July 10, 2003
The promoter of the Beverly Hills Spa Diet is in trouble again. Lifestyle Fascination, Inc. has agreed to pay a $175,000 civil penalty to settle charges that it violated a 1994 Federal Trade Commission order.
The FTC alleges that Lifestyles claims for four products violated the earlier order, which banned it from making unsubstantiated claims of health benefits and unsubstantiated claims for electronic products.
This is the second civil penalty action against Lifestyle since the Commission entered the 1994 order. In 1997, Lifestyle agreed to the payment of a $60,000 civil penalty and entry of a federal court injunction to settle FTC allegations that it had violated the 1994 order by making unsubstantiated claims for a pain-relieving device, a pest-control device, and an antenna substitute.
Lifestyle sells a variety of products, including electronic items, gadgets, toys, household goods, cosmetics, dietary supplements, and other health-related products. The claims challenged in this action promoted the following products:
- the Beverly Hills Spa Diet, a fruit juice concentrate drink containing calcium pyruvate (a purported fat-burning ingredient). The product sells for $19.95.
- Fight the Fat, a liquid chitosan supplement sold in a two-ounce bottle for $39.95. Lifestyle instructs users to add 12-14 drops to a non-dairy cold beverage that consumers should consume before lunch and dinner. (Chitosan is a shellfish extract).
- Carni Q-Gel, a dietary supplement capsule promoted to treat heart problems, which sells for $49.95 per bottle.
- Sani-Mate Plug-In Sterilizer, a small portable ozone air cleaner that sells for $39.95.
The FTC alleges that Lifestyle made numerous unsubstantiated or false claims in the marketing and advertisements for these products all in violation of the Commissions 1994 administrative order. Under the terms of that order, Lifestyle was prohibited from, among other things:
- misrepresenting test results for any product;
- making unsubstantiated claims that any product will have an effect on health or the structure or function of the body; and
- making unsubstantiated performance, safety, benefit, or efficacy claims for certain consumer electronic products.
According to the FTC, Lifestyles ads for the four products targeted in the action announced today contained claims such as:
- users of the Beverly Hills Spa Diet can lose up to 10 pounds over a weekend;
- users of Fight the Fat can lose 10 pounds a month and lower their cholesterol, without dieting or giving up high-fat foods;
- Carni Q-Gel is recommended by cardiologists to improve heart function in users with angina and other heart conditions; and
- the Sani-Mate air cleaner reduces the incidence of disease or infection in users.
The FTC alleges that these and other claims made for the products are unsubstantiated or false.
In addition, the FTC alleges that Lifestyle offered a strong and unqualified guarantee of customer satisfaction through claims such as: Guarantee of satisfaction: If for any reason you arent happy with your purchase send it back for a 100% refund. The complaint alleges that Lifestyle violated the FTC Act through its failure to honor completely its satisfaction guarantee and promise of a 100 percent refund.
The modified consent decree with Lifestyle requires the company to pay a $175,000 civil penalty. The modified decree also establishes a more stringent standard for claims that tests prove or establish the efficacy of certain products, including dietary supplements. Such claims must be true, and the tests must be conducted by persons with appropriate training and experience, using procedures accepted by the relevant profession to ensure accurate and reliable results. In addition, the modified decree requires full refunds for products returned pursuant to any satisfaction or money-back guarantee, unless the company discloses, clearly and conspicuously, that the guarantee is limited to the purchase price of the product.
The Department of Justice filed the complaint and modified consent decree at the request of the FTC in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on July 9, 2003.
