FTC Reaches Settlement With Major Weight-Control Pill Marketers
Client Alert | 1 min read | 01.05.07
The FTC announced yesterday that it has reached a $25 Million settlement agreement with the marketers of weight-control pills Xenadrine EFX, CortiSlim and CortiStress, TrimSpa, and One-A-Day WeightSmart. The settlements were the result of complaints the agency filed against each party, alleging deceptive marketing in connection with unsubstantiated advertised claims regarding the efficacy of the products.
Advertisements for the pills claimed various benefits from their use, including rapid and substantial weight loss, increased metabolism, and a reduced risk of diseases such as diabetes and cancer. The advertisements ran in print and on television, and some of the products were also marketed on the Internet, on radio, and at live events. The FTC's complaints asserted that these ads were misleading, falsely represented the effects of the weight-control pills, and were not supported by adequate scientific evidence. In one case, the FTC found that the advertisements deceptively represented that persons lost weight solely from taking weight-control pills and failed to disclose that these consumer endorsers were paid for their testimonials. In addition results of a study commissioned by the advertiser flatly contradicted claims of “clinically proven” substantial weight loss. In another case, the FTC found that infomercials were deceptively formatted to appear as talk shows rather than advertisements.
Each marketer agreed to pay specified sums to the FTC: Xenadrine EFX agreed to pay between $8 million and $12.8 million; CortiSlim consented to surrender $12 million, including proceeds from the sale of a residence purchased with CortiSlim profits; TrimSpa agreed to a $1.5 million settlement; and the Bayer Corporation, which marketed for One-A-Day WeightSmart, will pay $3.2 million. The agreements additionally prohibit the marketers from making any additional claims regarding the benefits or effects of these or other products unless substantiated by competent and reliable scientific evidence.
The FTC's action should be seen in the broader context of the FTC's consumer protection mission, and is a reminder that claims made about the performance of products must be substantiated in advance by competent evidence.
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.12.26
DOJ Guidance Backs Away From Disparate Impact Liability
On June 9, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a formal opinion concluding that the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission’s (EEOC) existing interpretations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) disparate-impact liability, including the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP), are unconstitutional. According to the opinion, EEOC’s prior interpretations contemplate liability based on disproportionately adverse effects alone, without regard to an employer’s likely intent, rather than treating disparate impact as an evidentiary mechanism to “smoke out” intentional discrimination. DOJ found that this approach functions as a “qualified racial-proportionality mandate” that places “a racial thumb on the scales, often requiring employers to evaluate the racial outcomes of their policies, and to make decisions based on (because of) those racial outcomes.” The opinion fulfills one mandate of Executive Order 14281, which rejected disparate-impact liability insofar as it “creates a near insurmountable presumption that unlawful discrimination exists wherever there are any differences in outcomes among different [demographic groups].”
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
Auto Dealers: The FTC Is Back in the Driver’s Seat — Warning Letters Signal Renewed Federal Scrutiny
Client Alert | 13 min read | 06.12.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
