Tag Archives: False advertising

Are Bell + Howell Tactical Flashlights as Powerful as Claimed?

Some consumers have questioned brightness and visibility claims made in connection with the marketing of Bell and Howell “tactical” flashlights.

The flashlights are priced around $20.00, are made in China, and are powered with three AAA batteries. The claims made about the power of the Bell & Howell tactical flashlights on Amazon and HSN are impressive:

  • “22x brighter than your regular flashlight”
  • “2 nautical mile visibility”
  • “Up to 40 times brighter than standard incandescent flashlights”
  • “can be seen 5 nautical miles away”

flashlight

If Bell + Howell’s claims exaggerate the power of their tactical flashlights, these flashlights may be falsely advertised.

If you purchased a Bell and Howell tactical flashlight, we are interested in hearing from you.

 

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Stun Guns – Are they as powerful as they claim?

Some consumers have questioned voltage claims made in connection with the marketing of various stun guns.

For example, does the “Vipertek VTS-989 – 230,000,000 V Heavy Duty Stun Gun” produce a 230 million volt charge – or does the Vipertek VTS-881 – 38,000,000 V Micro Stun Gun produce 38 million volts?

This youtube video shows a 7.5 million volt stun gun not doing much.

The youtube video below from the funny pair at Good Mythical Morning showcases a “1 million volt” stun gun.

If you have purchased a stun gun based upon high voltage claims, you are welcome to contact us.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Does Garnier Fructis Fortifying Shampoo really make hair ten times stronger?

Some consumers have questioned the accuracy of marketing claims made by Garnier regarding its “Fructis Fortifying Shampoo.”

“Fortifying” means to “make stronger.” Is it really possible to make hair stronger with shampoo? What about ten times stronger? Is there a special “active fruit concentrate” that can perform this miraculous feat?

Garnier wants consumers to think that its Fructis shampoo will make your hair 10X stronger.

Their Fructis Fortifying Shampoo makes bold claims including:

  • “Every inch 10X STRONGER”
  • “Fortifying daily hair care with a Powerdoes of Active Fruit Concentrate & Ceramide renews hair’s strength to bring life back to every inch: stronger, healther & shinier.”

fructis

Articles about questionable hair strengthening claims

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

When does “Maple” not mean “Maple”?

WHEN IS USING THE WORD MAPLE FALSE ADVERTISINGIf you have purchased any food product that contains the word “maple” and the ingredients do not list maple syrup or maple sugar, you may you have a false advertising claim, and you are encouraged to contact this office.

Some consumers have questioned whether certain products, such as Quaker Oats Maple & Brown Sugar and Cream of Wheat Maple Brown Sugar instant oatmeal actually contain any maple syrup. To maple syrup producers and consumers alike, there are important differences between artificial maple and the real thing.

In February of 2016, the Vermont Maple Sugar Maker’s Association (VMSMA) sent a letter asking the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to take action against certain companies. In the letterPDF VMSMA informed FDA:

“Maple syrup, a premium ingredient, plainly has a material bearing on the price and/or consumer acceptance of food products that contain it, which is why it is frequently an ingredient named in the title of foods or displayed on its packaging. Thus, if a product name includes “maple,” or its packaging emphasizes the presence of maple (e.g., through vignettes of maple syrup, leaves, and trees), but the product does not actually contain any maple syrup, it is unlawfully misbranded under this regulation 21 CFR § 102.5].” (VMSMA Letter to FDA, 2/15/16)…The following products are examples misbranding [sic] under 21 CFR § 102.5:

  • MOM Brands’ Better Oats Maple & Brown Sugar Instant Oatmeal with Flax,
  • Madhava Natural Sweeteners Maple Agave Nectar,
  • Honey Stinger Organic Maple Waffle,
  • Quaker Oats Maple & Brown Sugar Instant Oatmeal,
  • Quaker Oats Maple & Brown Sugar High Fiber Instant Oatmeal,
  • GU Maple Bacon Energy Gel, Quaker Oats Maple Pecan Raisin Flavored Oatmeal,
  • Hood Ice Cream Maple Walnut. (VMSMA Letter to FDA, 2/15/16).

