|
•Advertising Disclosures
•Auctions
•Car Ads
•Car Loans
•Children's Ads
•Comparative Ads
•Consumer Lease
•Cotton
•Dairy
•Deceptive Pricing
•Diamonds
•Diet Programs
•Diet Supplements
•Down
•E-Mail Ads
•Endorsements
•Environment/Guide
•Environment/Mail
•Eye Care
•Eye Surgery
•Food Ads
•Fur
•Gems
•Health Claims
•Hearing Aids
•Home Financing
•Indoor Tanning
•Internet Ads
•Internet Mktng.
•Infertility Svcs.
•Jewelry
•Made in USA #1
•Made in USA #2
•Made in USA #3
•Made in USA #4
•Milk
•MLM #1
•MLM #2
•Pearls
•Precious Metals
•Recycling
•Retail Electricity
•Spam
•Testimonials
•Timeshare Tips
•Unfairness
•Use of Word "Free"
•Vacation Plans
•Varicose Veins
•Wool
•Yellow Pages
Our Related Websites
Advertising Compliance Service
Advertising Substantiation
Ad Substantiation
Green Advertising Law
Political Advertising Law
|
WORK-AT-HOME BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES CASE INVOLVED ADVERTISING
Darrell Richmond agreed not to engage in work-at-home
opportunities or business ventures as part of a settlement with FTC.
According to FTC, Richmond, using various company names, deceptively
marketed his envelope stuffing business opportunity to consumers over
the Internet.
In its complaint, FTC alleged that Richmond misrepresented that he
would provide all necessary materials to perform the work-at-home
envelope stuffing business opportunity, and misrepresented earnings
claims. The settlement also bars Richmond from misrepresenting
earnings claims, costs, and the type of assistance he will provide in
connection with the sale of any good or service.
In November 2002, FTC filed a complaint in federal district court
alleging that Richmond promoted his business opportunity using the
names: Bargain Shoppers Network Direct!, BSN Direct!, Speciality
Merchandising Wholesale Direct!, SMW Direct! and Apex Direct
Marketing Group, and Apex Enterprises, and on the Internet at:
www.bsndirect.com, www.homemailerteam.com, and
www.homemailergroup.com. The complaint alleged that Richmond
advertised that "home mailers" were needed to stuff envelopes with
circulars which allegedly advertised a wholesale and retail line of
some 3,500 giftware and collectible items. Richmond allegedly offered
to pay consumers $2 per envelope stuffed, saying that consumers could
earn between $100 to $1,000 or more per week. He also promised that
he would provide all the necessary materials to consumers at his own
expense.
The settlement was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of South Carolina, and the judge approved the settlement on July 18,
2003.
NOTE: This stipulated permanent injunction and final order is for
settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by the
defendants of a law violation. Stipulated permanent injunction and
final order have the force of law when signed by the judge.
(FTC v. Darrell Richmond, an individual, doing business as BSN
Direct!, Bargain Shopper Network Direct!, SMW Direct!, Specialty
Merchandise Wholesale Direct!, Apex Direct Marketing Group, and Apex
Enterprises, Case No. 3:02-3979-22 (District of South Carolina), FTC
File No. X030026, Civil Action No. 3:02-3979-22, July 24, 2003.)
FTC FINALIZES CONSENT ORDER INVOLVING LASIK EYE SURGERY
FTC OK'd the issuance of two final consent orders in matters concerning LCA-Vision, Inc. d/b/a LASIK-PLUS and The Laser Vision Institute, LLC. The now-finalized consent orders with these firms settles charges that their ads were not substantiated by scientific evidence.
According to FTC's complaints, both LCA and LVI violated Section 5 of
the FTC Act by making unsubstantiated claims as to benefits,
performance, and efficacy of the LASIK procedure. Also, LVI allegedly
made a false claim regarding "free" LASIK consultations, and LCA
allegedly made an unsubstantiated safety claim about LASIK services.
NOTE: [A] proposed consent decree is for settlement purposes only and
does not constitute an admission of a law violation. Consent decrees
have the force of law when signed by the Judge.
(LCA-Vision, Inc. d/b/a LasikPlus, FTC File No. 022-3098, July 11,
2003; The Laser Vision Institute, LLC, FTC File No. 022-3053, July 11,
2003; see also Advertising Compliance Service, Tab #5, Substantiation,
Article #83.)
THREE TENORS ANTITRUST CASE ALSO INVOLVES ADVERTISING
On July 28, 2003, FTC upheld charges that several subsidiaries of Vivendi Universal, S.A. illegally agreed with Warner Communications Inc. to restrict competition for audio and video products featuring "The Three Tenors"--Jose Carreras, Placido Domingo, and Luciano Pavarotti. In its opinion, authored by Chairman Timothy J. Muris, FTC ruled that PolyGram Holding, Inc. (a predecessor to Vivendi) improperly agreed with Warner to curb discounting and advertising to boost sales of recordings that the two companies jointly had distributed based on the tenors' concert in Paris during the 1998 soccer World Cup. FTC's order bars PolyGram from agreeing with competitors to fix the prices or restrict the advertising of products they have produced independently.
FTC's vote to issue the opinion and accompanying order was 5-0.
(In the Matter of Polygram Holding, Inc., Decca Music Group Limited,
UMG Recordings, Inc., and Universal Music & Video Distribution Corp.,
Issuance of Opinion of the Commission and Final Order, Opinion of the
Commission, by Chairman Timothy J. Muris, FTC Dkt. No. 9298, July 28,
2003.)
|
Main Archived News Index:
1996 |
1997 |
1998 |
1999 |
2000 |
2001 |
2002 |
2003
Archived 2003 News:
January |
February |
March |
April |
May |
June
July |
August |
September |
October |
November |
December
Advertising Compliance Service...
|
