Nature's Bounty to Pay $250,000 Redress as Part of
Settlement with FTC Over Nutrient Supplement Claims

FTC News Release
April 27, 1995

Nature's Bounty, Inc., and two of its wholly-owned subsidiaries have agreed to settle Federal Trade Commission allegations that they made deceptive weight-loss, body-building, disease-treatment or other health-related claims for 26 nutrient supplements they marketed. The proposed settlement would require the respondents to pay $250,000 in consumer redress, prohibit them from making various allegedly false claims, and require them to have scientific evidence to back up a variety of specific health-related advertising and promotional claims for any product they market in the future.

The FTC complaint detailing the allegations names Nature's Bounty, Inc., and its subsidiaries, Puritan's Pride, Inc., and Vitamin World, Inc. All three firms operate from the same address in Bohemia, New York. The FTC complaint challenges claims for the products that were made in mail order catalogs, some published jointly by Puritan's Pride and General Nutrition Centers (which also has been the subject of FTC law-enforcement action for nutrient supplement claims) and others published solely by Puritan's Pride, as well as in promotional materials distributed at a Nature's Bounty retail store.

The FTC alleged that many of the representations made by the respondents were false, including that:

Nature's Bounty and the two subsidiaries also are alleged to have falsely represented that scientific research proved several other claims, including that:

In addition, the FTC charged the respondents with failing to have adequate evidence to support a variety of other representations, including representations that the relevant product causes weight loss by allowing calories to pass through the body undigested, impeding the absorption of calories or sugar, or eliminating body fat; improves memory retention; removes dark circles from under the eyes; promotes growth in muscle mass and improves strength; prevents hangovers and brain and liver damage from alcohol; helps prevent harm caused by cigarette smoke; or aids in digestion.

Finally, the FTC charged that the respondents' use of the names Sleeper's Diet, Memory Booster, Dark Circle Eye Treatment, and Super Fat Burners was deceptive because the names made representations about the products that the respondents could not substantiate.

The proposed consent agreement to settle these charges, announced today for public comment, would require Nature's Bounty and its subsidiaries to pay $250,000 to the Commission. If practical the money will be used for consumer refunds. Otherwise, it will go to the US Treasury.

The consent also would prohibit the respondents from making the claims challenged as false, and require them to have substantiation for specific health-related representations they make in advertising and promoting any product in the future. As to claims prohibited as false, for example, the settlement would bar representations that Sleeper's Diet, L-Arginine or any substantially similar amino acid product stimulates greater production or release of human growth hormone, promotes muscular development, burns fat or otherwise alters human metabolism to burn stored fat, or promotes weight loss. Baldness treatment claims also would be prohibited for L-Cysteine, L-Methionine or any substantially similar product.

Examples of representations for which the respondents would be required to have scientific substantiation include advertising and promotional claims that any product cures or treats any disease or relieves its symptoms, provides any weight loss benefit, stimulates metabolism, promotes greater muscular development or endurance, improves mental comprehension, aids digestion, relieves stress, or prevents or treats fatigue.

In addition, the settlement would prohibit the respondents from deceptively using the product names Sleeper's Diet, Memory Booster, Dark Circle Eye Treatment, or Super Fat Burners. Finally, it includes various reporting requirements that would assist the FTC in monitoring the respondents' compliance with its provisions.

The Commission vote to approve the proposed consent agreement for public comment was 4-1, with Commissioner Mary L. Azcuenaga dissenting. In her statement, Commissioner Azcuenaga said that she was dissenting from the Commission's decision to accept a proposed consent order with Nature's Bounty and its subsidiaries because the order leaves the respondents free to sell products they know or should have known were deceptively labeled. "I believe that the order should hold the respondents liable if they know, or should know, that the labels or packaging of any such product contains false or unsubstantiated claims," Azcuenaga said.

Related Documents

This page was posted on December 23, 2005.

Links to Recommended Companies