On March 10, 2016, twenty-four lawmakers signed a letter urging the FDA to investigate false maple claims. The letter PDF stated in part:

“Maple syrup is a pure product, made 100 percent by concentrating the sap of maple trees. Pure maple syrup production (sugaring) provides income to an estimated 10,000 maple producers across 10 states in the Northwest and Upper Midwest, including Vermont, New York, Maine, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Michigan, Ohio, Massachusetts and Connecticut. The United States produced 3.4 million gallons of maple syrup in 2015, worth approximately $100 million dollars. For some, sugaring is full-time work, while others tap trees to supplement their income, providing an important source of earnings for many rural families.”

Two days earlier, the Massachusetts Maple Producers Association wrote a letter PDF to Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey, asking her office to investigate violators of the Massachusetts Maple Law.

The letter states in part:

“A number of Massachusetts-based companies are in violation of the law as well, such asWilbraham-based Friendly’s, with their Maple Walnut ice cream. Dunkin’ Donuts, with their headquarters in Canton, has eight varieties of baked goods labeled as maple, and none of them have any maple syrup or maple sugar listed in their ingredients. Honey Dew Donuts, based in Plainville, has a Maple Cream Coffee listing, which also contains no maple syrup. Lynfield’s Hood Ice Cream also sells a Maple Walnut flavor with no maple syrup listed as an ingredient.”

To date, the FDA has not launched any maple-related enforcement actions, despite repeated urgings to do so. And, the Massachusetts Attorney General has also declined to take action.

Government inaction is inexcusable here, because inauthentic maple products present  a real economic injury to farmers and consumers.  The lack of  action by states with strict labelling laws concerning the use of the word “maple” on food products sends the message that flouting maple laws is permissible.

What are the laws on false advertising and Maple?

There are a number of state laws governing advertisement concerning maple products. For example, there is the Massachusetts Maple Law:

No person shall manufacture, label, package, sell, keep for sale, expose or offer for sale any food article or food product branded as maple, maple syrup, maple candy, maple creams, maple butter, or maple sugar which is not made from pure maple syrup derived from the sap of the maple tree. Any compound or mixture branded or labelled as maple, maple syrup, maple candy, maple creams, maple butter or maple sugar, or branded as an imitation thereof, which consists of maple syrup mixed with any other substances or ingredients shall have printed on the package containing such compound or mixture a statement of the ingredients of which it is made, all said ingredients to be set forth in the same size type as the words “maple syrup”.

The use of the words “maple” or “maple syrup”, shall not be used in the labelling or branding of any food product which does not contain any maple syrup in its ingredients. M.G.L. ch. 128, § 36C.

Vermont’s Maple Law:

All maple flavored products shall be clearly labeled on their principal display panel or panels in a manner which will alert the purchaser to the fact that the product is not a 100 percent pure maple product, in accordance with the Act and other applicable statutes and regulations, such as CP 120.

Artificial maple flavored products shall be clearly and conspicuously labeled on their principal display panel or panels with the term “artificial flavor” shall be of a size equal to, or larger than, other words used to describe the product. It is unlawful to use the terms “maple syrup” or “maple sugar,” however modified, to describe an artificially flavored product.

No person shall advertise any maple syrup, maple product, maple flavored product, or artificial maple flavored product in any manner which is untruthful, unfair, or deceptive. CVR 20-011-002 (2013)

Examples of Questionable “Maple” Products

Below is a photograph of a Quaker Maple instant cereal box:

image001

Other products that use the word “maple” in product descriptions may be in violation of the Massachusetts Maple Law:

For instance, there is Madhava’s maple flavored agave product line, and Stop & Shop has a whole line of questionable “Bacon Maple” products,

maple and bacon

such as Maple Bacon Gelato,

maple bacon gelato

Maple Cream Craft Brewed Soda,

Maple cream soda

and Blueberry Caramel Maple Ice Cream.

caramel maple

And, Walmart sells a product called Kellogg’s Frosted Mini-Wheats Maple Brown Sugar Whole Grain Cereal.

