[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 97 (Thursday, May 20, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27545-27547]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-12659]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
[File No. 9823633]
Fitness Quest, Inc., et al; Analysis To Aid Public Comment
AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.
ACTION: Proposed consent agreement.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 27546]]
SUMMARY: The consent agreement in this matter settles alleged
violations of federal law prohibiting unfair or deceptive acts or
practices or unfair methods of competition. The attached Analysis to
Aid Public Comment describes both the allegations in the draft
complaint that accompanies the consent agreement and the terms of the
consent order--embodied in the consent agreement--that would settle
these allegations.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 19, 1999.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be directed to: FTC/Office of the Secretary,
Room 159, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Robert Frisby & Robin Spector, FTC/S-4302, 601 Pennsylvania Avenue,
N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580, (202) 326-2098 or (202) 326-3740.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to Section 6(f) of the Federal
Trade Commission Act, 38 Stat. 721, 15 U.S.C. 46, and Section 2.34 of
the Commission's Rules of Practice, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is hereby given
that the above-captioned consent agreement containing a consent order
to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to
final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record
for a period of sixty (60) days. The following Analysis to Aid Public
Comment describes the terms of the consent agreement, and the
allegations in the complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of
the consent agreement package can be obtained from the FTC Home Page
(for May 12th, 1999), on the World Wide Web, at ``http://www.ftc.gov/
os/actions97.htm.'' A paper copy can be obtained from the FTC Public
Reference Room, Room H-130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington,
D.C. 20580, either in person or by calling (202) 326-3627.
Public comment is invited. Comments should be directed to: FTC/
Office of the Secretary, Room 159, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20580. Two paper copies of each comment should be
filed, and should be accomplished, if possible, by a 3\1/2\ inch
diskette containing an electronic copy of the comment. Such comments or
views will be considered by the Commission and will be available for
inspection and copying at its principal office in accordance with
Section 4.9(b)(6)(ii) of the Commission's Rules of Practice (16 CFR
4.9(b)(6)(ii).
Analysis of Proposed Consent Order To Aid Public Comment
The Federal Trade Commission has accepted, subject to final
approval, an agreement to a proposed consent order from Fitness Quest,
Inc. and Robert R. Schnabel, Jr. The agreement would settle a proposed
complaint by the Federal Trade Commission that Fitness Quest and Robert
R. Schnabel, Jr. engaged in unfair or deceptive acts or practices in
violation of Section 5(a) of the Federal Trade Commission Act.
The proposed consent order has been placed on the public record for
sixty (60) days for reception of comments by interested persons.
Comments received during this period will become part of the public
record. After sixty (60) days, the Commission will again review the
agreement and the comments received and will decide whether it should
withdraw from the agreement or make final the agreement's proposed
order.
This matter concerns advertising practices related to the sale of
exercise equipment and weight-loss products, including the ``Airofit,''
``SkyTrek'' and ``Gazelle Glider,'' exercise gliders, and the ``Ab
Isolator'' and ``Abs Only Machine'' abdominal exercise devices. The
proposed complaint charges that, through the use of statements
contained in its advertisements and promotional materials, the
respondents made the following unsubstantiated representations for
their exercise gliders: (A) Under conditions of ordinary use, the
Airofit (1) burns calories at a rate of up to 1,000 per hour; (2) burns
three times more calories than burned while walking; (3) burns nearly
twice the calories burned while cross-country skiing or exercising on a
treadmill; (4) burns significantly more calories than are burned while
swimming, bicycling or doing step aerobics; and (5) causes significant
weight loss; (B) Testimonials from consumers appearing in
advertisements for the Airofit reflect the typical or ordinary
experience of members of the public who use the product; (C) Under
conditions of ordinary use the SkyTrek (1) burns calories at a rate of
up to 1,000 per hour; (2) burns three times more calories than burned
while walking at 3 m.p.h.; and (3) burns nearly two times the calories
burned while cross country skiing at 5 m.p.h.; and (D) Under conditions
of ordinary use the Gazelle Glider (1) burns calories at a rate of up
to 1,000 per hour; (2) burns three times more calories than burned
while walking at 3 m.p.h.; (3) burns nearly twice the calories burned
while cross country skiing at 5 m.p.h.; and (4) burns more calories
than burned while running at 5.5 m.p.h.
The proposed complaint also charges that the respondents made the
following unsubstantiated representations for their abdominal exercise
devices: (A) The Ab Isolator is twice as effective as regular sit-ups;
(B) The Ab Isolator is more effective than other abdominal exercise
devices; (C) Use of the Ab Isolator three minutes a day results in a
significantly reduced waistline in thirty days; (D) Use of the Ab
Isolator results in a significant reduction in clothing size and
waistline; (E) Testimonials from consumers appearing in advertisements
for the Ab Isolator reflect the typical or ordinary experience of
members of the public who use the product; and (F) The Abs Only Machine
is twice as effective as regular sit-ups.
The proposed consent order contains provisions designed to prevent
the respondents from engaging in similar acts and practices in the
future. Part I of the proposed order prohibits the respondents from
making any representation about the benefits, performance or efficacy
of any exercise equipment or weight-loss product unless, at the time
they make the representation, they possess and rely upon competent and
reliable evidence, which when appropriate must be scientific evidence,
that substantiates the representation. Part I also provides that
nothing in the order shall prohibit the respondents from making a
truthful statement that merely describes the existence, design,
instructions for use, or content of any such product.
Part II of the proposed order prohibits the respondents from
representing that the experience represented by any user testimonial or
endorsement of any exercise equipment or weight-loss product represents
the typical or ordinary experience of members of the public who use the
product unless either: (A) at the time it is made, the respondents
possess and rely upon competent and reliable evidence that
substantiates the representation; or (B) the respondents disclose,
clearly and prominently, and in close proximity to the endorsement or
testimonial, either (1) what the generally expected results would be
for users of the product; or (2) the limited applicability of the
endorser's experience to what consumers may generally expect to
achieve. Part II lists six statements that would satisfy the disclosure
requirement:
(a) ``You should not expect to experience these results.''
(b) ``This result is not typical. You may not do as well.''
[[Page 27547]]
(c) ``This result is not typical. You may be less successful.''
(d) ``______'s success is not typical. You may not do as well.''
(e) ``______'s experience is not typical. You may achieve less.''
(f) ``Results not typical.''
The proposed order also contains standard provisions regarding
record-keeping, notification of changes in the respondents' status, the
filing of a compliance report, and termination of the order. In
addition, the proposed order contains a provision requiring
distribution of the order that sunsets after three years.
The purpose of this analysis is to facilitate public comment on the
proposed order, and it is not intended to constitute an official
interpretation of the agreement and the proposed order or to modify
their terms in any way.
By direction of the Commission.
Donald S. Clark,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 99-12659 Filed 5-19-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6750-01-M