Web site at http://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/rules/prohibition-energy-market-manipulation-rule/091113mmrguide.pdf and as a link to this press release. (See press release dated August 26, 2008 at http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/08/mmr.shtm.)

FTC Approves Final Consent Order in Matter Concerning K+S Aktiengesellschaft and International Salt Company, LLC

Following a public comment period, the Commission has approved a final consent order in the matter concerning the acquisition of Morton International, Inc. by K+S Aktiengesellschaft, the parent company of International Salt Company LLC. The FTC’s complaint charged that, absent relief, the proposed acquisition would have been anticompetitive. The consent order settling the charges was announced on September 25, 2009.

The Commission vote approving the final order was 4-0. (FTC File No. 091-0086; the staff contact is Jill Frumin, Bureau of Competition, 202-326-2758; see press release dated September 25, 2009, at http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/09/mortonsalt.shtm.)

Copies of the documents mentioned in this release are available from the FTC’s Web site at http://www.ftc.gov and from the FTC’s Consumer Response Center, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20580. Call toll-free: 1-877-FTC-HELP.

(FYI 50.2009.wpd)

FTC Lodges Contempt Charge Against BlueHippo

The Federal Trade Commission has asked a federal court to issue a contempt order against BlueHippo, a company that collected more than $15 million from consumers based on claims that it would finance their purchases of new computers, but delivered neither the financing nor the financed computers, in violation of a 2008 court order. The FTC alleged that less than one percent of consumers who signed up with BlueHippo received the financed computers they applied for, and undisclosed conditions to redeem “store credits” were rigged to discourage consumers from using them.

In a contempt motion lodged with the court today, the FTC charged that BlueHippo has flouted a settlement reached with the agency last year, continuing to deceive thousands of financially strapped consumers with phony promises that it would help them purchase a computer even if they have credit problems. The FTC also is asking the court to order BlueHippo to compensate injured consumers and bar BlueHippo from similar conduct in the future.

“Years of broken promises by BlueHippo have left consumers seeing red,” said FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz. “We’re putting companies like this on notice: If you mistreat consumers and thumb your nose at the courts, we will hold you accountable.”

The FTC reached a settlement with Baltimore-based BlueHippo in April 2008 that required the company to pay $3.5 million for consumer redress and barred the defendants from further deceiving customers. According to the FTC’s 2008 complaint, BlueHippo Funding, LLC and affiliate BlueHippo Capital, LLC offered to extend credit to consumers to finance purchases of personal computers and other consumer electronics with down payments of $99 to $124, and a year of weekly or bi-weekly payments ranging from $36 to $88. BlueHippo promised to deliver the product once the consumer made 13 weekly payments. But most consumers did not receive the computers they ordered in the time promised, even after they had made 13 weeks of payments, the Commission alleged. The Commission charged that BlueHippo’s marketing tactics were deceptive, and violated the FTC Act and other federal credit statutes.

Even after this settlement order was entered by the court, BlueHippo continued to deceive consumers, according to the FTC. The company aggressively marketed itself as a computer finance company and spent the rest of 2008 signing up customers and taking their money, but failing to provide them with financed computers. The FTC’s contempt motion alleges that between April and December of 2008, more than 35,000 customers contracted for BlueHippo’s computer financing deal. But the company provided, at most, a single financed computer, failing to provide financed computers even for 2,477 customers who managed to meet the companies’ conditions. Complaints about the company poured into the Better Business Bureau. On top of all that, BlueHippo failed to submit a report to the FTC showing how it was complying with the settlement, as required by the order.

Finally, in April, 2009, after the FTC notified the court that BlueHippo was violating the settlement, the company began ordering thousands of computers. Even so, the FTC alleges that BlueHippo failed to order computers for 1,015 of the 2,477 consumers who had qualified for financing by making 13 consecutive payments and completing the required paperwork. For the 1,462 consumers who finally received a computer, BlueHippo did not even order – let alone ship – the computers within the three- to four-week time frame the company had advertised. On average, it took about six months between the time these consumers qualified for their computers and the time BlueHippo ordered the machines, according to the FTC’s contempt motion.

