Do you sell health products? Court opinion offers truth-in-advertising recap

Advertisers that sell health products should know the legal standards by now, but to those resistant to the message, a federal judge in California spelled them out again in a $2.2 million judgment against the marketers of two diabetes products – Diabetic Pack and Insulin Resistance Pack.

Wellness Support Network and co-owners Robert Held and Robyn Held marketed their products through their own website, on Amazon.com, and on eBay.  According to the FTC's complaint, ads for the products made impressive claims:

New Diabetes Breakthrough
Clinically Proven Natural Solution
Have Normal Blood Sugar Levels

Control Blood Sugar Level
Clinically Proven Natural Solution
To Diabetes With A 90% Success Rate

The company made equally dramatic claims through consumer testimonials:  “Since I’ve been using the Diabetic Pack, I have lost 9 pounds, I have all kinds of energy and my sugar is down in the low 100s.  And I don’t have to take insulin anymore!” and “I threw all the medicines out the window and went a month with no medicine and just the Diabetic Pack supplements.  I leveled off in the 120 range.”

But don’t just take our word for it, the company claimed: “A recent independent clinical trial was done on these herbal ingredients from this amazing product.  This study was done on type 2 diabetics (mildly insulin dependent) and reported an average drop of blood glucose levels of 31.9% and average weight loss of 4.8 pounds in just 30 days.” 

How else did the defendants convey their representations?  The trial judge looked to their selection of keywords, metatag data, and Google Adword Campaigns.  Keywords included “diabetes control,” “cure for diabetes,” “natural diabetes cure,” and “diabetes treatment.”

So what proof did the defendants have that their products delivered on those promises? 

As the Court concluded, “It is undisputed that no scientific studies were ever conducted to establish the effectiveness of WSN’s Products.  Rather, Defendants’ claims about the Products are based on research studies addressing the benefits of the individual ingredients” in the packs. However, the opinion went on to discuss the testimony of the FTC’s diabetes expert, who explained in detail “why the studies of these ingredients that have been conducted do not provide competent and reliable scientific evidence to support the therapeutic claims” the defendants made.  You’ll want to read the Order re Summary Judgment Motions for the details, but here’s a recap of some of the key findings.

  • FDA.  The Court rejected the Defendants’ argument regarding the relevance of the FDA’s standard for medical foods, ruling “the degree of regulation which Defendants’ advertising claims would be subject by the FDA is not relevant to the issues in this case.”
     
  • First Amendment.  The Court was unpersuaded by the company’s First Amendment claim, finding no legal authority “for the proposition that a manufacturer or seller of dietary supplements – or for that matter, any product – has a First Amendment right to make claims that are false or deceptive.”
     
  • Substantiation.  The Court credited the testimony of the FTC’s medical expert and ruled that he had “offered detailed reasons for concluding that all nine of Defendants’ claims lack adequate substantiation and, as to the establishment claims, are actually false.”
     
  • Individual liability.  The judge found “extensive and undisputed evidence that Robert Held was at least recklessly indifferent to the truth or falsity of the representations” made in the ads.  What about Robyn Held?  Despite her argument that “she justifiably relied on Robert regarding the claims made, no reasonable fact finder could conclude that she was anything but reckless.”  Although she wasn’t involved in formulating the products, she played “a significant role in running the company, and was extensively involved in the creation of the advertising that is the subject of this action, including drafting and editing website content, and helping with the selection of testimonials and key-words.”

The Court’s final order includes a $2.2 million judgment and put provisions in place to protect consumers in the future.

Interested in keeping your company’s ad claims within the law?  Refer to free resources on the Business Center’s Health Claims page.

 

3 Comments

>> Leave a Comment | Comment Policy

Madam/Sirs:

We are mothers who are fighting eating disorders and involved in advocacy and action to address issues. We have been extremely concerned about several internet based marketers who promote fruitarian and raw food diets, even targeting young children, and people (adults and kids) with diagnosed eating disorders. They use YouTube, Instagram and fb to gather followers, receive funds from advertisers and many then do appearances and write books. The information they dispense is dangerous particularly for those with eating disorders. They do not have any professional qualifications. This seems an unregulated area. One such group is Freelee the Banana Girl, an Australian based 'fruitarian' with over 2 million views on some of her YouTube videos and 100,000 followers on instagram. A second is TannyRaw, a US based schoolteacher who promotes a raw vegan diet to children and people with EDs on Youtube, telling one teen to leave her treatment team! We have contacted Australian Therapeutic Regulatory, Dept. of Health and numerous news agencies. In the US we have been tweeting and writing the FDA and FTC, news agencies. We are Mothers Against Eating Disorders and all have children recovering from ED. We would like your input on these issues. They are extremely dangerous to our youth and contributing to the rise in eating disorders, which are serious psychological illnesses. Thanks .

Sadly, the Multi-Level Marketing industry (for example NuSkin), seems to get around the FTC by allowing their "independent distributors" to make the false health claims for their products. The MLM parent company then uses plausible deniability to quarantine themselves for the claims made by the distributors, although the culture of wrongdoing actually starts at the top.

I wish the FTC would finally begin to take much more serious mega-action against the rampant fraud in the MLM "industry".

I believe that this judgement should be rulled against all health product that is sols in the U.S.A. and U.S. territoris,they sell like crazy but no real 100 percent true they are misleading to the public and to the seller.Thums up for F.T.C.

Leave A Comment

Don't use this blog to report fraud or deceptive practices. To file a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission, please use the FTC Complaint Assistant.

PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT: It is your choice whether to submit a comment. If you do, you must create a user name, or we will not post your comment. The Federal Trade Commission Act and the Federal Information Security Management Act authorize this information collection for purposes of managing online comments. Comments and user names are part of our public records system, and user names are also part of our computer user records system. We may routinely use these records as described in our Privacy Act system notices. For more information on how we handle information that we collect, please read our privacy policy.