Maple mini wheat

CVS sells an instant hot cereal that may be a bogus maple product:

20160726_170112

Examples of Real Maple Products

Obviously, there are many products that have the right to claim “maple” because they are bona fide maple goods.

For example, Green Mountain Creamery Maple Greek Yogurt (ingredients pictured below) actually contains maple syrup. It is a premium, high value food item.

20160404_135630

The History of Maple-Related “Food Fraud”

“Food fraud” is a type of false advertising in which the seller misrepresents the nature, quality, or character of the food product being sold. An egregious example of food fraud would be selling horsemeat labelled as beef.

There have been a number of notable maple-related food fraud cases in the past. For example, McDonald’s found itself in trouble with the Vermont Agency of Agriculture Food & Markets in 2011.

The Quaker Maple Case

VMSMA’s letter to FDA and the news coverage that followed inspired a class action lawsuit against Quaker Oats, Eisenlord v. The Quaker Oats Company, et al, filed in California on March 1, 2016.

The Hostess “Maple Glazed” Mini Donuts Case

On May 23, 2016, this office, with co-counsel from California, New York, and Boston, started a new maple-related class action. The VanCleave v. Hostess Complaint alleges that Hostesses’ miniature maple glazed donuts or “donettes” do not contain any maple syrup or maple sugar and are therefore misbranded under state and federal law.

Vancleave v. Hostess

Related Articles

Related Laws and Regulations

 

2 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Is Dial “Pheremone Infused Attraction Enhancing Body Wash” Falsely Advertised?

Some consumers have complained that Dial for Men Magnetic Attraction Enhancing Body Wash contains misleading claims.

A body wash claming that it is “Attraction Enhancing” is “PHEREMONE INFUSED,” and contains a “fragrance proven to attract,” is a product that could attract the attention of male consumers.

The question is, are these “attracting enhancing” claims supported by valid scientific research?

One behavioral neuropsychologist disputes the claims, calling them “Hogwash.” He states: “humans don’t have a functioning vomeronasal organ,” and “[t]he few studies of androstadienone that do show an effect have been small and poorly designed, and use concentrations of the compound  that are as much as a million times higher than what occurs naturally. And women might have higher natural levels of androstadienone than men.”

He also indicates there has “been a lot of misconception about what human pheromones do. . .We want to raise a flag and say, where’s the evidence? How human pheromones work is still totally questionable.”

Discover magazine concludes “Body washes, cosmetics, perfumes, and more all boast of their pheromone contents. There’s just one problem: There is no scientific evidence that people produce or respond to pheromones at all, or that dabbing them on will make you more attractive to potential mates.”

IMG_20160208_145909       IMG_20160208_145858

 

 

 

 

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Lierac Body-Slim – too good to be true?

We are looking into Ales Group, U.S.A., Inc.’s  Lierac Body-Slim products.  The issue is whether Ales has made false representations to deceive women into believing that by simply applying expensive creams and serums, they can obtain relief from “cellulite.”

“‘Cellulite’ is a word first coined in France sometime around 1920 to describe the dimpled, uneven appearance of skin caused by the distribution of subcutaneous fat, particularly around the hips, thighs, and posterior of women. Primed by unrelenting pressure to appear youthful and attractive, women have been presented with “anti-cellulite” products in recent years.

Ales has marketed anti-cellulite products by presenting idealized, possibly photo-shopped images of young models in association with their “body slim” line of skin products, and by promoting the idea that the normal human imperfection of cellulite can be fixed by applying consumer goods.