The FTC’s contempt motion also charged that BlueHippo failed to disclose key aspects of its refund policy. In particular, the company promised that while consumers who canceled their order after seven days could not obtain cash refunds, they could get “store credit,” which could be used to buy desktop computers, laptops, monitors, software, and televisions. But it failed to tell consumers that they would have to send a money order to cover undisclosed shipping and handling fees, as well as taxes, even if they had more than enough store credit to cover these costs – and that they could only order one item at a time.

The contempt motion against defendants BlueHippo Funding, LLC; BlueHippo Capital, LLC; and Joseph Rensin was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, visit the FTC’s online Complaint Assistant or call 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357). The FTC enters complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 1,700 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The FTC’s Web site provides free information on a variety of consumer topics.

(FTC File No. X080019)

FTC and Department of Justice Sign Antitrust Memorandum of Understanding with Russia’s Federal Antimonopoly Service

The Federal Trade Commission and U.S. Department of Justice today signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on antitrust cooperation with the Russian antitrust agency, the Federal Antimonopoly Service (FAS), to promote greater cooperation and further strengthen the relationships between the U.S. antitrust agencies and the FAS through technical cooperation and regular communication.

The MOU was signed in Washington, DC, by FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz, Assistant Attorney General for Antitrust Christine Varney, and FAS Head Igor Artemyev.

Commenting on the signing, Chairman Leibowitz said, “We are delighted to enter into this antitrust Memorandum of Understanding with the Russian Federal Antimonopoly Service. It will enable us to enhance our cooperation, provide a framework for technical cooperation, and facilitate consultation on policy and enforcement matters with our counterpart in this important jurisdiction.”

Key provisions of the MOU address the following:

Cooperation – The MOU provides that the U.S. antitrust agencies and the FAS will work to keep each other informed of significant competition policy and enforcement developments in their respective jurisdictions, and establishes a framework for providing technical cooperation.

Communications – The MOU establishes a framework for communications between the U.S. antitrust agencies and the FAS, allowing the agencies to consult one another for advice on matters of competition enforcement and policy. It also contemplates periodic meetings among officials to exchange information on policy and enforcement priorities.

While the United States has several antitrust cooperation agreements with foreign jurisdictions, this is the first antitrust cooperation MOU entered into on a direct agency-to-agency basis.

The Commission vote authorizing Chairman Leibowitz to sign the MOU on behalf of the agency was 4-0. A copy of the MOU can be found on the Commission’s Web site and as a link to this press release at: http://www.ftc.gov/oia/agreements.shtm

The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, visit the FTC’s online Complaint Assistant or call 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357). The FTC enters complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 1,700 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The FTC’s Web site provides free information on a variety of consumer topics.

(FTC File No. P999608)

FTC Seeks Public Comments on Dow Chemical Company Petition to Modify Final Commission Decision and Order Regarding Rohm & Haas Acquisition

The FTC is seeking public comments on a petition by Dow Chemical Company to modify a Commission consent order issued on March 31, 2009, and made final on April 9, 2009. The FTC order was issued to resolve competitive concerns raised by the merger of Dow with Rohm & Haas, and required Dow to divest a range of assets to an FTC-approved acquirer, including its acrylic monomer, hollow sphere particle, and acrylic latex polymer businesses. In the petition to reopen and modify the order, Dow has requested Commission approval to lease, rather than sell, the Torrance, California, latex polymers facility included in the divestiture package required by the FTC.

The Commission is accepting public comments on Dow’s petition for 30 days, until December 7, 2009. Written comments should be sent to: FTC Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Washington, DC 20580. To file a comment, please click on the following hyperlink: https://public.commentworks.com/ftc/C4243 and follow the instructions at that site. Copies of the petition can be found on the FTC’s Web site and as a link to this press release. (FTC File No. 081-0214, Docket No. C-4243; the staff contact is Roberta S. Baruch, Bureau of Competition, 202-326-2861; see press release dated January 23, 2009, at: http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/01/dow.shtm.)

