Misleading Advertisements 1 Table of Contents 1. Introduction and Background ........................................................................................... 2-3 2. Red Flag Weight Loss Claims .............................................................................................

4-5 3. A Specific Example: Abdominal Belts and Devices ............................................................ 5-6 4. The Misleading Claims Continue ........................................................................................ 6-8 5. Affected Stakeholders ........................................................................................................... 9 6. The Call for the Question ....................................................................................................... 9 7. What the Opposition Might Say ........................................................................................ 9-10 8. Argument With Corroborative Ethical Frameworks ........................................................ 10-15  Mill s Utilitarianism  Ross Duty of Beneficence  Ross Duty of Fidelity  Ross Duty of Nonmaleficence  Kant s Categorical Imperative  Garrett s Principle of Proportionality 9. Implications ..................................................................................................................... 15-16 10. Final Discussion ..................................................................................................................... 16 11. References ............................................................................................................................ 17 12. Literature Review ............................................................................................................ 18-19

Misleading Advertisements 2 Misleading Advertisements for Weight Loss Devices Introduction and Background Over the past decade, there has been a drastic increase in the amount of misleading advertisements for weight loss products. It has been found that an estimated 61 percent of U.S. adults are overweight or obese, constituting the second leading cause of preventable death, after smoking, resulting in an estimated 300,000 deaths per year(Cleland, Gross, Koss, Daynard, and Muoio, 2002, 1). With this in mind, it is clear that many are looking for quick solutions to their weight loss issues. This search for easy weight loss solutions has increased the amount of misleading advertising for weight loss products that promise instantaneous success without the need to reduce calorie intake or increase physical activity (1). These weight loss advertisements, for various weight loss devices, share a common theme. They create a virtual fantasy land where, in spite of prevailing scientific opinion, no sacrifice is required to lose weight and quick results are the promised norm (5). Therefore, these advertisements are making false claims to a vulnerable segment of people, the overweight and obese, who are desperately searching for a miracle product that can solve their problems. All of these products deceptively claim to be safe , risk free , and backed by clinical studies to prove the supposed effectiveness, while offering a money back guarantee to convince consumers to buy these quick weight loss solutions (6). Obviously, these claims are only offered to fool consumers into thinking that they are purchasing a miracle product that is sure to change their lives for the better.

Misleading Advertisements 3 Weight loss advertisements all tend to use the same techniques to fool consumers. These techniques include testimonials from other customers who have had success with the product, fast and guaranteed results, deceiving before and after photos, assurance that diet and exercise are not important, and excessive weight loss warnings to trick consumers into thinking that the product is so effective they may have to limit their usage (7). Figure 1 shows the frequency of these advertising techniques and claims, based on a study of 300 advertisements, conducted by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). This figure clearly demonstrates that these deceptive claims should not go unnoticed, and action must be taken in order to stop them. Figure 1: Frequency of Advertising Techniques and Claims

Excessive weight loss warning Medical approval No more failure Clinically proven Long term results No diet or exercise No side effects Before and after photos All natural Guaranteed results Fast results Testimonials 0

7 22 25 34 40 41 42 42 42 44 52 57 65 50 100 150 75 103 119 124 125 127 127 131 157 170 195 200 250 Number Percentage

Misleading Advertisements 4 Red Flag Weight Loss Claims In 2002, the FTC announced its Red Flag initiative to encourage the media and consumers to reject misleading weight loss advertisements that make these false claims aimed at consumers. The FTC advises that a claim is too good to be true, if it says the product will: Cause weight loss of two pounds or more a week for a month or more without dieting or exercise. Cause substantial weight loss no matter what or how much the consumer eats. Cause permanent weight loss (even when the consumer stops using the product) . . . Safely enable consumers to lose more than three pounds per week for more than four weeks. Cause substantial weight loss for all users, or cause substantial weight loss by wearing it on the body or rubbing it into the skin (Federal Trade Commission, 2003, p. 4). These guidelines can be used as a basis for spotting false weight loss advertisements and the FTC advises that the advertisements should be red flagged, or reported, to prevent even more consumers from being tricked by the unrealistic claims. These guidelines are based on facts that prove the unrealistic claims to be false. Meaningful weight loss requires consuming fewer calories and increasing exercise, so a claim is false if it indicates that consumers can accomplish weight loss without changing their lifestyles (6). A change in lifestyle is also needed for weight loss to be permanent. Obviously, it is not possible to consume as many calories as desired and still lose weight either (8). Furthermore, the FTC clarifies that losing more than 3 pounds per week is not healthy, so consumers should be careful of advertisements that make these claims (13). In summary, these claims are blatantly false and the FTC created the Red Flag initiative to make consumers aware of why they are false. The Red Flag initiative is meant to reduce the amount of false advertisements and to provide consumers