Ales has made claims that its products work against “unwanted bodily curves.” Ales has made, and continues to make claims and promises to consumers about the efficacy of its Lierac Paris Body-Slim line of cellulite products, (collectively “Lierac Body-Slim” or “Lierac Body-Slim Cellulite Products”).

Do Lierac Body-Slim Cellulite products live up to advertised claims?

For example, one in-store display claims, “You’re only 2 weeks from a firmer, smoother body.”Body Slim Ad

Is the premise that there are slimming or cellulite-banishing effects available through the application of any cream, ointment, supported by credible scientific evidence?

According to our research, there is a long line of peer-reviewed scholarly articles, and credible medical opinions revealing the ineffective and useless nature of anti-cellulite creams.

Is there a product on earth that by mere application to human skin, can bring about a “firmer, smoother body,” “[h]elp[] correct the appearance of all visible signs of stubborn cellulite,” or live up to various other claims made by Ales to promote its Lierac Body-Slim Cellulite Products?

Molly Wanner, MD, MBA, and Mathew Avram, MD, JD, both of Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, after carefully studying cellulite, its causes, and attempts at stopping it, have published their conclusion that cellulite is a normal condition affecting virtually all women, for which there is no effective remedy to be found on the shelves of a drug store:

“Cellulite is the characteristic, nonpathologic appearance of dimpled, ‘cottage cheese-like’ skin surface change typically seen in women on the thighs and buttocks. It is commonly seen on the abdomen, breasts, and arms. Given that the occurrence of cellulite is nearly universal in post-pubertal females, it is thought of as a female secondary sex characteristic. Nevertheless, it can be a distressing condition and patients spend billions of dollars on treatments that are largely ineffective.”[1]

Facts Relating to Ales’ Body-Slim Anti-Cellulite Claims

Ales markets a line of anti-cellulite products through its Lierac “Body-Slim” brand. There are at least seven products in this line:

Lierac Body-Slim Multi-Action Concentrate

Lierac Body-Slim Stomach and Waist

Lierac Body-Slim Stubborn Areas

Lierac Body-Slim Destock Night

Lierac Body-Slim Oil

Lierac Body-Slim Triple Action

Lierac Body-Slim Day and Night Duo

Each of these products specifically promises, by statements on its packaging, to reduce the appearance of cellulite and/or have a slimming effect on the user. In particular, the product packaging contains the following statements:

Lierac Body-Slim Multi-Action Concentrate packaging

 BODY-SLIM

MULTI-ACTION CONCENTRATE

COMPLETE BODY CONTOURING

. . . .

Helps correct the appearance of

all visible signs of stubborn cellulite:

dimpled skin, loss of firmness,

excess water retention

improves skin quality

. . . .

Visible results in just 14 days*

-Reduction in the appearance of cellulite

and orange peel skin 100%**

-Refining effect on thighs and hips 96%**

-Firmer skin 93%**

Study conducted with 29 women

*Clinical study with instrumental measurements recorded after 14 days –

**Self-assessment after 56 days

Lierac Body-Slim Stomach and Waist packaging (Exhibit 2)

BODY-SLIM

STOMACH & WAIST

MULTI –ACTION CONCENTRATE

AGAINST UNWANTED ABDOMINAL CURVES

.   .   .   .  

“Flat stomach” effect

Helps refine the waist

Firms and tightens the skin

Firms the skin

Helps reduce excess water

.   .   .   .  

Visible results in just 14 days.

After 28 days:

– Reduction in the appearance of

abdominal fat 91%*

(average reduction of abdomen

circumference: 3.34 cm** and of

waist circumference: 1.46 cm**)

– firmed skin 97%*

Study conducted with 34 women

*Self-assessment after 28 days

**Clinical study with instrumental measurements after 28 days

 Lierac Body-Slim Stubborn Areas packaging: (Exhibit 3)

BODY-SLIM

STUBBORN AREAS

SLACKENED & STUBBORN AREAS – FIRMING

LIFTING SERUM AGAINST EMBEDDED CELLULITE

.   .   .   .

