The marketers of a cognitive dietary supplement will pay $1.4 million in satisfaction of a settlement resolving Federal Trade Commission charges that they deceived consumers with claims that the supplement was clinically proven to significantly improve memory, mood and other cognitive functions.
Under the terms of the settlement, the defendants will pay $1 million to the FTC, and another $400,000 to satisfy a judgment in a case brought by local California law enforcement officials. They also will be barred from making similar deceptive claims in the future and from misrepresenting the existence, results or conclusions of any scientific study.
“The defendants in this case couldn’t back up their claims that Procera AVH would reverse age-related mental decline and memory loss,” said Jessica Rich, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection.
According to the FTC’s complaint, the defendants marketed and sold Procera AVH as a “solution” to memory loss and cognitive decline, including as associated with aging. The defendants advertised the product using infomercials, direct mail flyers, newspapers, and the Internet.
In one newspaper advertisement for the product the headline stated: “Memory Pill Helps the Brain Like Prescription Glasses Help the Eyes … Remarkable changes observed, helps users match the memory power of others 15 years younger in as little as 30 days!”
The cover of a multi-page direct mail ad was called a “Special Edition” of the “Physician’s Mind and Memory Alert.” Inside the text stated: “The thought of being a prisoner in one’s own home, or being unable to recall who you are, where you live, or to whom you are related is sending forgetful baby boomers and retirees scrambling for a solution.” The ad then promoted Procera AVH as “the memory pill preferred by many doctors.”
Procera AVH typically cost $79 per bottle, or $119 for three bottles for consumers who signed up for the continuity purchase plan and agreed to get automatic refills.
The Commission’s complaint alleges that efficacy claims for Procera AVH were false, misleading, or unsubstantiated and that the defendants falsely claimed that a scientific study proved the products efficacy. The complaint also includes charges of making deceptive expert endorsements for Procera AVH.
The foregoing is yet another example of why product efficacy claims should be critically examined by an experienced FTC compliance lawyer prior to launching a marketing campaign.
Information conveyed in this article is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute, nor should it be relied upon, as legal advice. No person should act or rely on any information in this article without seeking the advice of an attorney.
