The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has taken a decisive stance against dietary supplement marketers who make unverified claims about their products. In two separate cases, marketers of “Focus Factor” and “V-Factor” have agreed to settle FTC charges for unsubstantiated advertising claims. These cases reflect the FTC’s ongoing commitment to consumer protection and its mission to maintain fair business practices.

In one complaint, Vital Basics, Inc. (VBI) of Portland, Maine, along with its principals, Robert Graham and Michael Shane, faced allegations of lacking adequate substantiation for their advertising claims regarding “Focus Factor.” This dietary supplement, which contains vitamins, minerals, botanicals, and amino acids, was marketed as a product that could enhance concentration, improve memory, mood, and concentration, and alleviate stress, fatigue, irritability, and mood swings in adults.

The FTC challenged these claims as unsubstantiated, emphasizing the need for scientific evidence to support such assertions. Additionally, VBI respondents were accused of failing to disclose material connections with product endorsers and misrepresenting certain advertising as independent radio programs.

As part of the settlement, the VBI respondents agreed to a consent order that prohibits them from making unverified claims about the safety, performance, benefits, or efficacy of any food, drug, or dietary supplement related to mental functions, sexual response, or the treatment of disorders. They must also clearly disclose any material connections with endorsers and pay $1 million in consumer redress.

The second case involved allegations against Vital Basics, Inc. (VBI) for marketing “V-Factor,” a dietary supplement aimed at enhancing male sexual performance. The FTC claimed that VBI made unsubstantiated claims about the safety of V-Factor for virtually all men and misrepresented the findings of a clinical study regarding the product’s effectiveness.

As part of the proposed consent agreement, the VBI respondents are required to have competent and reliable scientific evidence to support safety claims for V-Factor and any product containing yohimbine. They must also pay $1 million in consumer redress.

Both cases highlight the importance of transparency in advertising and the necessity for marketers to provide credible evidence for their product claims. The FTC’s actions serve as a reminder that unsubstantiated assertions can mislead consumers and potentially harm public health.

The proposed consent agreements are open for public comment for a period of 30 days, during which individuals and organizations can provide input. After this period, the FTC will review the comments and decide whether to finalize the proposed orders. These cases underscore the FTC’s commitment to enforcing laws that protect consumers and ensure fair competition in the marketplace.

In conclusion, the FTC’s actions against marketers of “Focus Factor” and “V-Factor” emphasize the need for evidence-based claims in the dietary supplement industry. These cases reinforce the FTC’s role in safeguarding consumers and promoting honesty and integrity in advertising. Public engagement is encouraged to ensure that consumers’ interests are upheld and that deceptive marketing practices are curtailed.