Marketing Plan to Sue the FTC Backfires

18 replies
The FTC recently stated that marketers cannot claim a food, beverage or dietary supplement can treat or prevent a disease unless approval has been obtained from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

(Affiliate marketers should take note of this. Plenty of Warriors are promoting dietary supplements.)

POM, the maker of various health promoting Pomegranate drinks, was not happy, so it sued the FTC 12 days ago claiming its First Amendment rights were violated and the FTC had exceeded its authority.

Today, the FTC sued POM for misrepresenting the health benefits of its products and for making claims about preventing cancer, erectile disfunction, etc. The remedies the FTC is seeking are a lot more severe than its initial request for FDA approval of disease claims.


A few lessons here:

1. Don't make claims that anything can cure, treat, or prevent a disease unless you have rock-solid proof. If some government agency has not approved that type of claim, odds are you have a risk.

(Note: rock-solid proof does not mean "jk3004" has vouched for the product on a forum.)

2. If you sue the FTC, expect to be sued back by the FTC within 2-weeks.

3. The FTC lawsuit is against POM and selected directors personally. Another good example of how incorporating or forming a LLC does not protect you from personal liability.

4. The really, really good stuff (although this may depend on your perspective). If POM loses any product claims issue in the FTC lawsuit, I guarantee class action lawsuits will be filed nationwide. Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if the first lawsuit is not filed today.

.
#backfires #ftc #marketing #plan #sue
  • Profile picture of the author LB
    [DELETED]
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2653820].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
      Banned
      Originally Posted by LB View Post

      Pomegranate juice is instead the target.
      That's not how I read it at all.

      To me, it comes across that people allegedly making illegal and deceptive representations about pomegranate juice are the target.

      Originally Posted by LB View Post

      Does the government really serve the people when the FTC/FDA are going after cherry juice, cheerios and pomegranates?
      All the information above related to the FTC.

      It has nothing to do with the FDA at all. They weren't in this conversation until you mentioned them just now.

      Originally Posted by mookinman View Post

      Here in the UK, "General Practitioners" prescribe whatever medicines the drug companies pay them to.
      Only the ones who want to get struck off and/or go to prison very quickly. Here in the UK, that's actually been illegal for a long time. Boy, did you ever pick the wrong country to take a pop at GPs' ethics! :rolleyes:
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2653834].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
      Banned
      Originally Posted by LB View Post

      This country is completely upside down.

      Vioxx can kill thousands and no one goes to jail. Pomegranate juice is instead the target.

      Does the government really serve the people when the FTC/FDA are going after cherry juice, cheerios and pomegranates?
      It isn't about the product ... it's about them lying about the product curing diseases. And you think that's wrong to not allow deceptive advertising? Pomegranate juice tastes good, quenches your thirst and makes you pee ... that's about it. It doesn't cure cancer or erectile disfunction.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2653853].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Alan Petersen
      Originally Posted by LB View Post

      This country is completely upside down.

      Vioxx can kill thousands and no one goes to jail. Pomegranate juice is instead the target.

      Does the government really serve the people when the FTC/FDA are going after cherry juice, cheerios and pomegranates?
      It's the claims being made not the cherries in the juice.

      If people are claiming that their product cures cancer and they're just making it up then I'm all for the FTC/FDA coming down on them like a ton of bricks.

      I don't know anything about POM or this merchant, I'm just talking about in general here.

      It's that old adage that you can't falsely shout "fire" in a crowded theater and not be responsible for the damage caused by your actions via the 1st Amendment.
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2654536].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author mookinman
    [DELETED]
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2653829].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Michael Nguyen
      [DELETED]
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2654517].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author E. Brian Rose
    [DELETED]
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2654639].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author kindsvater
      Another issue worth noting from the complaint and advertising exhibits is that the FTC went searching for evidence not only in newspaper and magazine ads, but throughout the company's website and in other online locations.

      So you see almost off the cuff statements such as pomegranate juice is the "only" way to keep your PSA in check in the fight against prostate cancer, or that the product is 40 percent as effective as Viagra.

      Lesson: watch your claims here in the forum and elsewhere online.

      If you do a legal review of your online business, make sure it includes more than just having a disclaimer, proper terms, etc.

      -

      Not to nitpick, but the FTC did not countersue but filed an entirely separate action against POM. Conceivably, POM could win its lawsuit arguing the FTC overstepped in requesting FDA approval of certain health claims. What it's now facing is worse and ironically could result in a remedial order requiring POM to get FDA approval anyway.

      So POM could win lawsuit #1 and avoid needing FDA approval, only to lose lawsuit #2 and have an injunction issue requiring FDA approval. Meanwhile, POM's competitors have no such requirement.

      I'm not rooting for or against anyone. I buy POM (cherry flavor) and will continue to do so, even though it is expensive and of course this will not help keep prices down.

