FTC Settlement Requires Oreck Corporation to Stop Making False and Unproven Claims That Its Ultraviolet Vacuum and Air Cleaner Can Prevent IllnessThe Federal Trade Commission has been busy. On the heels of its $40 million settlement with Skechers, one of the largest of its kind, the Commission yesterday announced that it has settled with Oreck Corporation regarding allegedly unsubstantiated claims that the company made regarding its Halo vacuum cleaner and ProShield Plus portable air purifier. Oreck has agreed to pay $750,000, which will be disbursed to affected consumers via $25 refund checks, and has further agreed to refrain from making certain identified advertising claims without adequate substantiation. As is customary in these types of proceedings, Oreck has neither admitted nor denied the FTC’s allegations but has agreed to abide by the FTC’s consent order (in this case, a twenty-year order) as a means of resolving the dispute. Although the monetary component of the Oreck settlement is significantly smaller than that of the Skechers settlement, the underlying issues are similar.

In each case, the FTC alleged that the marketers made claims about the health effects or efficacy of their products that were not adequately substantiated and were, therefore, misleading to consumers. The FTC pursued Oreck for allegedly unsubstantiated claims that its Halo vacuum cleaner and ProShield Plus air cleaner would: (a) reduce the risk of the flu, (b) reduce the risk of other ailments caused by bacteria, viruses, molds or allergens, and (c) eliminate all or some specified percentage of germs, bacteria, dust mites, molds, viruses or allergens. One of the ads featured in the FTC’s complaint depicts a woman standing in a wallpapered room (a kitchen, judging by the floral design) wearing a gas mask. The ad asks, “WANT A NEW WAY TO HELP BATTLE THE FLU?” and reports that testing showed “up to a 99% reduction in airborne particles.” Another ad depicts the Oreck Halo vacuum cleaner emitting a stylized, blue UV-C light with the words “KILLS FLU GERMS.” The ad claims that the Halo is “the only vacuum in the world that uses powerful UV-C light to kill many of the germs that could be living on your floors, such as the flu” and states that the Halo “traps 99.9% of particulates down to 0.3 microns.”

According to the FTC, these and similar claims were not adequately substantiated at the time they were made. It is not possible to tell from the documents disclosed publicly what level of substantiation Oreck had at the time it disseminated the ads. rasonic mini air purifier(Given the specificity of the claims, it is unlikely that Oreck had no studies substantiating its claims). jzx100 air purifierIn typical fashion, the FTC’s complaint alleges merely that “respondent did not possess and rely upon a reasonable basis that substantiated the representations,” and the consent judgment prohibits similar claims unless at the time the claim is made, “respondent possesses and relies upon competent and reliable scientific evidence that is sufficient in quality and quantity based on standards generally accepted in the relevant scientific fields” to substantiate that the claim is true. air o swiss u650 cleaning

Accordingly, as with the Skechers settlement, there is little specific guidance in the settlement documents for marketers who wish to play by the FTC’s rules when it comes to substantiating health and efficacy claims. Without clear interpretive guidance from the FTC, and in light of the subjective inquiry required to determine whether a particular claim is reasonably supported by scientific evidence, the prospect of making health or efficacy claims can be daunting. However, as previously discussed, marketers can minimize their risk by keeping in mind the following key points, which have emerged from recent FTC actions. First, the FTC’s efforts on claim substantiation are not just focused on nutritional supplements, weight loss products, and other “ingestibles.” The FTC is increasingly targeting consumer marketers making efficacy and health related claims in other contexts. Second, efficacy claims that reference specific percentages (e.g., “traps 99.9% of particulates”) seem particularly attractive to the FTC.

Both the Oreck and the Skechers cases featured very specific quantitative claims about the products at issue. Finally, as demonstrated in the Skechers settlement, the FTC continues to push for two clinical studies for certain types of claims even as it requires only a single clinical study for claims that are quite similar (i.e., weight loss and muscle strengthening). While this incongruous approach arguably calls into question the rationale for two studies, marketers can minimize their risk by relying on two clinical studies whenever possible. Copyright © 2016, Foley Hoag LLP. Oreck Settles False Advertising Charges, Pays FTC $750,000 Fine Oreck Corporation has agreed to stop making false and unproven claims about the health benefits of its products and will pay a $750,000 fine to settle Federal Trade Commission charges. The FTC sued Oreck as part of its ongoing efforts to protect consumers from bogus health claims, which in Oreck's case consisted of assertions that two of its products reduce the risk of flu and other illnesses, and eliminate virtually all common germs and allergens.

The FTC's allegations involved the Oreck Halo vacuum and the Oreck ProShield Plus air cleaner. The Halo is an upright vacuum cleaner that shines ultraviolet light onto the floor while vacuuming. The ProShield Plus is a portable air cleaner that filters air particles via an electrostatic charge. The Halo retails for $599.95, while the ProShield Plus goes for $399.95. According to the FTC complaint, which resulted from a referral by the Better Business Bureau's National Advertising Division, Oreck advertised these products via infomercials, traditional television commercials, print ads, in-store displays, and online ads. During the 2009 holiday season, online ads displayed the Halo and the ProShield Plus side by side under the headline "Introducing the Oreck Flu Fighters, Help Reduce the Flu on Virtually any Surface and in the Air in Your Home." The ads also claimed the Proshield Plus "captures and destroys many airborne viruses like the flu." An infomercial for the Oreck Halo claimed, "The Oreck Halo has killed up to 99.9 percent of bacteria exposed to its light in one second or less," and also boasted that the vacuum's light chamber "has been tested and shown to kill up to 99.9 percent of certain common germs, plus dangerous pathogens like E. coli and MRSA."

The FTC charged Oreck with making the following false and deceptive claims about the Halo vacuum and ProShield Plus air cleaner: The Halo and the ProShield Plus prevent or substantially reduce the risk of flu. The Halo and the ProShield Plus prevent or substantially reduce the risk of other illnesses or ailments caused by bacteria, viruses, molds, and allergens – such as the common cold, asthma, and allergy symptoms. The Halo eliminates all or almost all common germs and allergens found on the floors in users' homes, and is scientifically proven to do so. The Halo's ultraviolet light is effective against germs, bacteria, dust mites, mold, and viruses embedded in carpets. The ProShield Plus eliminates all or almost all airborne particles from a typical household room under normal living conditions, and is scientifically proven to do so. The complaint also accused Oreck of supplying deceptive advertising material to its franchise stores to help sell the Halo and the ProShield Plus, which the FTC said "provided the means and instrumentalities to its distributors to deceive consumers."

The settlement bans Oreck from making any of the deceptive claims challenged in the FTC complaint for any of its vacuum cleaner or air cleaning products -- unless it produces competent and reliable scientific evidence to back these claims up. In addition to the $750,000 penalty, Oreck is also forbidden from making any claims about a product's comparative health benefits without competent and reliable scientific evidence, and from misrepresenting the results of any scientific test, study, or research. 2 credit cards are offering 0% interest until 2018 A credit card now offering 6% cash back at US grocery stores? A mind-blowing 21-month 0% APR credit card Mortgage rates are at an all-time low. The amazing VA benefits not enough vets are claiming The fastest way to pay off $10,000 in credit card debt Planning for retirement? Expert advice based on your needs Credit Score & Report $1. Start Monitoring Today Earn 10x the national average in your savings account She Was in Love and Expecting.