Copies of the documents mentioned in this release are available from the FTC’s Web site at http://www.ftc.gov and from the FTC’s Consumer Response Center, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20580. Call toll-free: 1-877-FTC-HELP.

(FYI 51.2009.wpd)

FTC Files Contempt Charges Against Attorney for Ponzi Scheme Operators

The Federal Trade Commission has filed civil contempt charges against an attorney who represented the marketers of an “Internet kiosk” business opportunity that turned out to be nothing more than a Ponzi scheme.

In its contempt action, the Commission charged that the attorney representing defendants in the case flouted a March 2009 federal court order that required him to turn over $238,300 to the FTC. The court had previously had determined that money given to the attorney as a retainer for his work on the case derived from the defendants’ proceeds from their illegal scheme. The court found that the FTC was entitled to that money, so that it could be used to reimburse victims of the scam.

In the March 2009 order, the court also imposed an $18.9 million judgment against the operators of the scam – Network Services Depot, Charles Castro, and several other defendants. The judgment upheld FTC charges that the defendants violated the FTC Act and the agency’s Franchise Rule by duping hundreds of consumers into buying Internet kiosk business opportunities with false promises of lucrative earnings. The judgment paved the way for the FTC to distribute more than $2 million to victims.

The civil contempt action against Jeffrey S. Benice and his law firm, Jeffrey S. Benice, a Professional Law Corporation, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada.

Copies of the March 2009 order and other court documents are available from the FTC’s Web site at http://www.ftc.gov and also from the FTC’s Consumer Response Center, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20580.

The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, visit the FTC’s online Complaint Assistant or call 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357). The FTC enters complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 1,700 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The FTC’s Web site provides free information on a variety of consumer topics.

(Contempt NSD NR.wpd)
(FTC File No. X050042)

Marketers of Free Trial Stop-Smoking Patch Settle FTC Charges

An operation that offered “free trials” of its bogus smoking cessation patches and debited consumers’ bank accounts without their consent has settled Federal Trade Commission charges that it violated federal law. The settlement order bars the defendants from future violations and requires them to pay $315,000.

According to a complaint filed by the FTC in March 2008, the defendants offered a 10-day “free” trial of various herbal products, including smoking cessation patches called “Nicocure,” “Stop Smoking 180,” and “Zero Nicotine,” and stated that consumers would pay only for shipping and handling. The defendants failed to disclose that along with the free trial came automatic enrollment in a continuity program that would bill consumers up to $99.95 per month until they canceled their participation in the program. Consumers found that cancellation was difficult or impossible. The complaint also alleged that the smoking cessation patch did not work.

The settlement order bars the defendants, when using a “negative option” feature such as automatic enrollment in a continuity plan, from making offers on a “free,” “trial,” or “no obligation” basis if, in fact, a charge will be assessed unless the consumer takes affirmative action to avoid the charge. They also are prohibited from making a number of other misrepresentations, including about how much a consumer will be charged. The order requires the defendants to clearly disclose certain information before asking consumers to pay or reveal billing information, including all material conditions of any negative option offer. Other requirements are designed to ensure that consumers know what they are buying, that they have clearly authorized the transaction, and that they are able to obtain any promised refund.

In addition, the order bars the defendants from making certain representations about smoking cessation and other types of claims for any dietary supplement, food, drug, device, or health-related program or service, unless the claims are true, not misleading, and supported by reliable scientific evidence. They also are prohibited from misrepresenting the results of any research on such products, programs, or services.

The order imposes a $3.4 million judgment that will be suspended upon payment of $315,000. The full judgment will become due immediately if the defendants are found to have misrepresented their financial condition. The settlement also contains record-keeping and reporting provisions to allow the FTC to monitor compliance with the order.

The defendants are NextClick Media, LLC, Kenneth Chan, and Albert Chen. The Commission vote to authorize staff to file the stipulated final order was 4-0. The Commission also voted to dismiss its complaint against Next Internet, LLC. The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division. The stipulated order was entered by the court on November 3, 2009.

NOTE: Stipulated court orders are for settlement purposes only and do not necessarily constitute an admission by the defendants of a law violation. Stipulated orders have the full force of law when signed by the judge.