      .
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2654834].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Paul Hancox
        Originally Posted by kindsvater View Post

        I buy POM (cherry flavor) and will continue to do so, even though it is expensive and of course this will not help keep prices down.
        Just out of interest... why do you buy it, if it's expensive? What do you get out of the product that you don't get out of a cheaper alternative?
        Signature
        PresellContent.com - How to sell without "selling"
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2654958].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author CDarklock
          Originally Posted by Paul Hancox View Post

          What do you get out of the product that you don't get out of a cheaper alternative?
          Pomegranate and blueberry juice drinks have a distinctive flavour. While you can certainly get your antioxidants elsewhere, it won't taste the same... so it's arguable that there are no alternatives.
          Signature
          "The Golden Town is the Golden Town no longer. They have sold their pillars for brass and their temples for money, they have made coins out of their golden doors. It is become a dark town full of trouble, there is no ease in its streets, beauty has left it and the old songs are gone." - Lord Dunsany, The Messengers
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2654971].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author MichaelHiles
    Once one class action is settled, expect the onslaught against others like Monavie, etc...
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2655012].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author DogScout
    [DELETED]
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2655027].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author MichaelHiles
    [DELETED]
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2655153].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Michael Oksa
      [DELETED]
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2655168].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author E. Brian Rose
        [DELETED]
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2655175].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Michael Oksa
          [DELETED]
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2655188].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author E. Brian Rose
            [DELETED]
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2655197].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author zerofill
              I don't know what POM claimed and probably neither does 99% of the people in this thread... I could be wrong... But I doubt many... including myself, took the time away from work to go investigate POM's claims lol.

              So you can't say if them filing suite is stupid or not...

              Frankly I think it took some brass balls... especially if they feel they are right.

              So we will just have to see how it plays out...
              Signature
              Serp Shaker
              The IM World Will Be Shaken to the Core!
              Join my list at: IMCool.Biz
              New Podcast --> podcast.imcool.biz
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2655221].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author E. Brian Rose
                [DELETED]
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2655253].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author zerofill
                  [DELETED]
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2655275].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author Michael Oksa
                    [DELETED]
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2655284].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    [DELETED]
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2655209].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Michael Oksa
    [DELETED]
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2655259].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author cbpayne
      Originally Posted by Michael Oksa View Post

      Were these peer-reviewed double-blind studies?
      I have just done a pubmed search for these studies. There have been lots of lab based studies, but I could not find any that were actually clinical trials, let alone peer-reviewed and blinded (unless the company has them and not published them fro scrutiny). Based on that the claims made by the company are clearly not supported by clinical studies. They have extrapolated from lab based studies.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2655444].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author MichaelHiles
    [DELETED]
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2655267].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Michael Oksa
      [DELETED]
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2655280].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author MichaelHiles
        [DELETED]
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2655301].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Michael Oksa
          [DELETED]
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2655314].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author CDarklock
            [DELETED]
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2655334].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author MichaelHiles
            [DELETED]
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2655359].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Michael Oksa
              [DELETED]
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2655367].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author MichaelHiles
                [DELETED]
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2655398].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Michael Oksa
                  [DELETED]
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2655401].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author MichaelHiles
                    [DELETED]
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2655434].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author Michael Oksa
                      [DELETED]
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2655439].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author MichaelHiles
                        [DELETED]
                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2655452].message }}
                        • Profile picture of the author Michael Oksa
                          [DELETED]
                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2655463].message }}
                          • Profile picture of the author MichaelHiles
                            [DELETED]
                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2655524].message }}
                            • Profile picture of the author Michael Oksa
                              [DELETED]
                              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2655534].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author CDarklock
    [DELETED]
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2655500].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author MichaelHiles
      [DELETED]
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2655543].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Michael Oksa
        [DELETED]
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2655559].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author MichaelHiles
          [DELETED]
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2655589].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Michael Oksa
            Originally Posted by MichaelHiles View Post

            To quote Mr. Bumble, "If the law supposes that, the law is a ass... a idiot. If that's the eye of the law, the law is a bachelor; and the worst I wish the law is that his eye may be opened by experience... by experience."

            Some people don't agree with how the FDA presently operates, and have a philosophical basis for their belief to support their position. That is certainly a relevant, and natural path of discussion in consideration of the topic.
            Your quote makes no sense to me.

            It may be one natural path, but that doesn't mean it has to be discussed here.

            ~Michael
            Signature

            "Ich bin en fuego!"
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2655596].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author MichaelHiles
              [DELETED]
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2655607].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Michael Oksa
                [DELETED]
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2655609].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author MichaelHiles
                  Originally Posted by Michael Oksa View Post

                  Better yet, why not say something people can discuss?

                  Well dammit. Take that up with the attorney. He posted the damn topic, not me.

                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2655617].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author kindsvater
                    Originally Posted by MichaelHiles View Post

                    Well dammit. Take that up with the attorney. He posted the damn topic, not me.

                    And an excellent discussion it is.

                    One of the interesting aspects of governmental action is the leverage and pressure that comes with this type of claim.

                    Given the statement: POM is 40% as effective as Viagra - in a civil lawsuit the plaintiff bears the burden of proving they read the statement, relied on it, and in some way was damaged.