Firming Lifting Serum Against Embedded Cellulite

Helps Firm and Shape Inner Arms & Thighs

Reduces the Appearance of Cellulite in Stubborn Areas

.   .   .   .  

RESULTS IN JUST 14 DAYS

Improved tone on inner arms: 85%* and thighs: 90%*

Reduction in the appearance of stubborn cellulite: 77%**

Lifted skin: 83%***

*Study conducted with 19 volunteers after 28 days of use – % of subjects improved

Study conducted on the active ingredient

**Self-assessment after 14 days conducted with 48 volunteers

***Self-assessment after 28 days conducted with 52 volunteers

Lierac Body-Slim Destock Night packaging: (Exhibit 4)

BODY-SLIM

DESTOCK NIGHT

NIGHT-TIME BODY CONTOURING

INTENSIVE CONCENTRATE

.   .   .   .  

Helps fight the appearance of

stubborn cellulite while you sleep

Helps release stored fat

Helps reduce fat storage

.   .   .   .  

9 out of 10 WOMEN[1]

“DIMPLED SKIN” IS SMOOTHED:

IMPROVEMENT IN SKIN PROFILE

MEASURED EFFECTIVENESS AFTER JUST 14 DAYS[2]

[1]Self-assessment by 29 women after 28 days

[2]Clinical study with instrumental measurement conducted

among 31 women

Lierac Body-Slim Oil packaging: (Exhibit 5)

BODY-SLIM

DRAINAGE

DRAINAGE-ENHANCING

BI-PHASE OIL

AGAINST “DIMPLED SKIN”

.   .   .   .  

Smoothes the appearance

of “dimpled skin”

Helps fight excess

water retention

.   .   .   .  

96%* ANTI-CELLULITE EFFECT

MEASURED EFFECTIVENESS AFTER JUST 14 DAYS

*Thighs – Self-assessment after 14 days –

Study conducted with 28 women

Lierac Body-Slim Triple Action packaging (Exhibit 6)

BODY-SLIM

TRIPLE ACTION

SMOOTHING

BODY-CONTOURING

CONCENTRATE

.   .   .   .  

Smoothes the appearance

of “dimpled skin”

Firms the skin

Helps reduce excess water

.   .   .   .  

96%* BODY CONTOURING EFFECT ON THIGHS AND

MEASURED EFFECTIVENESS AFTER JUST 14 DAYS

*Self-assessment after 56 days

Lierac Body-Slim Day and Night Duo is two-pack package containing Body-Slim Multi-Action Concentrate and Body-Slim Destock Night. In addition to the representations on the individual boxes, as previously detailed, Lierac Body-Slim Day and Night Duo packaging (Exhibit 7) claims:

BODY-SLIM DAY & NIGHT DUO

24 HOUR INTENSIVE TREATMENT

. . . .

Firming and shaping formulas to help reduce the appearance of cellulite

and dimpled skin night and day

Lierac Body-Slim Slackened & Stubborn Areas Firming Lifting Serum Against Embedded Cellulite (Exhibit 8).

BODY SLIM

SLACKENED & STUBBORN AREAS – FIRMING LIFTING SERUM AGAINST EMBEDDED CELLULITE

.   .   .   .  

Helps firm and shape

inner arms and thighs

Reduces the appearance

of cellulite in stubborn areas

.   .   .   .  

2% patented WTB SYSTEM [sacred lotus – white willow – peptide]

12.5% LIPO-REVERSE [10% active caffeine

+ 2.5% glaucine complex]

1% anti-glycation complex

5% sesame extracts.

.   .   .   .  