The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, visit the FTC’s online Complaint Assistant or call 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357). The FTC enters complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 1,700 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The FTC’s Web site provides free information on a variety of consumer topics.

(NextClick)
(FTC File No. X080069)

Holiday Shopping on a Budget: Tips About Layaway Plans

With the holiday season fast approaching, some smart planning now can keep your household budget intact when you ring in the new year. One option to consider is layaway plans.

For a long time, these plans have provided an alternative to paying cash or using credit. The retailer holds merchandise in reserve until the consumer pays for it in full. In recent years, Internet layaway sites have provided online shoppers with a similar option.

According to a new consumer alert from the Federal Trade Commission, the nation’s consumer protection agency, it’s important to ask questions about the layaway plan and the refund policy when considering the layaway option. The alert, “Layaway: Another Way to Buy,” also tells consumers to:

  • check out the business offering the plan;
  • get the merchant’s layaway policy in writing; and
  • keep good records of payments.

To learn more, go to http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/alerts/alt173.shtm.

The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, visit the FTC’s online Complaint Assistant or call 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357). The FTC enters complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 1,700 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The FTC’s Web site provides free information on a variety of consumer topics.

(FYI layaway plans)

FTC Charges ‘Credit Card’ Companies with Deceptive Marketing

The Federal Trade Commission has filed a complaint in federal court alleging that a catalog credit card operation deceptively marketed its card, failed to honor its refund policy, and charged up-front fees for a guaranteed line of credit. The defendants, who charged consumers hundreds of dollars in fees for the card, voluntarily agreed to an order that prohibits the practices alleged in the complaint pending trial. The FTC seeks to permanently stop the unlawful practices and make the defendants provide refunds to consumers.

According to the FTC’s complaint, in mailers sent to consumers with credit problems, the defendants stated that consumers could “build” their credit by using a “Pre-Approved” “Platinum-level” credit card with a “GUARANTEED” $7,500 credit line and a cash advance benefit. Although the card appeared to be a regular credit card, it could be used only to purchase products from the defendants’ catalog, and only for part of the product purchase price. The defendants debited from consumers’ bank accounts 30 percent of each purchase plus shipping costs for products sold at greatly inflated prices. Consumers weren’t adequately informed that a 30 percent down payment would be required, that $397 in fees ($79 processing fee, $120 activation fee, $198 annual fee) also would be debited from their bank accounts, that the “cash advance” was really an opportunity to apply for a payday loan from a third-party lender, and that card users could not “build” their credit because their payment history was not reported to credit reporting agencies.

The defendants offered to refund the $120 fee to consumers who returned the card and catalog within 30 days, but the defendants often failed to deliver the catalog within the refund period, according to the complaint. Disclosures in the mailers were confusing, contradictory, out of context, and buried in pages of fine print. The defendants allegedly withheld details until consumers provided their bank account number, and then revealed as little information as possible. Disclosures about the terms and conditions, such as how fees are paid, did not correct the false impression left by the defendants, the FTC alleges.

The defendants are charged with violating the FTC Act and the FTC’s Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR) by falsely representing that the card could be used to fully finance purchases; that it would provide access to a no-fee, low cost, or guaranteed cash advance benefit; and that consumers could improve their credit ratings by using the card. They also failed to disclose that they would debit from consumers’ bank accounts the advance fees, a non-refundable annual fee, and 30 percent of a product’s price plus shipping costs. In addition, the defendants falsely claimed that they would refund the $120 activation fee to consumers who returned the card and catalog in timely fashion. The defendants also allegedly violated the TSR by charging an advance fee for a guaranteed extension of credit.

The defendants are Low Pay, Inc., doing business as LPC Inc., lowpaycard.com, and mylpcard.com; LP Capital Holdings, Inc.; Century Luxury, Inc.; the Mardan Afrasiabi Living Trust; Mardan M. Afrasiabi; and Ramin Rahimi. The Commission vote to authorize staff to file the complaint was 4-0. The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon.

The FTC acknowledges the Oregon Department of Justice and Oregon Attorney General John Kroger for their substantial assistance with the FTC’s investigation.

