07.02.12
In an Initial Decision announced in late May, Chief Administrative Law Judge D. Michael Chappell upheld an FTC complaint, and ruled that POM Wonderful, its sister corporation Roll Global LLC, and principals Stewart Resnick, Lynda Resnick and Matthew Tupper violated federal law by making deceptive claims in some advertisements that their POM Wonderful 100% Pomegranate Juice and POMx supplements (POM products) could treat, prevent or reduce the risk of heart disease, prostate cancer and erectile dysfunction.
The order Judge Chappell issued with the initial decision would bar the POM respondents from making any representation about the “health benefits, performance, or efficacy” of POM products or any other food, drug, or dietary supplement—unless the representation is not misleading, and the POM respondents possess “competent and reliable scientific evidence . . . to substantiate that the representation is true.” It also would bar them from representing that any such product “is effective in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of any disease,” including treating, preventing, or reducing the risk of heart disease, prostate cancer, or erectile dysfunction – unless the representation is not misleading, and the POM respondents possess “competent and reliable scientific evidence . . . to substantiate that the representation is true.” The order also would bar the POM respondents from misrepresenting “the existence, contents, validity, results, conclusions, or interpretations of any test, study, or research.”
The FTC complaint alleged that the POM respondents’ heart disease claims were false and unsubstantiated because many of their scientific studies did not show benefits from using POM products for treating or preventing heart disease. It alleged that the prostate cancer claims were false and unsubstantiated because, among other reasons, the study the POM respondents relied on was neither “blinded” nor controlled. Finally, it alleged that the erectile dysfunction claims were false and unsubstantiated because the study on which the company relied did not show that POM Juice was any more effective than a placebo.
The order Judge Chappell issued with the initial decision would bar the POM respondents from making any representation about the “health benefits, performance, or efficacy” of POM products or any other food, drug, or dietary supplement—unless the representation is not misleading, and the POM respondents possess “competent and reliable scientific evidence . . . to substantiate that the representation is true.” It also would bar them from representing that any such product “is effective in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of any disease,” including treating, preventing, or reducing the risk of heart disease, prostate cancer, or erectile dysfunction – unless the representation is not misleading, and the POM respondents possess “competent and reliable scientific evidence . . . to substantiate that the representation is true.” The order also would bar the POM respondents from misrepresenting “the existence, contents, validity, results, conclusions, or interpretations of any test, study, or research.”
The FTC complaint alleged that the POM respondents’ heart disease claims were false and unsubstantiated because many of their scientific studies did not show benefits from using POM products for treating or preventing heart disease. It alleged that the prostate cancer claims were false and unsubstantiated because, among other reasons, the study the POM respondents relied on was neither “blinded” nor controlled. Finally, it alleged that the erectile dysfunction claims were false and unsubstantiated because the study on which the company relied did not show that POM Juice was any more effective than a placebo.
