Posts Tagged ‘Federal Trade Commission’

---

Congressman Waxman sneaks anti-vitamin amendment into Wall Street reform bill

---

If you’re involved in a business that deals in health and nutritional products…

HEADS UP!

It looks like the U.S. Government may be trying to sneak in the back door and use the FTC to control the industry.

Read the rest of this entry »

The wheels of justice move slowly, but they do move!

There are few that rank lower than those that feed off the misfortune of others.

Now it’s time to pay.

The Federal Trade Commission has now caught on.  Today, nearly a dozen lawsuits were filed against companies who were promising to help unemployed customers make thousands of dollars a week, from the comfort of their own homes.

Some of the companies promised they could help you get a federal job, work as a movie extra or mystery shopper.  Others promised you could make hundreds if not thousands of dollars stuffing envelopes or addressing postcards.

All I can say is, …. “IT’S ABOUT TIME!”….

You can read the entire story below.

Work-At-Home Scammers Busted: The Real Deal – NewsChannel 9 WSYR.

Till Next Time

Pyxism is the latest travel MLM opportunity in pre-launch. On first look, and not supprisingly, there are some missing details about the product.

My take was that for $325.00 you get a spot in the matrix and a vacation valued at, “at least” $300.00.

There was no mention of how this vacation was delivered so I must assume that it is in the form of a voucher or coupon. If so, this makes the business model very much like TVI or Juugo.

This is another matrix pay plan. And for those of you that are new, there is only one company that has survived the test of time with a matrix plan. Melaleuca.

This matrix calls itself a cycling “follow me” matrix. According to the information I’ve seen, it is designed to keep “teams” together as opposed to splitting them up ever cycle. I’ll admid that this has a certain appeal. Allowing a group of people to work together and stay together is at least a step in the right direction.

However, I see no evidence that this business has a “retail clause”. No requirements for sales outside of the matrix itself. In fact, it could be argued, (and will be I’m sure), that this company has no product at all. If that is the case then all the money is being rolled into this from the matrix and there’s going to be trouble!

Not having all the necessary information on Pyxism, I’m not going to call it a scam… Yet..

But I will say that if the FTC were to look at them right now I doubt they would survive.

More as it becomes available.

One Example of the new regulations, (guidelines), on misleading advertising from the Federal Trade Commission. This one specifically deals with blogs!

Guys, this effects all of us! I’d suggest we all get familiar with these new “guidelines”.

Example 5:

A skin care products advertiser participates in a blog advertising service. The service matches up advertisers with bloggers who will promote the advertiser’s products on their personal blogs. The advertiser requests that a blogger try a new body lotion and write a review of the product on her blog. Although the advertiser does not make any specific claims about the lotion’s ability to cure skin conditions and the blogger does not ask the advertiser whether there is substantiation for the claim, in her review the blogger writes that the lotion cures eczema and recommends the product to her blog readers who suffer from this condition. The advertiser is subject to liability for misleading or unsubstantiated The Commission tested the communication o 1 f advertisements containing testimonials that clearly and prominently disclosed either “Results not typical” or the stronger “These testimonials are based on the experiences of a few people and you are not likely to have similar results.” Neither disclosure adequately reduced the communication that the experiences depicted are generally representative. Based upon this research, the Commission believes that similar disclaimers regarding the limited applicability of an endorser’s experience to what consumers may generally expect to achieve are unlikely to be effective.
Nonetheless, the Commission cannot rule out the possibility that a strong disclaimer of typicality could be effective in the context of a particular advertisement. Although the Commission would have the burden of proof in a law enforcement action, the Commission notes that an advertiser possessing reliable empirical testing demonstrating that the net impression of  its advertisement with such a disclaimer is non-deceptive will avoid the risk of the initiation of such an action in the first instance. representations made through the blogger’s endorsement. The blogger also is subject to liability for misleading or unsubstantiated representations made in the course of her endorsement. The blogger is also liable if she fails to disclose clearly and conspicuously that she is being paid for her services. [See § 255.5.]

CLICK HERE for the entire text of the examples document.

The world of testimonials and endorsements in advertising has changed!

Everything from television ads to internet squeeze pages must now be a great deal more clear, (and honest), when making claims or offering endorsements, (implied or otherwise).

One example is from the text document…

Example 2:

An advertisement disseminated by a company that sells heat pumps presents endorsements from three individuals who state that after installing the company’s heat pump in their homes, their monthly utility bills went down by $100, $125, and $150, respectively. The ad will likely be interpreted as conveying that such savings are representative of what consumers who buy the company’s heat pump can generally expect.
The advertiser does not have substantiation for that representation because, in fact, less than 20% of purchasers will save $100 or more. A disclosure such as, “Results not typical” or, “These testimonials are based on the experiences of a few people and you are not likely to have similar results” is insufficient to prevent this ad from being deceptive because consumers will still interpret the ad as conveying that the specified savings are representative of what consumers can generally expect. The ad is less likely to be deceptive if it clearly and conspicuously discloses the generally expected savings and the advertiser has adequate substantiation that homeowners can achieve those results. There are multiple ways that such a disclosure could be phrased, e.g., “the average homeowner
saves $35 per month,” “the typical family saves $50 per month during cold months and $20 per month in warm months,” or “most families save 10% on their utility bills.”

Read the entire text document.. CLICK HERE

Some say that the government is trying to legislate common sense and that anyone that naively believes exaggerated claims deserves to be taken in by unethical companies. (Caveat emptor and such).

All I know is that if we don’t clean up our own industry the US government will do it for us. This is a step in that direction.

Pay attention to ethics and your reputation!

Micah