Indoor Tanning Case Study

730 Words2 Pages

38) www.ftv.gov
Marketers of Indoor Tanning Systems to Pay Refunds to Consumers
FTC has permanently banned them from marketing or selling indoor tanning systems. The company is not allowed to sell any other products in connection with the “sales of devices other than indoor tanning systems”. The company’s false claims that it is scientifically proven and safe could cause serious health risks such as skin cancer, including melanoma. Therefore, FTC has ordered Mercola-brand indoor tanning to pay refunds to consumers because of their false and misleading health-related claims. The company has to pay $5,334,067 “to cover the cost of refunds and administration of the refund program.”
Four Companies Agree to Stop Falsely Promoting Their Personal-Care …show more content…

One can “Find a” business by its name, URL, Phone Number, etc. and also by City, State/Province or Postal Code. Furthermore, one could narrow down the search by businesses, charities, businesses and charities, new and more. For a more detailed search, one could search a businesses within a geographic ring. There is also a button for BBB Accredited Business only. A business could use this page to find their competitors within their area and geography ring. They could also find charities around their area if the business is a non-profit organization or to offer philanthropic …show more content…

NAD also finds out that the KLF’s product ads were found in news sites but those sites were advertising for Venus Factor. The company said that those false claims were made by the company’s affiliates even though claims had strict terms and conditions. KLF has further requested NAD to monitor their “affiliated advertising on a regular basis.”
NAD Refers Advertising for ‘Steuart’s Pain Formula’ To FTC, Following Advertiser’s Failure to Provide Substantiation for Pain-Relief Claims
NAD found out that Steuart’s Pain Formula might have a false claim in their advertising. But Stuart’s Pin Formula fails to provide a substantive response to NAD when their claims were challenged. The company’s claims were challenged by its competitors as well before NAD did. NAD gave an additional 15 and 12 days to file their response but the company declined to do so again and again. Therefore, NAD has referred this matter to FTC for the “law enforcement action.”
42)www.caru.org
CARU Recommends International Playthings Better Disclose Drying Time for ‘Aquabeads’ Product; Company Says it Will Do

More about Indoor Tanning Case Study

Open Document