Misleading Advertisements 5 with necessary information that will prevent them from wasting their money on these deceitful products. A Specific Example: Abdominal Belts and Devices Electronic abdominal exercise belts falsely claim that consumers can get rock hard abs without putting any effort into it. In 2002, the FTC charged the makers of three of these belts, the Ab Energizer, AbTronic, and Fast Abs, with false advertising for claiming to use electronic muscle stimulation to give users six pack or washboard abs without exercise or effort, claiming fat and inch loss, and claiming to be equivalent to conventional abdominal exercises (Longley, 2002). Figure 2 provides examples of false advertisements for these devices. Figure 2: Examples of False Advertisements

Misleading Advertisements 6 As previously stated, the only way to get physically fit and lose weight is to make lifestyle changes, so these abdominal belts are targeting obese and overweight consumers by giving them false hope and making empty promises. A Ball State University fitness expert explains, The marketers say they work, but the equipment can t produce a cut midsection like you see on the models in the commercials (Dobbs, 2002). Furthermore, according to exercise physiologist Fabio Comana, the abdominal belts can help consumers to tone muscles, but that alone won t make much difference in appearance considering that most people s abdominal muscles are hidden by fat (Johannes, 2009). Therefore, this is a prime example of the false claims explained in the FTC s Red Flag initiative that consumers need to be aware of. The Misleading Claims Continue However, despite the fact that the Ab Energizer, AbTronic, and Fast Abs were charged with false advertising, the trend continues as more weight loss devices emerge making the very same claims. An example of the continuance of false advertising of abdominal belts and devices can be seen in The Flex Belt and the Ab Circle Pro. The Flex Belt misleadingly claims that consumers can get strong, firm, toned abs in just weeks and that the device is the only abdominal toning system cleared by the FDA (theflexbelt.com, 2009). The claims go as far as saying that abdominals can be trained using this device even if consumers are too busy or too tired for a traditional workout (theflexbelt.com, 2009). A money back guarantee is also provided, as well as before and after photos and testimonials to encourage consumers to purchase the device. In other words, The Flex Belt uses many of the techniques previously shown in Figure 1 to deceive consumers and get their

Misleading Advertisements 7 money. Figure 3 provides examples of the images used by The Flex Belt to trick consumers who are seeking an easy weight loss solution. It is easy to see the extreme similarities between these advertisements and those made by companies such as the Ab Energizer, AbTronic and Fast Abs that have already been charged with false advertising. All of these advertisements show models who are obviously physically fit and exercise to achieve these results, yet they claim that exercise is unnecessary. Figure 3: The Flex Belt Advertisements

Similarly, the Ab Circle Pro claims to be a fast, easy way for consumers to get the flat washboard abs and the sexy V shape that they ve always wanted (abcirclepro.com, 2009). Clearly, this is the same claim that allowed the Ab Energizer, AbTronic, and Fast Ab devices to be charged with false advertising by the FTC in 2002. The Ab Circle Pro informs consumers that three minutes on the device is equivalent to more than 100 traditional sit-ups, and guarantees to help consumers lose 10 pounds in just 2 weeks (abcirclepro.com, 2009). It is easy to find severe similarity between the claims made by the Ab Circle Pro and those made by companies already charged with false advertising, as well as the FTC s red flags of deceiving claims to be

Misleading Advertisements 8 aware of. Figure 4 shows an example of the type of body that consumers can supposedly expect to have after using the Ab Circle Pro. Figure 4: Ab Circle Pro Advertisements

Clearly, advertisements that falsely claim to provide consumers with extreme results that cannot actually be obtained can be classified as questionable ethical practice. It is obvious that the rising obesity epidemic in the United Sates has caused an increase in these false advertisements for weight loss products that cannot deliver the promised results to consumers, especially obese consumers. Even though the FTC has clearly identified some of the techniques used in these advertisements to prevent consumers from being fooled by them, they continue to occur. These companies are taking advantage of overweight and obese consumers in the United States.

