Never mind. Bad idea.
Minor nitpick, the former owners of Enzyte got into legal trouble because of fraudulent billing, not because of false claims. Enzyte is pretty much free to make euphemisms for their product making your dick bigger, since having a small dick is not a medical condition. Or something.
Not to be an ass – but is there a cite? I thought they also got in trouble for the Smilin’ Bob added three inches claims, which were medically insubstantiable . . . I agree the billing fraud is the easier claim, you’re dead on there . . .
Here is a summary of the original complaint, filed by Hagens Berman on behalf of Enzyte consumers.
Here is the complaint in full. PDF File
Here is the result:
A business owner behind the “Smiling Bob” ads that tout the sexual enhancement product Enzyte was sentenced Wednesday to 25 years in prison for defrauding customers. Steve Warshak, 42, founder of Berkeley Premium Nutraceuticals, also was ordered to pay $93,000 in fines. He was convicted in February on 93 counts of conspiracy, fraud and money laundering. Federal prosecutors accused the company, which sells a variety of herbal supplements, of bilking customers out of more than $400 million with deceptive ads, manipulated credit card transactions and refusal to accept returns or cancel orders. In Cincinnati, U.S. District Judge S. Arthur Spiegel ordered Warshak, his mother, the company and another defendant to forfeit more than $500 million, including whatever was available from bank accounts, cars and homes, a grand piano and a membership in a California spa.
The ads are still running – I saw new Enzyte ads last night.
Yes. As noted, they have carefully calibrated them to disclaim (but still imply) “enlargement.” Their official story now, albeit shrouded behind lots of enlargement-implying innuendo, is that the “supplement” just helps increase blood flow to lead to more fully-erect erections, which would be “larger” than a semi-erection. As I am sure they have no peer-evaluated proof for that, either, I hope they get sued/prosecuted again. N.B. that the FDA safe harbor (“this product is not intended to diagnose, cure, or treat any disease”) is a fairly broad one, though, and they may be relying on that disclaimer.
Most of the ads you complain about are sold by brokers who distribute them to websites like ours on a bulk basis. We have no contact with the advertiser, and do not have the ability to pick and choose ads. You can beef to the broker about a particular ad, but the likelihood of this having much impact is small.
Our policy on poker sites is that we accept ads from gateway sites, which offer links to gaming sites but do not offer for-pay gaming themselves. We don’t accept (and have turned down) ads from gaming sites. We are, I concede, taking a letter-of-the-law approach here: online for-pay gaming is illegal in the U.S.; promoting online for-pay gaming is not.
Right. Since it’s a corporation, it is considered in the US to be a rights-bearing entity like any other — meaning, it is treated like a person. Even though the top officers paid huge fines and went to prison, the corporation carried on. The court ruling did not dissolve the corporation. The board would have elected new officers and hired a new president. And life goes on.