2000 News |1999 News |1998 News |1997 News |1996 News

advertising law
advertising law

  October 1996 Advertising Law News...

advertising law  From: Advertising Compliance Service.
advertising law

advertising lawNOTE: The following news brief appeared in an issue of the Reference Service, Advertising Compliance Service and examined an advertising law-related action during the month of October 1996.



 

FTC GIVES FINAL OK TO AGREEMENT WITH TV SHOPPING NETWORK

Home Shopping Network, Inc., and two of its subsidiaries, settled charges that they deceptively advertised four mouth sprays--three vitamin sprays and a stop-smoking spray--which were promoted on the Home Shopping Club program "Spotlight on Ruta Lee." FTC's final consent order requires them to have scientific evidence to support any claims (1) that a food, food or dietary supplement, or drug cures, treats or prevents any disease or has any effect on the structure or function of the human body; and (2) about the performance, benefits or efficacy of any smoking-cessation program, product or service.

NOTE: A consent agreement is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission of a law violation. When the Commission issues a consent order 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 $10,000.

(Home Shopping Network, Inc., et al., FTC Dkt. No. D09272, October 1, 1996; see also Advertising Compliance Service, Tab #15, New Media, Article #23; materials relating to this FTC matter are available on the Internet at FTC's World Wide Web site at: http://www.ftc.gov.)

FTC CHARGES FIRM MISREPRESENTED "MONEY-MAKING" REAL ESTATE PROGRAM

Del Dotto Enterprises, Inc. (DDE), NFN Inc. and David P. Del Dotto agreed to settle FTC charges that Del Dotto and his firms made allegedly deceptive claims in marketing books and audio tapes about buying real estate and obtaining credit--known as the "Cash Flow System,"--including claims that it has helped hundreds of thousands of consumers make substantial sums of money buying and selling real estate. Under the proposed settlement, defendants would be barred from, among other things, misrepresenting the availability of government grants, loans, or credit, or the scope of any product or service concerning investments, real estate or other business opportunities. Also, Del Dotto agreed to pay a judgment of $200,000.

In February 1995, in a complaint filed in federal court, FTC alleged that Del Dotto and DDE made false and unsubstantiated claims that consumers trying to use the Cash Flow System typically profit from investments in real estate and that hundreds of thousands of customers have made substantial sums of money through the system. FTC's complaint also alleged that Del Dotto, DDE and NFN Inc. misrepresented and failed to deliver other goods and services sold at NFN Inc.-sponsored seminars.

The complaint also alleged that David Del Dotto and NFN Inc. misrepresented the guarantee accompanying a home business package sold at the seminars by failing to inform purchasers that there were conditions to receiving a refund. FTC also challenged as deceptive Del Dotto's and DDE's alleged failure to disclose adequately a restocking fee, amounting to 10% of the purchase price, charged on refunds.

The proposed settlement would permanently bar Del Dotto Enterprises, NFN, Inc., and David Del Dotto from making the types of misrepresentations alleged in FTC's complaint. Also, defendants would be specifically barred from making any representation about the performance, benefits, efficacy or success rate of any product or service, the profitability of using any product or service, or the profitability of any business opportunity or direct marketing activity, unless the representation is true and the defendants can substantiate the representation. Also, defendants would be barred from representing that any endorsement of a product or service represents the typical or ordinary experience of those who use the product or service unless it's true. Moreover, defendants would be barred from using such terms as "Satisfaction Guarantee," "Money Back Guarantee," "Free Trial Offer," or similar representations in advertising unless they refund the full purchase price of the advertised product or service at the purchaser's request. Defendants also would be barred from failing prominently to disclose material limitations on guarantees, warranties and refund policies, and from failing to refund money in accordance with guarantees warranties, and refund policies within a reasonable period as prescribed by the settlement.

FTC filed the stipulated final judgment and order for permanent injunction in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, in San Francisco, on September 25, 1996.

NOTE: The stipulated final judgment is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by the defendants of a law violation. Consent judgments have the force of law when signed by the judge.

(Del Dotto Enterprises, Inc., NFN Inc. and David P. Del Dotto, Civil Action No. C-95-0425-FMS) (FTC File No. 942-3229, October 2, 1996; materials relating to this FTC matter are available on the Internet at FTC's World Wide Web site at: http://www.ftc.gov.)

FTC SETTLEMENT INCLUDES $10,000 FOR REDRESS, $250,000 BOND REQUIREMENT

Patricia Esme Popp agreed to pay $10,000 to settle FTC charges that she enticed consumers to call her nationally advertised 800 number with promises of "guaranteed" loans. In fact, all she did was refer consumers to other firms to which they could apply for loans, FTC alleged. The settlement resolves charges FTC filed in June against Popp, who does business as Glendale Associates, Crown Credit Services, and Star Financial Services. In its complaint, FTC also had alleged that Popp charged consumers $25 for her "services," a violation of the Telemarketing Sales Rule's ban on advance-fee loans. In addition to a $400,000 judgment, of which all but $10,000 is waived unless Popp is found to have misrepresented her financial condition, FTC settlement would bar Popp from violating the Rule and from misrepresenting any credit offer or service in the future. The settlement also would protect her future customers by requiring her to post a $250,000 bond before engaging in any telemarketing effort and before offering any credit services.

