Opinion ID: 369355
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: False Affirmative Representations.

Text: 36 1. That users of X-11 tablets 4 can lose weight without restricting their accustomed caloric intake and while they continue to eat the foods of their choice. 37 Petitioners attack this finding as inaccurate, arguing that their advertising advises the reader that the tablets function merely as an appetite suppressant which will make users want less and therefore eat less. Many of the advertisements, however, proclaim in large type, EAT WELL . . . AND LOSE THAT FAT or EAT WHAT YOU WANT AND SLIM DOWN, and follow with statements that no starvation dieting was required and that weight could be lost without suffering through starvation dieting hunger or following boring reducing diets. Other statements in the advertisements relied upon by petitioners as clarifying the matter could reasonably have been considered by the Commission to be inadequate for that purpose not only because they were buried in small print, but because in any event they did not withdraw the misleading statements. The Commission properly found that the advertisements as a whole conveyed the impression to consumers that they could lose weight through the use of X-11 without changing their eating habits and without restricting their accustomed caloric intake. 38 The correctness of the Commission's finding that this representation was false is supported by Porter & Dietsch's own statements in a printed insert placed in each X-11 package. The insert stated that weight loss is only accomplished when a minimum of calories are consumed and set forth an eating program for reducing overweights which is to be used in conjunction with the tablets. This program, which purportedly proposes 3 sensible meals a day was characterized by expert witnesses at the hearing before the ALJ as a starvation or semi-starvation diet. The program does not allow the consumption of any rich foods or sweets or other snacks. A number of the advertisements, in contrast, assert that users can eat snacks and still lose weight. Furthermore, it is undisputed that, as the ALJ found, the tablets will not result in weight reduction unless the user follows a severely restricted caloric diet. We have no difficulty in concluding that the Commission correctly found this representation to be false. 39 2. That petitioners have a reasonable basis consisting of scientific evidence from which to conclude that substantially all users of X-11 tablets will lose a significant amount of weight. 40 Although the advertisements did not state in so many words that substantially all X-11 users would lose a significant amount of weight, they are replete with testimonials claiming weight losses in excess of 40, 50, and even 80 pounds attributable to use of X-11, accompanied by such statements as, thousands of women throughout America are losing 5, 10, 25 or even more pounds. The large weight losses are characterized as automatic. Adding to this impression is the invariable guarantee: RESULTS ARE GUARANTEED OR MONEY BACK or TAKE WEIGHT OFF WITH THE VERY FIRST BOX OR MONEY BACK. That this claim was represented as resting on a scientific basis appears from such statements as Recently, laboratory science has perfected a tiny tablet . . . , X-11 is the PROVEN and SOUND method . . . , clinic tested ingredients, and medically recognized as an effective plan to lose ugly fat. The Commission properly found, based on these facts, that petitioners made what amounted to a representation that they had scientific evidence proving that substantially all X-11 users would lose a significant amount of weight. 41 Petitioners do not deny making this representation but challenge the finding that it was false. They argue first that (t)here is no evidence to support the Commission's finding that 'Scientific Testing' is the only reasonable basis for substantiation of X-11 weight loss claims, and, second, that scientific testing supporting the claims does exist. 42 We need not rule on the first argument, because it is an attack on a finding the Commission did not make. While the ALJ concluded that the efficacy of a product such as X-11 could not be substantiated without scientific evidence, the Commission did not reach the issue, 5 finding it unnecessary to do so, because, even if some other reasonable basis for the claims might have existed, petitioners had represented that the basis was scientific testing. The Commission might appropriately have reached the issue decided by the ALJ in connection with the relief granted in the order but chose instead to rely on the fencing in doctrine. See Part V,B,4, Infra, where we consider whether the provision of the Commission's order prohibiting representations about the efficacy of the product unless they are supported by competent scientific or medical tests or studies is sustainable. 43 We have examined the evidence supporting the Commission's determination that petitioners did not have scientific evidence forming a reasonable basis for the claim that substantially all X-11 users would lose significant amounts of weight, including the findings of fact from Alleghany Pharmacal, supra. That evidence is set forth in detail in the opinion of the Commission and need not be repeated here. 6 44 The scientific evidence on which petitioners rely 7 provides at most a reasonable basis for the conclusion that PPA is an effective appetite suppressant for some people, helping them to lose weight if taken in conjunction with a strict diet. But the evidence falls far short of being sufficient to establish automatic significant weight losses for all users, as represented. 45 3. That X-11 tablets contain a unique ingredient. 46 The frequent references in the advertisements to a unique formula, a unique preparation, a special formula, coupled with statements that laboratory science had recently or now developed the tablets, considered in the light of the admission of Porter & Dietsch that these statements referred to PPA, support this finding. 47 The finding that it was false is also supported. PPA has been used for years in many products, including other over-the-counter weight reduction products. Petitioners, conceding that PPA is not unique to X-11, contend that it is a unique pharmacological substance. The ALJ found this assertion to be not wholly untrue. PPA is a particularly weak member of a family of amphetamine-like drugs. 8 It produces the same types of responses as related drugs produce, but, because it is weak, it produces fewer side effects and less central nervous system stimulation and is therefore the only drug of its class available without a prescription. Nonetheless, the ALJ and the Commission believed that the public would not understand unique as describing this property but would interpret it, as petitioners no doubt intended, as meaning not available in other products and unequaled in efficacy and, in view of the assertions about the recent achievement of laboratory science, newly discovered. We agree with the Commission's assessment of Porter & Dietsch's shabby hucksterism; an otherwise false advertisement is not rendered acceptable merely because one possible interpretation of it is not untrue. National Commission on Egg Nutrition v. FTC, Supra, 570 F.2d at 161 n.4. 48