                    With the FTC they ask is the statement true or not? Can you prove it? A far different scenario.

                    If not, the FTC is requesting a 20-year injunction controlling the advertising of the company.

                    .
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2655657].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author frodo77
                      [DELETED]
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2655675].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
                        Michael is correct, and Steve... You know better.

                        Political discussion is not allowed here. Period. That sucks, but far too many people cannot carry on a discussion of such topics without causing them to degenerate into partisan maulings. Those serve no useful purpose in this forum.


                        Paul
                        Signature
                        .
                        Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2655711].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author MichaelHiles
                      Originally Posted by kindsvater View Post

                      And an excellent discussion it is.

                      One of the interesting aspects of governmental action is the leverage and pressure that comes with this type of claim.

                      Given the statement: POM is 40% as effective as Viagra - in a civil lawsuit the plaintiff bears the burden of proving they read the statement, relied on it, and in some way was damaged.

                      With the FTC they ask is the statement true or not? Can you prove it? A far different scenario.

                      If not, the FTC is requesting a 20-year injunction controlling the advertising of the company.

                      .
                      Indeed.

                      But to my knowledge, a civil action against POM stemming from the claims of the advertising hasn't actually happened.

                      One observation I've made is that in many cases, the well-intentioned folks in the employ of the government expend lots of energy trying to prevent or solve problems that don't actually exist yet.

                      Granted it's at state and local levels, but have spent a lot of time around government agencies. I hear lots of discussions about proposed regulatory action based on nothing but conjecture... reams of legislation proposed because of what MIGHT occur.

                      Let it occur, then react appropriately based on the circumstance.

                      If POM openly claims that you'll keep your yang up because you drink their stuff, and then your ying doesn't yang, then make a move.
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2655695].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author CDarklock
                        Originally Posted by MichaelHiles View Post

                        One observation I've made is that in many cases, the well-intentioned folks in the employ of the government expend lots of energy trying to prevent or solve problems that don't actually exist yet.
                        That's kind of what prevention means, Michael.

                        Granted it's at state and local levels, but have spent a lot of time around government agencies. I hear lots of discussions about proposed regulatory action based on nothing but conjecture... reams of legislation proposed because of what MIGHT occur.
                        I've spent a lot of time around government at the Federal level, when I was a defense contractor in the D.C. area... and I saw more or less the same thing. There's an old "joke" (in quotes because it's not all that funny) that government logic relies on what's called The Politician's Fallacy:

                        1. Something must be done.
                        2. This is something.
                        3. Therefore, we must do it.

                        Big government relies on more or less the same structures as big business, which are ultimately economic. It's just like we ask ourselves as marketers: "what's in it for me?"

                        Imagine you are confronted with three products you could promote to your customers. One of them is an excellent product, but it has no affiliate program. One of them is a less-excellent product, and its affiliate program pays you $5 per sale. And one of them is a completely worthless piece of crap, but its affiliate program pays you $15 per sale.

                        If you can promote other products to your customers, it's a good idea to promote the first product, which builds trust with your audience. Seeing the excellent quality of the product, they will be more favourable toward other products you offer.

                        If you cannot promote other products to your customers, but they will buy from you repeatedly, it's a good idea to promote the second product - after all, since it is less-excellent but still good, they'll return to buy again. Averaging four or more sales per customer makes this option more profitable.

                        If your customers buy only once, however, it's most advantageous for you to promote the third product - the piece of crap which pays $15. Since they won't be back, you don't care whether they get a good product.

                        A politician is selling his own leadership to the people. So with no term limitations, his incentive is to provide less-excellent self-serving options. Add in term limitations, and his incentive in the final term is to be entirely self-serving.

                        The only thing we really need to grasp in regulatory questions is basic microeconomics and game theory. We don't even really need a macroeconomic understanding.
                        Signature
                        "The Golden Town is the Golden Town no longer. They have sold their pillars for brass and their temples for money, they have made coins out of their golden doors. It is become a dark town full of trouble, there is no ease in its streets, beauty has left it and the old songs are gone." - Lord Dunsany, The Messengers
                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2655728].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author CDarklock
        [DELETED]
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2655580].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author MichaelHiles
          [DELETED]
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2655600].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author E. Brian Rose
    [DELETED]
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2655552].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Michael Oksa
      [DELETED]
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2655581].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author E. Brian Rose
        [DELETED]
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2655606].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Michael Oksa
          [DELETED]
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2655616].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author kindsvater
    There are several civil actions now pending against POM.

    As for the FTC, as against POM it can allege product claims are unsubstantiated. Effectively, that shifts the burden of proof to the marketer to show they are.

    .
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2655717].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author snapcontent
    so pomegranates prevent erectile cancer dysfunctional weight gain?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2655927].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author eflo
    I just like the glass containers they come in. Could give less of a crap if they promise it can make me toast and defrag my computer at the same time. It tastes good, I re-use their containers. Good times.

    I've never really seen their ads though (although trying to convince me that pomegranate juice has magical properties that can fix limp dick would be one hell of a commercial)
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2656029].message }}

Trending Topics