FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:  November 9, 1988


     FTC FINDS MAKER OF ELECTRONIC HAIR-REMOVAL DEVICE MADE
       FALSE AND UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIMS; REQUIRES COMPANY
          TO HAVE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE FOR FUTURE CLAIMS

     The Federal Trade Commission has ruled that Removatron
International Corp., the largest maker of high-frequency,
tweezer-type hair-removal devices, made false and deceptive
claims that its devices permanently remove hair and lacked a
reasonable basis for making such permanency claims.  The 
Commission issued an order prohibiting the company from making
unsubstantiated claims about its product and requiring it to
possess clinical testing as substantiation for future permanency
claims.

     The Commission decision, written by Commissioner Terry
Calvani, upholds a July 1987 ruling by Administrative Law Judge
Montgomery K. Hyun.  Judge Hyun's decision in turn upheld a 1985
FTC administrative complaint issued because the Commission had
"reason to believe" that Removatron and its president, Frederick
E. Goodman, were violating the law.  The FTC complaint alleged
that respondents claimed, without a reasonable basis, that the
Removatron device permanently removed hair.  The Commission also
charged respondents with falsely claiming that they possessed a
reasonable basis for their permanency claims.

     Removatron International Corp. sells an electronic device
called "Removatron," that removes hair with tweezers that
transmit radio waves to individual hair roots.  Respondents
claimed that the Removatron hair removal method eventually
destroys the hair tissue and prevents regrowth of the hair.  The
company sells its devices to beauty salons, skin care
establishments, and other businesses for about $4,000.  They, in
turn, sell hair-removal treatments to customers for
$30-35 per hour.  In 1986, Removatron had an estimated 80 per-
cent share of the market for its product.

     The Commission upheld Judge Hyun's finding that respondents'
advertising and promotional materials made express and implied
claims that the Removatron device permanently removes hair and
that their claims were supported by a reasonable basis
consisting of scientific proof. 


                             (More)
     In addition, the Commission concluded, because the company
represented that its claims were based on scientific evidence,
Removatron was  required to possess evidence that would satisfy
the scientific community that the particular claims were true. 
In this case, the Commission determined, the evidence had to
consist of "controlled clinical testing."  In concluding that
respondents possessed "no clinical evidence whatsoever," the
Commission affirmed the Judge's finding that respondents did not
have competent and reliable scientific tests in support of their
claims.  

     Based on these conclusions, the Commission upheld Judge
Hyun's finding that Removatron's failure to possess adequate
substantiation rendered its advertising false and deceptive under
the FTC Act.  The Commission further stated, "we affirm Judge
Hyun's finding's concerning the seriousness and deliberateness of
Respondent's violations."

     The Commission order is identical to Judge Hyun's, except
for modifying the substantiation provision and deleting a
provision requiring notification of future purchasers.  The order
prohibits Removatron and Goodman from making claims that any hair
removal device, product, or treatment will achieve permanent,
long-term, or effective hair removal, unless they rely on
"competent and reliable scientific" evidence to substantiate such
claims.  The order defines "competent and reliable scientific"
evidence as "adequate and well-controlled, double-blind clinical
testing."  The Judge's order had specified that the company was
required to substantiate its claims with at least two well-
controlled clinical tests.  

     The order also prohibits Respondents from misrepresenting
the existence, contents, or conclusions of any test or study.  

     In addition, the order requires that, for a period of five
years, the company and Goodman include the following disclosure
with any claim that the Removatron or any similar device can
remove hair: "IMPORTANT:  There is no reliable evidence that
(name of device) provides anything more than temporary hair
removal."

     The order further requires respondents to send a copy of the
order to each purchaser of the Removatron device since January
1986.  However, the Commission deleted the Judge's requirement
that the company provide future purchasers with a copy the order. 
The Commission stated that it believes the order is sufficiently
broad that it will achieve the Judge's goal of preventing future
purchasers of the device from making prohibited claims to
treatment purchasers.


                             (More)
Finally, the Commission upheld the Judge's decision that
respondents' claim that the Removatron device was "FCC-approved"
falsely and deceptively implied that the Federal Communications
Commission had approved the company's hair-removal method.  The
order prohibits the company and Goodman from claiming that the
Removatron or any similar device is FCC-approved unless they
disclose that the FCC has only approved the use of a certain
radio frequency by the device and has not approved its safety or
effectiveness.

     Commissioners Mary L. Azcuenaga and Andrew J. Strenio, Jr.,
issued separate statements concurring in part and dissenting in
part from the Commission opinion and order.  Commissioner
Azcuenaga said she agreed that Removatron made unsubstantiated
claims that its product removed hair permanently, but would have
required two clinical tests to substantiate claims.  She said in
her statement, "I do not agree that one controlled clinical test
would provide sufficient substantiation for Removatron's 
permanency representations.  I also dissent from the Commis-
sion's failure to require respondents to provide a copy of the
order to future purchasers of the Removatron device.  Finally,
unlike the majority, I would not order respondents to continue to
disclose that there is no reliable evidence that their device
removes hair permanently even if they are able to produce such
evidence at some future time."

     Commissioner Strenio said in his separate statement that he
agreed with the finding that respondents made unsubstantiated
claims that Removatron removes hair permanently.  He also said he
agreed with the majority that in ads where respondents claim to
have scientific evidence, they must have proof that would satisfy
the scientific community.  However, Commissioner Strenio agreed
with Commissioner Azcuenaga that for claims not asserting
possession of scientific proof, "respondents should be required
to rely upon at least two well-controlled clinical tests" before
making claims that the Removatron epilator removes hair
permanently.  

     Both Removatron and Goodman are located in Boston.

     Copies of the Commission decision and order are available
from the FTC's Public Reference Branch, Room 130, 6th St. and
Pennsylvania Ave. N.W. Washington, D.C.  20580; 202-326-2222, TTY
2020-326-2502.

                              # # #

MEDIA CONTACT:  Dee Ellison, Office of Public Affairs, 
                202-326-2177

     
[REMOVDEC]