Results after just 14 days

Improved tone on inner arms: 85% and thighs: 90%

Reduced appearance of stubborn cellulite: 77%

Lifted skin: 83%

Any studies appearing in product footnotes may lack credibility, due to this non-exhaustive list of flaws:

  • Ø not published or subjected to critique or peer-review by the scientific community
  • Ø based upon self-reporting of subjects
  • Ø unblinded – i.e. not a double blind placebo-controlled trial
  • Ø small sample size
  • Ø no meta-analysis of other cellulite studies
  • Ø possible test subject selection bias

 

The Lierac Body-Slim products are expensive ($50 – $80) but do they serve a real purpose or benefit to consumers?

The Scientific Community’s Rejection of Anti-Cellulite Claims

According to the first scholarly paper written on the topic of cellulite, “[I]t is an important obligation of physicians to teach the fact that so-called cellulite is not a disease, but is the result of the sex-typical structure of the skin of women and a natural consequence of aging,” and “there is up to now no other cosmetic or medical (short of surgical) treatment to improve so-called cellulite, certainly none at all to cause complete disappearance of it.” Nürnberger, F. and Müller, G. “So-Called Cellulite: An Invented Disease.”   The Journal of Dermatologic Surgery and Oncology (1978) 4:3 221-9.

Medical practitioners still soundly reject the notion that any topical product can effectively treat the condition of cellulite:

  • “At this point, there is no outstanding treatment for cellulite.” (Dr. Molly Wanner, dermatology instructor at Harvard Medical School. See St. Louis, Catherine. “Treating Cellulite? It’s Still There.”[2] The New York Times (June 24, 2009).   See also Wanner, Molly. “An evidence-based review of existing cellulite-reduction treatments.” Journal of Drugs in Dermatology. (2008) April 7(4):341-5.
  • “It’s a Madison Avenue term. It’s a normal variant of fat that shows as dimples. There’s no way a cream or pounding will change that fat.” (Dr. Samuel J. Stegman, associate clinical professor of dermatology at the University of California at San Francisco). See Wells, Linda. “Beauty; Battle of the Bulge.”[3] The New York Times, July 3, 1988.
  • “It’s not a happy situation for women who want to get rid of it because we don’t know how to treat it.” (Dr. Arthur Shipp, clinical professor of plastic surgery at Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York who conducted an extensive cellulite study. See Carr, Amy. “Erasing Cellulite.”[4] Daily Herald (Arlington Heights) June 7, 1998.
  • “[A]ccording to 27 years of medical literature recently reviewed in The Journal of Cosmetic and Laser Therapy, scientific proof that creams make a real, lasting difference does not exist. ‘There is no evidence to show that any topical medications improve cellulite.’” (Dr. Mathew Avram, Harvard Medical School). See Siegel, Jessica. “Fat Chance.”[5] The New York Times, August 15, 2005.
  • “According to [UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine Dr. Jenny] Kim, no studies have convincingly shown that cellulite creams do any good on actual bodies.” Woolston, Chris. “Little proof of cellulite cream success.”[6] Los Angeles Times, November 3, 2008.
  • “I don’t think the evidence is there to recommend spending money on a cellulite cream,” says Dr. Molly Wanner, a dermatologist at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston and an instructor at Harvard Medical School. Id.

In January 2014, The Federal Trade Commission announced a settlement enjoining a cosmetics company from making deceptive cellulite cream claims.   See “FTC Approves Final Consent Settling Charges that L’Occitane, Inc. Misled Consumers to Believe that Creams Could Slim Their Bodies.[7] In that case, the FTC alleged that L’Occitane violated the Federal Trade Commission Act because it advertised a cream that “helps to visibly reduce the appearance of cellulite,” and “reduces cellulite.” See Complaint, In re L’Occitane, Inc. a corporation, FTC file No. 122 3115[8].

Ales sells Lierac Body-Slim to United States consumers through a variety of different channels, including through independent retailers (such as CVS, Walgreens, Amazon, Drugstore.com), and through Ales’ website, http://www.lierac-usa.com.