NOTE: This consent judgment is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by the defendant of a law violation. Consent judgments have the force of law when signed by the judge.

(Patricia Esme Popp, FTC File No. X960084, Civil Action No. 4:96CV183, October 2, 1996; materials relating to this FTC matter are available on the Internet at FTC's World Wide Web site at: http://www.ftc.gov.)

FTC STAFF REPORT ON CONSUMERS' FAT CONSUMPTION CITES AD, LABEL CLAIMS

A recently issued FTC staff report examines changes in consumers' fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol consumption from 1977 through 1990. The study found that advertising and labeling claims "may have been an important part of the information environment helping consumers make better dietary choices during the late 1980's."

Jonathan Baker, Director of the FTC's Bureau of Economics, said, "This study is the latest in a long line of staff economic reports examining how seller advertising or information disclosure may help consumers to make more informed choices."

The study looked at detailed food consumption data, as well as annual food production data, from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and consumer survey data on diet-health knowledge from the Food and Drug Administration. According to the study, these different types of independent data permitted examination of consumer knowledge and behavior from several perspectives, allowing a more comprehensive assessment of how diets changed as the policies governing diet-disease claims in advertising and labeling were relaxed in the mid-1980s.

An FTC release noted:

"Overall, the study provides substantial evidence that fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol consumption--for both men and women--fell significantly between 1977 and 1990, as information spread to consumers. Available evidence also indicates that improvements in these dietary characteristics occurred more rapidly and more consistently across food choices after 1985, when health-related claims became more explicit and more frequent in advertising and labeling. For instance, the study found that fat consumption per day fell approximately five percent between 1977 and 1985, but it fell by more than twice that amount between 1985 and 1990 for both men and women."

The study, Information and Advertising Policy: A Study of Fat and Cholesterol Consumption in the United States, 1977-1990, "reflects the views of its authors and not necessarily the views of the Commission or any individual Commissioner."

(Information and Advertising Policy: A Study of Fat and Cholesterol Consumption in the United States, 1977-1990, issued October 7, 1996; materials relating to this FTC matter are available on the Internet at FTC's World Wide Web site at: http://www.ftc.gov.)

FTC STREAMLINES GUIDELINES FOR LEATHER, IMITATION LEATHER GOODS

If it looks like leather, is it really leather? Under FTC's recently revised guidelines, the answer is "yes," unless the manufacturer specifically discloses that the product is made of some other material. FTC's new guidelines generally warn manufacturers and retailers against misrepresenting the composition of a variety of products often made from leather--including footwear, luggage, handbags and belts -- and are intended to prevent misuse of terms such as waterproof, scratchproof and the like. The new "Guides for Select Leather and Imitation Leather Products" are effective December 2, 1996.

Under the new guidelines, if your products appear to be made of leather but they aren't, you should include a disclosure saying either that the product is not made of leather or the actual type of material from which it is made. If leather is embossed or processed to simulate a different type of leather, you should disclose the leather's true type. Also, you should disclose the composition of backing material in certain situations. The guidelines caution against misrepresentations about the leather content in products containing ground, reconstituted, or bonded leather, and state that such products, when they appear to be made of leather, should be accompanied by a disclosure as to the percentage of leather or other fiber content. The guidelines also say that these disclosures should be included in any product advertising that might otherwise mislead consumers as to the product's composition.

The new guidelines define the terms waterproof, dustproof, warpproof, scuffproof, scratchproof, scuff resistant and scratch resistant to "prevent misuse and misunderstandings."

Guidelines lack the force of law but are meant to encourage voluntary compliance with the Federal Trade Commission Act.

("Guides for Select Leather and Imitation Leather Products", FTC File No. P958011, October 3, 1996; materials relating to this FTC matter are available on the Internet at FTC's World Wide Web site at: http://www.ftc.gov.)

FTC GRANTS PETITION INVOLVING COOPERATIVE ADVERTISING

FTC has granted in part the petition of Pendleton Woolen Mills, Inc. to reopen and modify a 1979 order, thus allowing Pendleton to engage in lawful, price restrictive, cooperative advertising and to unilaterally terminate a reseller of its products for failing to adhere to Pendleton's announced resale prices or sale periods. FTC denied Pendleton's request for one modification in the order on grounds that the change could be construed to allow agreements on advertised prices that go beyond cooperative advertising programs.

(Pendleton Woolen Mills, Inc., FTC Dkt. No. C-2985, October 1, 1996; materials relating to this FTC matter are available on the Internet at FTC's World Wide Web site at: http://www.ftc.gov.)


FTC Documents For more FTC documents at this Site, click here now!
More News Now!! For many more advertising law news items at this Site, click here now!

© Copyright 1998-2012 JLCom Publishing Co., LLC All rights reserved. This publication, in whole or in part, may not be reproduced, stored in a computerized, or other, retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means whatsoever without the prior written permission of JLCom Publishing Co., LLC

IMPORTANT NOTICE: The 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 Web Site are to Web Sites maintained by third parties over whom JLCom Publishing Co., LLC has no control. Such links do not imply endorsement of the material that is 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.

news_button.jpg (2138 bytes)news_button2.jpg (2138 bytes)news_button3.jpg (2138 bytes)