| U.S. Federal Trade Commission |
FTC News Release, October 18, 2005
FTC Stops False Claims about Fountain of Youth Oral Sprays
Sprays Do Not Contain, or Cause the Body to Produce, Human Growth Hormone as Claimed
At the request of the Federal Trade Commission, a federal
court issued a temporary restraining order against marketers
of oral sprays that supposedly contain human growth hormone
(HGH) to stop them from making alleged false and deceptive
claims and from sending illegal spam. The temporary
restraining order also freezes the defendants’ assets. The FTC
charged that the sprays, marketed on dozens of Web sites and
through spam, do not cause weight loss, reverse the aging
process, or prevent or treat diseases as advertised.
The FTC alleged in a complaint that the sprays do not
contain HGH or cause the body to produce it. The complaint
charged that the defendants made false and deceptive product
claims, misrepresented the security of their online ordering
pages, and sent hundreds of thousands of illegal spam messages
advertising the sprays. The defendants are Pacific Herbal
Sciences, Inc. and its president, John A. Brackett, Jr., and
Natural Health Product, Inc. and New Star Marketing Group,
Inc. and their president, Lei Lu, also known as Lei Li, also
doing business as IE Marketing, Inc.
According to the FTC complaint, the advertisements for “HGH
Revolution” and “Natural Rejuvenator HGH-R” made incredible
claims such as:
“LOSE WEIGHT WHILE YOU SLEEP without DIETING or
EXERCISE”
“Experience up to an 82% IMPROVEMENT in body
fat loss while erasing 10 YEARS in 10 WEEKS!”
The marketing pitches for the sprays referred to clinical
studies and prestigious publications to give credibility to
their claims.
In its complaint, the FTC alleged the
defendants made false claims about their products, lacked
substantiation for those claims, and falsely stated that
scientific studies validate their claims. Specifically, the
defendants’ ads made false or misleading claims that the
sprays:
- contained HGH or increased the body’s production of HGH;
- caused users to lose weight, without dieting or
exercise;
- would turn back or slow the aging process, including
increasing strength and energy, restoring the size of
“bodily organs that shrink with age,” and improving memory;
and
- would prevent, treat, or cure diseases and medical
conditions, such as strengthening the immune system,
lowering blood pressure, lowering cholesterol, increasing
bone density, improving vision, quickening healing from
injuries, acting as an antidepressant, and stabilizing mood
swings.
The defendants also claimed their Web site ordering pages
were secure, saying, “NOTE: To ensure your personal privacy,
all of the information that you submit to us after this point
will be secured using SSL encryption technology.” The FTC
charged that the Web sites were not, in fact, encrypted, and
consumer information transmitted was not secure.
The FTC alleged that the defendants drove traffic to their
Web sites through spam, sent by marketers they paid. Consumers
forwarded more than 200,000 of these e-mails to the FTC in 18
months. The FTC’s complaint contends that much of the
defendants’ email violated the CAN-SPAM Act by using falsified
headers and deceptive subject headings; leaving out an
Internet-based mechanism to opt-out of receiving future
e-mails; and omitting required information, including the
sender’s physical postal address, identification of the e-mail
as an advertisement or solicitation, and an opportunity to
decline receiving further e-mails from the sender.
The FTC is seeking a permanent ban on the defendants’ false
and misleading claims and illegal spam, as well as money back
for consumers.
The Commission vote authorizing the staff to
file the complaint was 4-0. The complaint was
filed under seal in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California on October 6, with an ex parte
temporary restraining order and asset freeze granted on the
same day.
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 defendant has actually violated the
law. The case will be decided by the court.
The text in this article was prepared by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission.