Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, CONSUMER PROTECTION NEWS: Fuel additive marketers settle FTC misrepresentation claims, (Nov 22, 2013)

By Tobias J. Gillett, J.D., LL.M.

Marketers of a fuel additive claimed to increase fuel efficiency, reduce emissions, and save consumers money have settled the FTC’s claims that their representations about the additive were false, misleading, and unsubstantiated (FTC v. Green Foot Global, LLC, FTC File No. 122 3103, Case No. 2:13-cv-02064).

According to the FTC’s complaint, Green Foot Global, LLC (GFG), doing business as Green Foot Global, Greenfoot Global, GFG, GFG Commercial, GFG Industrial, GreenFootGlobal.com, GFG Fuel Tech LLC, and GWO Network, sold the additive, called EnviroTabs, through its website and through multilevel marketing. GFG allegedly described EnviroTabs as the “World’s 1st Multi-Vitamin for Your Engine!,” and claimed the additive was scientifically proven to significantly increase fuel economy, greatly reduce emissions, increase engine life and performance, and save consumers money.

The complaint asserted claims that the defendants violated Section 5 of the FTC Act by misrepresenting that EnviroTabs would “increase fuel efficiency, reduce emissions, and save consumers money on fuel,” and by misrepresenting “that scientific testing proves that EnviroTabs increases fuel mileage and reduces emissions.”

The U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada entered a stipulated order against defendants GFG and its co-founders and co-CEOs William C. Hyman and Mary Ann P. Hyman on November 19, and a stipulated order against GFG’s former co-CEO Ralph M. Flynn, Jr., former Director of Customer & Distributor Services Martinez Van Turner, and Patrick Hintze on November 18.

The orders prohibit the defendants from misrepresenting any material facts about a product or service, including that such product or service “is a fuel-saving product or device”; “increases the fuel economy or fuel efficiency of any motor vehicle”; “decreases the rate of fuel consumption of any motor vehicle”; “reduces emissions”; “causes any vehicle to pass an emissions inspection”; “saves consumers money on fuel”; “saves consumers money on vehicle maintenance or repairs”; “is generally environmentally-friendly, including that it is ‘green’ or ‘eco-friendly’”; “has or provides any environmental benefit”; “removes carbon deposits from an engine”; or “increases or extends oil or engine life,” and requires them to possess competent and reliable scientific evidence to substantiate any such representation. The defendants are also barred from misrepresenting “the existence, contents, validity, results, conclusions, or interpretations of any test, study, or research.”

The orders also impose an $800,000 monetary judgment on the defendants, currently held in escrow. The defendants are also prohibited from benefiting from any customer information obtained through the operation, and are required to destroy any such information within 30 days of written direction to do so.

Companies: Green Foot Global, LLC

News: ConsumerProtection FederalTradeCommissionNews