[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 65 (Tuesday, April 4, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17660-17661]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-8245]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Docket No. 9291]


Motor Up Corporation, Inc., et al.; Analysis To Aid Public 
Comment

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.

ACTION: Proposed Consent Agreement.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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 complaint that 
the Commission issued in April 1999 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 April 28, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be directed to: FTC/Office of the Secretary, 
Room 159, 600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20580.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elaine Kolish or Heather Hippsley, 
FTC/S-4302, 600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20580. (202) 326-
3042 or 326-3285.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to Section 6(f) of the Federal 
Trade Commission Act, 38 Stat. 721, 15 U.S.C. 46 and Section 3.25(f) of 
the Commission's Rules of Practice, 16 CFR 3.25(f), 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 thirty (30) 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 March 29, 2000), on the World Wide Web, at ``http://www.ftc.gov/
ftc/formal.htm.'' A paper copy can be obtained from the FTC Public 
Reference Room, Room H-130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 
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 Ave., NW, 
Washington, DC 20580. Two paper copies of each comment should be filed, 
and should be accompanied, 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 Motor Up 
Corporation, Inc., Motor Up America, Inc., and Kyle Burns, the 
principal who controls these corporations (referred to collectively as 
``Motor Up''). The agreement would settle a complaint by the Federal 
Trade Commission that Motor Up 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 
thirty (30) days for reception of comments by interested persons. 
Comments received during this period will become part of the public 
record. After thirty (30) 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.

[[Page 17661]]

    This matter concerns representations made about Motor Up No Oil 
Change Engine Treatment Concentrate, an engine oil additive, in 
advertising. The administrative complaint alleged that Motor Up 
violated the FTC Act by disseminating ads that made unsubstantiated 
performance claims about the oil additive. The Complaint alleged that 
the respondents represented that, compared to motor oil alone, Motor 
Up: (1) Reduces engine wear; (2) reduces engine wear by up to 50 
percent; (3) reduces adhesive engine wear by up to 90.17 percent; (4) 
reduces engine wear during cold starts; (5) provides more protection 
against engine wear in cold temperatures; (6) extends the duration of 
engine life; and (7) helps prevent engine breakdowns. The Complaint 
also alleged that respondents represented that Motor Up: (1) Prevents 
corrosion in engines; (2) will not drain out from the engine even when 
the oil is changed; (3) protects engines for up to 50,000 miles; and 
(4) protects against engine wear even without motor oil. The Complaint 
alleged that respondents represented that they had a reasonable basis 
for making these claims, but in fact did not possess competent evidence 
supporting the claims. The Complaint alleged that respondents claimed 
that tests prove that, compared to motor oil alone, Motor Up reduces 
engine wear by up to 50 percent without possessing tests that prove the 
claim. The Complaint also alleged that respondents represented that 
product demonstrations in their advertising proved, demonstrated, or 
confirmed that Motor UP prevents corrosion in engines and that, 
compared to motor oil alone, Motor Up helps prevent breakdowns and 
reduces engine wear, when in fact the demonstrations do not prove, 
demonstrate, or confirm these product attributes.
    The proposed consent order contains provisions designed to prevent 
Motor UP from engaging in similar acts and practices in the future. 
Part I of the proposed consent order prohibits Motor Up from making any 
claims about any engine treatment, fuel treatment, motor oil, grease, 
transmission fluid, or brake fluid, and any additive intended for use 
with or as a substitute for these products, unless Motor Up can support 
the claims with competent and reliable evidence. Part I specifies 
certain specific claims and states that these and all other claims must 
be supported by evidence. It also states that the evidence required to 
support claims may be competent and reliable scientific evidence.
    Parts II prohibits Motor Up from misrepresenting in advertising the 
existence, contents, validity, results, conclusions, or interpretations 
of any test or study dealing with the Motor Up engine oil additive or 
any other motor vehicle product.
    Part III prohibits Motor Up from using false demonstrations. It 
prohibits Motor Up from representing that any demonstration, picture, 
experiment, illustration or test of the Motor Up engine oil additive or 
any other motor vehicle product proves, demonstrates or confirms the 
product's attributes unless the demonstration, picture, experiment, 
illustration or tests does in fact prove, demonstrate, or confirm the 
attributes. This provision applies to all demonstrations of product 
attributes, including comparisons with other products.
    The proposed order also contains provisions regarding distribution 
of the order, recordkeeping, notification of changes in corporate 
status, termination of the order, and the filing of a compliance 
report.
    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. 00-8245 Filed 4-3-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6750-01-M