Home Shopping Network Settles FTC Unsubstantiated Ad Claims Case

The Home Shopping Network will pay a $1.1 mil. civil penalty to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that the network aired advertisements with unsubstantiated claims for weight loss, PMS/ menopause and skin care products, the FTC announced April 15. The commission has ordered HSN and its subsidiary, Home Shopping Club, not to make any further ad claims it cannot substantiate.

The settlement follows a September 1996 agreement between HSN and the commission in which the defendants were required to have "competent and reliable scientific evidence" to support any ad claims the company might make. FTC filed a complaint in March 1995 charging that HSN violated federal law by claiming its Life Way Vitamin C and Zinc Spray, Life Way Antioxidant Spray and Life Way Vitamin B-12 Spray could "cure, treat or prevent any disease, or have any effect on the structure or function of the human body."

FTC's April 15 complaint, filed by the Department of Justice in Jacksonville, Fla. federal court, alleges HSN aired unsubstantiated claims in TV ads for several supplement products that violated the 1996 FTC order.

Weight loss advertisements for the Target Fat Weight Loss System (For Women Only), which includes Appetite Satisfying Wafers (containing chromium picolinate), Herbal Balance caplets, AM Activator and PM Formula (chromium picolinate and amino acids), La Costa Spa weight loss products, including Snack Lights (Garcinia cambogia and chromium picolinate), Natural Cellutherm (chromium picolinate) and Natural Diet Control (G. cambogia), were addressed by the new complaint.

Additionally, ads for Life Way Changes supplements, including Changes I Nutritional Support Formula (calcium, magnesium and soy concentrate) and Changes II Herbal Support Formula (Lactobacillus sporogenes) for premenstrual syndrome and menopausal problems, were found to be in violation of the 1996 agreement.

FTC cited a number of unsubstantiated ad claims for skin care products between 1996 and 1998 such as The Serious Skin Care Acne Line including Glycolic Cleanser (glycolic acid), Clarifying Treatment (2% salicylic acid), Glycolic Renewal Gel, and Super Hydrate, Serious Skin Care Clearz-it (5% benzoyl peroxide) topical acne product and Serious Skin Care Fading Fluid (2% hydroquinone and azelaic acid) skin bleaching product.

Advertisements for the Target Fat Weight Loss System (For Women Only) were aired on numerous occasions after Oct. 2, 1996, the FTC complaint says. The testimonial programs featured a doctor discussing the products with consumers saying, "It really puts an end to the yo-yo syndrome." The ads convey the impression to viewers that using the products will allow them to lose between 30 and 60 pounds and maintain their weight loss. Another ad claimed: "You lose your weight as fat, it doesn't come back."

Another ad, also aired several times after Oct. 2, 1996, featured the Life Way Changes PMS/menopause product and stated: "With menopause...you feel you get all these other symptoms, like again, the breast tenderness and the swelling and the irritability and all that. So, what do you do? Again, you can go on hormonal replacement, but this is a way to really help alleviate the symptoms without having to go on hormonal replacement."

Ads for Serious Skin Care Fading Fluid ran a number of times after the 1996 order, according to FTC. Claims for the products said: "Anybody who is suffering from any type of hyperpigmentation, whether it be from...razor bump, from having pregnancy mask, freckles, from pinching your acne, this is the product that will actually go in and even out any hyperpigmentation, which are the dark spots or light spots on our skin."

Federal Trade Commissioner Sheila Anthony issued a separate statement regarding the case, saying she "reluctantly" accepts the consent decree, contending the size of the civil penalty given to the defendant was not substantial enough. She said the $1.1 mil. penalty is "barely adequate," adding "only two years later, HSN is again before us, and is again facing allegations that it has made multiple unsubstantiated product efficacy claims. Indeed, these allegations give me reason to question whether HSN took its obligation under the 1996 order seriously."

"Further, a larger civil penalty may have been warranted here to deter future unsubstantiated claims by HSN and other advertisers. Civil penalties and other remedial impositions cannot be a mere cost of doing business," Anthony said. "If false claims are profitable even in the wake of penalties, advertisers will continue to make such claims." Not abiding by FTC orders carries a penalty of $11,000 per violation.