Author Topic: Supplement company pays $23 million for deceptive marketing  (Read 1236 times)

ScottWelch

  • Getbig II
  • **
  • Posts: 230
Supplement company pays $23 million for deceptive marketing
« on: March 04, 2008, 04:15:50 PM »
Airborne Health will fork out $23m in a settlement agreement, after the firm was accused of making false immunity claims about its popular multivitamin and herbal supplement.

The product, named Airborne, claimed it could "boost your immune system to help your body combat germs" and consumers were instructed to "take it at the first sign of a cold symptom or before entering crowded, potentially germ-infested environments."

However, an investigation into the supplement found that it was deceptively marketed, and the company was slapped with a class action suit.  The $23.3m settlement agreement includes money to be refunded to consumers who bought the product.  The company is also expected to pay for ads in magazines and newspapers instructing consumers how to get refunds, including Better Homes & Gardens, Parade, People, and Newsweek.

Airborne launched

Airborne, which had received a marketing boost from the fact that it was developed by a school teacher, Vitoria Knight McDowell, was said to have become an overnight success after McDowell appeared on the Oprah Winfrey Show. 

The efficacy of the product, which contains vitamins A, C and E, was supported by a clinical trial, according to Airborne Health.

However, in February 2006, ABC News revealed on Good Morning America that the clinical trial was conducted without any doctors or scientists, just a "two-man operation started up just to do the Airborne study."

Secret formula?

As well as vitamins A, C, and E, Airborne contains nutrients, the amino acids glutamine and lysine, and a "herbal extract proprietary blend."

But according to the consumer advocacy group Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), which reviewed Airborne's claims, the product may actually provide too much vitamin A, with just two pills providing 10,000 IU - the maximum safe level for a day - with consumers advised to take three per day.

CSPI joined as co-counsel in the suit, which was presented by California law firms. US District Court Judge Virginia A. Phillips of the Central District of California gave preliminary approval to the settlement on November 29.

Deception

According to CSPI senior nutritionist David Schardt, who reviewed Airborne's claims, "there's no credible evidence that what's in Airborne can prevent colds or protect you from a germy environment.  Airborne is basically an overpriced, run-of-the-mill vitamin pill that's been cleverly, but deceptively, marketed."

According to CSPI, soon after the plaintiff notified Airborne of his intent to file suit in March 2006, the company stopped mentioning the questionable study and began toning down the overt cold-curing claims in favor of vague 'immunity boosting' language.

In 2007, the Federal Trade Commission and a group of state attorneys general began investigating the various 'cold busting' claims that Airborne has made since its launch in 1999, said CSPI.


mcb650

  • Getbig II
  • **
  • Posts: 49
Re: Supplement company pays $23 million for deceptive marketing
« Reply #1 on: March 04, 2008, 07:16:17 PM »
I know a few people in school who swear by the stuff. I actually tried it early last month when I started to feel a cold coming on, and I still got sick.

Princess L

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 13095
  • I stop for turtles
Re: Supplement company pays $23 million for deceptive marketing
« Reply #2 on: March 04, 2008, 07:40:21 PM »
I still swear by the stuff.  Works for me everytime!
:

candidizzle

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 9046
  • Trueprotein.com 5% discount code= TRB953
Re: Supplement company pays $23 million for deceptive marketing
« Reply #3 on: March 04, 2008, 08:19:13 PM »
thats complete bullshit. airborne is a kick ass supplement.

they allow lawsuyiuts against airborne, yet the fda approves bullshit like alli...!! ::) ::)

Balance

  • Getbig I
  • *
  • Posts: 5
Re: Supplement company pays $23 million for deceptive marketing
« Reply #4 on: March 05, 2008, 08:34:13 AM »
Here's my way of seeing it...

It obviously is a advertisement hoax, which is fairly common today in our consumist society.
The fact that people do believe it cures or prevents them from getting a cold, lies in our minds.
It has been proven our mind and our will can accomplish much more than what
we believe it to, so when you are in a positive state of beleif you can encourage your body
to recover or fight off illness.I for one after eating healthier, excercising and hidrating myself often
have noticed less cold cases, but also when I do start getting symptoms I start by mentalizing
myself that it will not affect me and is just a change in the weather or anything I can cling to, that
isn't actually thinking that I already have a cold and are doomed for....

loco

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19094
  • loco like a fox
Re: Supplement company pays $23 million for deceptive marketing
« Reply #5 on: April 02, 2008, 12:16:37 PM »
Quote
A new study by a team of researchers from MIT performed a double placebo study measuring the subjective rating of pain. That's right, the study was done using just placebos, but the catch was one placebo was described through slick brochures as costing $2.50 per dose. The other placebo was described in a brochure as being marked from $2.50 per dose to 10 cents per dose. The results showed that 85% of the subjects taking what they thought was the full priced drug experienced a reduction in pain. Only 61% taking the low priced placebo reported less pain.

Dan Ariely, a behavioral economist from Duke University said, "The placebo effect is one of the most fascinating, least harnessed forces in the universe." The researchers concluded that the prescribing doctor's enthusiasm displayed to their patients and more dramatic drug packaging could greatly advanced generic drug effectiveness and in-turn save patients money - simply by providing greater perceived benefit.

What I found even more interesting is just how effective both placebos were at reducing perceived pain. These were two inert, worthless placebos with no therapeutic effect whatsoever yet they yielded 61% to 85% effectiveness. Are you beginning to see how supplement companies can sell completely ineffective supplements and have you think they were better than steroids?

Source: Journal of the American Medical Association