I'd love to see more regulation of supplements advertised for treatment of medical conditions (whether it's weight loss or impotence)....
I think it's ridiculous that a product maker can include a disclaimer in fine print that reads, "This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease or medical condition" when it's clearly being advertised to do exactly that. In essence that disclaimer gives manufacturer's the legal right to lie?
The disclaimer should really read (if truth mattered), "This product is not intended to treat what we say it does. It doesn't work, so don't buy it."
If the supplement is advertised to have a specific effect, it should have that effect. The maker should not be able to claim (in fine print or otherwise) that it's not intended to do, exactly what it's advertised to do.
Celebrity endorsements carry more weight than they should. "It must be true, if So-and-So says it." I've heard that out of the mouths (or keyboards) of well-educated people who should know better.
And while people SHOULD know better, I don't think that should give anyone (celebrity or not) the right to make claims that they can't back up.
Don't make promises you can't keep. It's the most basic premise behind the crime of "fraud." Was it reasonable for the purchaser to expect what was promised? And what exactly was promised? Did the seller deliver what was promised?
Those will be the cornerstones of the case. If Jillian made promises she couldn't deliver then I think she should lose the case (even if the promises were so ridiculous that a reasonable person would recognize them as improbable if not actually untrue). If she implied promises that couldn't be delivered, that is another story.
It's not illegal (unfortunately perhaps) to imply untrue things about a product. If it were most personal hygeine products would be in legal trouble (I'm pretty sure Axe body spray does not compel beautiful women to sexually assault young, nerdy boys).
Last edited by kaplods : 04-20-2010 at 02:15 AM.