Skip to main content

Judge Upholds FTC Staff Complaint Against Marketers of Bogus Cancer Cures

An Administrative Law Judge has upheld Federal Trade Commission staff charges against a company and its officer for making deceptive claims that shark cartilage and herbal formulations prevent, treat, and cure cancer, and heal the effects of chemotherapy and radiation. After an administrative trial, the judge ordered the marketers to stop making false and unsubstantiated claims.

“[The] respondents did not possess or rely upon competent and reliable scientific evidence to substantiate their claims,” Chief Administrative Law Judge D. Michael Chappell wrote in his decision.

In September 2008, the FTC staff charged the company, Daniel Chapter One, and its officer James Feijo with deceptive advertising. Their operation was one of 11 challenged in Operation False Cures, a law enforcement sweep aimed at peddlers of phony cancer remedies.

In his decision, Judge Chappell ordered Daniel Chapter One and Feijo not to advertise that their supplements inhibit tumor formation or growth; eliminate tumors; treat or cure cancer; or heal the effects of radiation or chemotherapy unless the claim is true, non-misleading, and based on reliable scientific evidence. He also ordered them to notify customers who bought the products that the advertising claims made were false or unsubstantiated; and not to sell or otherwise disclose identifying information about the customers. In addition, the order prohibits health claims about any dietary supplement, food, drug, or other health-related product or service unless the claims are substantiated by competent and reliable scientific evidence.

The order also contains standard reporting and record-keeping provisions to allow the agency to monitor compliance.

The judge’s initial decision in this matter is subject to review by the full Commission on
its own motion or at the request of any party. The initial decision will become the final decision of the Commission 30 days after it is served on respondents, unless either they file a timely notice of appeal or the Commission places the case on its own docket for review.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

15 Gang Members Convicted on Conspiracy, Weapons Possession, Firearms Trafficking Charges Case Follows Recent Convictions of 137th Street Crew and East Harlem Narcotics Trafficking Organization

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., announced the results of the investigation and prosecution of one of Central Harlem’s most destructive criminal street gangs, referred to as “ONE TWENTY-NINE” or “GOODFELLAS/THE NEW DONS,” which terrorized the neighborhood surrounding West 129th Street between Lenox and Fifth Avenues. Thirteen members of the gang have previously pleaded guilty to importing, possessing, and using firearms over the course of the conspiracy.

The Myth, The Matrix, and The Malpractice: Unpacking the Sophia Stewart Saga

The internet loves a good underdog story, especially one where a lone creator battles Hollywood giants. Few tales have captivated online forums and social media quite like that of Sophia Stewart, the woman who famously sued the creators of The Matrix and The Terminator, claiming they stole her work, "The Third Eye." Her story is a complex tapestry woven with claims of stolen genius, judicial conflicts, and attorney negligence. Let's untangle the legal facts from the compelling narrative and examine the heart of her claims. The Core Allegation: "The Third Eye" and the Blockbusters Sophia Stewart alleged that her copyrighted manuscript, "The Third Eye," conceived in 1981 and finalized in 1983, was the blueprint for two of the most iconic sci-fi franchises: The Terminator (first film 1984) and The Matrix (first film 1999). From her perspective, the similarities were undeniable. Stewart’s supporters often point to broad, impactful themes and ev...

Charlie Kirk Was Right, and Charlie Kirk Was Wrong: The Enduring Legacy of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Charlie Kirk, a prominent conservative commentator, has argued that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was unnecessary, contending that the 14th Amendment should have been sufficient to guarantee equal rights. There's a compelling argument to be made for both sides of this statement. Let's break down where Kirk was right and, more importantly, where historical context reveals he was profoundly wrong. Where Charlie Kirk Was "Right" (In Theory) Kirk's theoretical point hinges on the idea that fundamental constitutional principles, if interpreted and enforced correctly, should have negated the need for additional legislation. And, in a perfect world, he would be correct. The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, explicitly states that "no State shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The intent was to ensure all citizens, particularly newly freed African Americans, were treated equally under the law. If this ...