[1] Wanner M, Avram M. “An evidence-based assessment of treatments for cellulite.” J Drugs Dermatol. 2008 Apr;7(4):341-5.

[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/25/fashion/25skinintro.html?_r=0, last accessed November 19, 2015.

[3] http://www.nytimes.com/1988/07/03/magazine/beauty-battle-of-the-bulge.html, last accessed November 19, 2015.

[4] https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-68783688.html, last accessed November 19, 2015.

[5] http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/15/opinion/fat-chance.html, last accessed 11/19/15.

[6] http://www.latimes.com/health/la-he-skeptic3-2008nov03-story.html, last accessed November 19, 2015.

[7] https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2014/04/ftc-approves-final-consent-settling-charges-loccitane-inc-misled, last accessed November 19, 2015

[8] https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/140408loccitanecmpt.pdf, last accessed November 19, 2015

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Under Investigation: Derma Silk

Questions about DermaSilk — False Advertising?

Many skin creams and serums make anti-aging and anti-wrinkle claims, but few are as aggressive as the claims made by the DermSilk line of products.

Question:

Does using DermaSilk products result in any of the results listed below?

–  “…Age Erasing” effects”

–  “Reverses the effects of aging while you sleep”

–  “Reduces the appearance of wrinkles, crow’s feet, smile lines, dull skin.”

– “Turn back the clock on aging”

–  “…age reversing effects”

–  “…age reversing complex”

–  “…delivers a regenerating complex designed to reverse the effects of aging while you sleep.”

–  “…diminishing the appearance of skin damage, and restoring a youthful appearance.”

–  “…reduces the appearance of existing facial wrinkles”

–  “…relaxes ‘crease memory’ and offers long-term relief from visible laugh lines and crow’s feet.”

–  “multi-action age-reversers”

(DermaSilk Night Repairing Face Lift “Age-Erasing Skin Repair”)

DermaSilk night face lift

DermaSilk Night Repairing Face Lift “Age-Erasing Skin Repair”

The DermaSilk Anti Aging Product Line:


1 Minute Collagen Lift
5 Minute Beauty Peel
1 Minute Wrinkle Erase Pen
Night Repairing Face Lift
Skin Perfect
Flawless
5 Minute Face Lift
90 Second Eye Lift
Miracle Cream

Information about DermaSilk

DermaSilk is a product of Biotech International Corporation in Glastonbury Connecticut.  According to records held by the Connecticut Secretary of State [PDF], Biotech International Corporation was incorporated under the laws of Connecticut in 1994. Biotech’s principal place of business is 65 Kreiger Lane, Glastonbury, CT, 06033, and is led by Gregory J. Kelly, President and C.E.O. The company’s customer service number is (800) 886-9052, website: http://www.dermasilk.org.

According to the website,

  • “Biotech Corporation understands very well how both women and men feel about this change in their skin. For over fifteen years, we have been dedicated to anti-aging research in the field of cosmetics. The Biotech Corporation is a cutting edge cosmetics company. With our development of DermaSilk® Anti-Wrinkle we believe we have finally unlocked the secret to overcoming the natural signs of aging by reducing the appearance of aging skin. With DermaSilk we can all face the future with confidence and grace.”
  • “DISCLAIMER: DermaSilk is intended solely for use as an anti-aging cosmetic; DermaSilk is not intended as a substitute for cosmetic or medical procedures.”

8 Comments

Filed under Class Action Investigations

Product Investigation: Sudden Sleep for Women

Recently overheard:

“Sudden sleep?  What is this stuff? Specifically formulated for women? What does that mean?”

Sudden Sleep

Sudden Sleep

Sudden Sleep is a new product from Biotab Nutraceuticals, the company behind Extenze.  Biotab was on the receiving end of several actions from California authorities, and at least one class action lawsuit alleging false advertising.    Continue reading

2 Comments

Filed under False Advertising Investigations