Trade Groups, Emord Rip FTC Interpretation Of POM Wonderful Ads
This article was originally published in The Tan Sheet
Executive Summary
An amici curiae brief filed in the POM Wonderful case by CHPA and CRN criticizes FTC for relying “on its own ‘expertise’ to determine the meaning of ambiguous advertisements.” A separate brief by attorney Jonathan Emord says FTC is creating unreasonable barriers for food product research.
You may also be interested in...
Court Upholds FTC Order Against POM, But Scrutinizes Clinical Trial Requirement
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on Jan. 30 issued a ruling largely upholding the FTC’s 2012 order against POM, but said the agency’s argument fails “scrutiny insofar as it categorically requires two RCTs for all disease-related claims.”
Court Upholds FTC Order Against POM, But Scrutinizes Clinical Trial Requirement
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on Jan. 30 issued a ruling largely upholding the FTC’s 2012 order against POM, but said the agency’s argument fails “scrutiny insofar as it categorically requires two RCTs for all disease-related claims.”
RCT Spells Requirement For Lipidryl, Shrinking Beauty Weight Loss Claims
Although FTC orders for RCTs to substantiate claims are criticized by some industry stakeholders, the agency routinely includes the burden of clinical trials in settlements with firms found to conduct false and misleading advertising for consumer health products, particularly in the weight loss area.