Braswell Inc., its director, A. Glenn Braswell, and its subsidiaries are barred permanently from representing that any product or service will cure or prevent hereditary baldness, under a court-filed consent judgment with the Federal Trade Commission. The parties also agreed to pay $610,000 in civil penalties. Under the judgment, Braswell is enjoined permanently from:
- Representing that any product or service will cure, treat, prevent or overcome male pattern or hereditary baldness or, in such cases, cause new hair to grow. however, the company may make these claims if the Food and Drug Administration has approved the product or service.
- Representing that any product or service will cure, treat, prevent or overcome baldness without disclosing clearly and conspicuously Braswell’s product or service is not effective for male pattern or hereditary baldness or new hair growth.
- Misrepresenting the results of any test or study.
- Making performance or efficacy claims for any product or service, unless Braswell has reliable scientific evidence to substantiate the claim.
- For products or services relating to baldness, cellulite, anti-aging, or sexual performance, Braswell must have one well-controlled, double-blinded, clinical study. For all other products or services, the company must rely on evidence recognized by qualified medical and scientific opinion.
- Offering a satisfaction or money-back guarantee, without disclosing clearly its terms and conditions.
- Failing to honor satisfaction or money-back guarantees.
- Violating any provision of the FTC’s Mail Order Merchandise Rule.
The consent judgment names A. Glenn Braswell, Braswell Inc., Cosvetic Laboratories Inc., Quest Research Inc., and Standard Research Laboratories Inc. and its president, Charles L. Richardson.
The Commission explained in a statement that it was not seeking consumer redress because of the difficulty and expense in identifying those consumers injured by the alleged practices. The statement continued that the “civil penalty imposed here together with the injunctive relief obtained will assure that future consumer injury is avoided.”
The Commission voted 4-1 to accept the judgment. Commissioner Patricia P. Bailey dissented from acceptance of the settlement because, in her view, the judgment’s advertising substantiation requirements are inadequate to protect consumers from deceptive product performance claims.
Commissioner Michael Pertschuk voted to accept the settlement because of the civil penalty and injunctive relief obtained, but issued a statement explaining that he was not entirely satisfied with the consent. “In my judgment, the substantiation requirements are neither as tough as they ought to be for the kinds of claims made by these defendants, nor are they consistent with traditional Commission ad substantiation policy.”
The FTC’s Atlanta Regional Office handled the investigation. The Justice Department filed the judgment on the FTC’s behalf in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division.
Return to Main Braswell Article ||| Quackwatch Home Page
This article was posted on August 6, 2000.