NOTE: The Commission files a complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the law has been or is being violated, and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. The complaint is not a finding or ruling that the defendants have actually violated the law.

The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, visit the FTC’s online Complaint Assistant or call 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357). The FTC enters complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 1,700 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The FTC’s Web site provides free information on a variety of consumer topics.

(FTC File No. 0923019)
(Low Pay)

FTC Rules Michigan Realtors’ Group Reduced Competition, Harmed Consumers by Restricting Access to Discount Realtors’ Listings on its Multiple Listing Service and Public Web Sites

The Federal Trade Commission today issued an Opinion finding that Realcomp II – a Michigan-based realtors’ group – violated federal law by restricting the ability of member real estate agents to offer consumers lower-priced alternatives to traditional real estate services. Realcomp refused to transmit discount real estate listings to its own and other publicly available Web sites and excluded such listings from the default searches within its own database. The Commission found that these policies restricted access to these listings and harmed competition. The FTC’s Final Order requires Realcomp to provide its members non-discriminatory access to non-traditional and lower-price listings on its Multiple Listing Service (MLS) and to stop preventing such listings from being sent to its public real estate sites.

In its Opinion announced today, the Commission found that “the practices at issue improperly limit consumers’ access to information about the availability of these lower-priced alternatives,” and . . . concluded “that [Realcomp’s] acts and practices unreasonably restrain trade in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act . . . and Section 5.” The Commission’s administrative decision resolves litigation arising from a complaint charging that Realcomp’s policies violate Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act.

Realcomp is an MLS serving southeast Michigan. Member brokers (who compete with each other) provide information on homes for sale. Other members representing buyers can then use the database to find potential homes for their clients.

Recent years have seen significant changes to the real estate markets. Some real estate brokers have discounted their fees by offering lower commission rates, accepting flat fees, or unbundling real estate services that used to be available only as a package. These limited-service models typically are less expensive than the traditional real estate model, allow consumers to customize a package that best fits their needs, and have put pricing pressure on more expensive full-service brokers.

The Commission Opinion also noted that public access to MLS listings has increased their effectiveness. The Internet has become vital to selling homes, and a majority of buying and selling homes begins on the Internet.

These changes, the Commission wrote, “illustrate how technological dynamism and organizational innovation can place enormous pressure on traditional business models and create possibilities for ‘the new commodity, the new technology, the new source of supply, the new type of organization’ [Joseph A. Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy 84 (1942)] that can transform markets. Because [these] are powerful stimulants for economic progress, an especially important application of antitrust law is to see that incumbent service providers do not use improper means to suppress innovation-driven competition that benefits consumers.”

The Commission found that full-service real estate brokers, who make up a majority of Realcomp’s membership, saw the combination of discount brokers with the public availability of MLS listings via Internet Web sites as a serious threat to their business model. In turn, Realcomp established policies that limited the effectiveness discount brokers’ listings. Although the MLS began providing the public with information on homes available for sale by establishing a public Web site and transmitting listing information to other Web sites, such as those of the National Association of Realtors (NAR) and of its members, Realcomp provided only the more expensive, full-service listings to the publicly available Web sites. As a result, a buyer searching Realcomp’s public Web site or the NAR’s Web site, for example, would not see listings offered by discount brokers.

Further, within its proprietary database, the default search policy excluded listings of discount brokers. So, unless a broker searching the MLS’s own private database changed the default search settings, the broker would not see discount listings.

The Commission found that Realcomp’s policies narrowed consumer choice and hindered the competitive process. In reaching its decision, the Commission reversed a 2007 decision by the Administrative Law Judge dismissing the charges against Realcomp.

The Commission’s Final Order forbids Realcomp from discriminating against discount brokers in, among other things, determining what listings it transmits to public Web sites or setting its default search criteria. The Order also requires Realcomp, within 30 days of the Order becoming final, to amend its rules and regulations to conform with the Order’s provisions, and, within 90 days, to inform its members of the amendments and provide each member with a copy of the Order. Finally, it requires Realcomp to place a statement on its Web site announcing the amendments and to modify the site to include the updated rules and regulations.

The Commission vote approving the Opinion and Order was 4-0. Under the agency’s rules, ex parte communications regarding this matter are barred until the FTC has disposed of any petition for reconsideration, or until the time for filing such petitions (14 days after service) has elapsed.

Copies of the Opinion and Order can be found on the FTC’s Web site and as a link to this press release. The FTC’s Bureau of Competition works with the Bureau of Economics to investigate alleged anticompetitive business practices and, when appropriate, recommends that the Commission take law enforcement action. To inform the Bureau about particular business practices, call 202-326-3300, send an e-mail to [email protected], or write to the Office of Policy and Coordination, Room 383, Bureau of Competition, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Ave, N.W., Washington, DC 20580. To learn more about the Bureau of Competition, read “Competition Counts” at http://www.ftc.gov/competitioncounts.

(FTC File No. 061-0088; Docket No. 9320)

FTC Charges Marketers with Making Baseless Weight-Loss Claims Despite Order to Stop

The U.S. Justice Department, at the Federal Trade Commission’s request, has filed suit in federal court in a case affecting consumers nationwide. The government has charged three companies and two individuals with making advertising claims for their fat and weight-loss pills, Relacore and Akävar 20/50, that violate a 2006 FTC order barring them from making health or weight-loss claims without a reasonable basis. The defendants made claims such as “eat all you want and still lose weight” and, “And we couldn’t say it in print if it wasn’t true!” on product packaging, on the Internet, and in widely read magazines such as Redbook, Star, and Family Circle. The Commission seeks to stop the defendants from making such claims and make them pay civil penalties.

“The Federal Trade Commission ordered the defendants to stop making baseless and bogus advertising claims,” said David Vladeck, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “We wouldn’t put our orders in writing if we weren’t going to enforce them.”

The government’s complaint alleges that Basic Research, LLC, Carter-Reed, LLC, Dennis W. Gay, and Mitchell Friedlander have advertised Relacore by claiming, without competent and reliable scientific evidence, that it reduces “stress-induced” abdominal fat more than diet and exercise alone, and reduces abdominal fat in those who diet and exercise but retain fat due to stress from dieting.

According to the complaint, Basic Research, Dynakor Pharmacal, LLC, Gay, and Friedlander also have claimed, without a reasonable basis, that Akävar 20/50 lets you “eat all you want and still lose weight,” and that it automatically restricts caloric intake with no willpower required of users to limit food or caloric intake. They also have misrepresented scientific research by claiming that a test proves those claims, and that the product causes substantial weight loss and causes weight loss for virtually all users.

“The government alleges that these defendants made claims that their product would allow you to ‘eat all you want and still lose weight’ without a reasonable basis,” said Tony West, Assistant Attorney General for the Department of Justice’s Civil Division. “Claims like these are harmful to both the health and pocketbooks of those who use these supplements. Working with our partners at the Federal Trade Commission, we will continue to challenge unlawful advertising claims.”

United States Attorney Brett Tolman said, “The U.S. Attorney’s Office takes a dim view of unlawful claims in the marketplace, especially when they involve companies and individuals ordered by the FTC not to make the claims.”

In 2006, the Commission ordered Basic Research, LLC to pay $3 million on behalf of six companies and three principals, including Gay and Friedlander. The Commission’s order settled FTC charges that their deceptive weight-loss claims violated federal law, and it prohibited them from making unsubstantiated health or weight-loss claims and misrepresenting the results of scientific studies in the future. (see May 11, 2006, press release http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2006/05/basicresearch.shtm) Violations of FTC orders carry a civil penalty of up to $16,000 per violation.

The Commission vote to refer the complaint announced today to the Department of Justice for filing was 4-0. The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah.

NOTE: The Commission files a complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the law has been or is being violated, and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. The complaint is not a finding or ruling that the defendants have actually violated the law. The case will be decided by the court.

The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, visit the FTC’s online Complaint Assistant or call 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357). The FTC enters complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 1,700 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The FTC’s Web site provides free information on a variety of consumer topics.

(FTC File No. D09318)
(Basic Research)