Misleading Advertisements 9 Affected Stakeholders The Primary stakeholders in this questionable ethical situation are companies, such as The Flex Belt and the Ab Circle Pro, who are producing and promoting these misleading weight loss advertising claims. The secondary stakeholders in this situation are the consumers who are being deceived by these advertisements. Consumers are considered secondary stakeholders in this case because they are the ones who are being targeted by the companies making false claims for easy weight loss solutions. Many consumers are unaware that they are purchasing products that will not deliver the results that have been promised. The indirect stakeholder in this situation is the Federal Trade Commission. The Call for the Question Obviously, an ethical question arises from this situation. Is it ethical to run advertisements for weight loss devices that exaggerate or falsely claim results in order to get consumers to purchase them? The answer to this question is no, it is not ethical to run advertisements for weight loss devices that exaggerate or falsely claim results in order to get consumers to purchase them. What the Opposition Might Say It should be noted that companies selling these weight loss devices, such as The Flex Belt and the Ab Circle Pro, will try to defend these misleading advertising practices. Under the ethics continuum, industry practices refers to the actions that professionals perform industry

Misleading Advertisements 10 wide. In other words, these companies would justify misleading weight loss advertisements by claiming that it is common practice in this market. Yet, staff of the FTC noted: If the entire field of weight loss advertising is subject to wide-spread deception, then advertising loses its important role in the efficient allocation of resources in a free-market economy. If the purveyors of the fast and easy fixes drive the marketplace then others may feel compelled to follow suit or risk losing market share to the hucksters who promise the impossible . . . deceptive promotion of quick and easy weight-loss solutions potentially fuels unrealistic expectations on the part of consumers (Cleland et al., 2002, p. 2). Therefore, industry practices do not justify running advertisements for weight loss devices that exaggerate or falsely claim results in order to get consumers to purchase them. Companies like The Flex Belt and the Ab Circle Pro are obviously wrong in running misleading advertisements, because they are helping to set the trend for others in the weight loss industry. These companies are not acting ethically and are blatantly lying to consumers and making outrageously false claims. Unfortunately, this will only cause others in the weight loss industry to follow their example. These advertisements take advantage of consumers by leading them to purchase products that cannot back up promises, resulting in unhappy consumers. Industry practices will not help these companies when they are eventually slapped with false advertising charges by the FTC, much like others before them, and failed to change their ways. Argument with Corroborative Ethical Frameworks John Stuart Mill s utilitarianism, William David Ross prima facie duties of beneficence, fidelity, and nonmaleficence, as well as Kant s categorical imperative and Garrett s principle of

Misleading Advertisements 11 proportionality will be used to prove that it is not ethical to run advertisements for weight loss devices that exaggerate or falsely claim results in order to get consumers to purchase them. Mill s utilitarianism declares that an action is right, or good, if it produces the greatest happiness, or good, for the greatest number of people. Therefore, in judging if the action of running these misleading advertisements is right, the greatest number of people, the consumers, should be taken into account. Under John Stuart Mill s utilitarianism, it is not right to run these misleading weight loss advertisements because it does not produce the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people, the consumers. William David Ross duty of beneficence states that actions should improve the intelligence, virtue, or happiness of others. This duty can also be described as an obligation to do good. Under Ross duty of beneficence, the action of running these misleading advertisements is not ethical. Ross duty of fidelity declares that there is a duty to remain faithful to contracts, keep promises, tell the truth, and to redress wrongful acts. Under the duty of fidelity, it is not ethical to run misleading advertisements that will trick consumers into purchasing these weight loss devices. The duty of nonmaleficence describes the duty not to injure others. This can also be described as the duty not to cause undue harm. In relation to Ross duty of nonmaleficence, it is not ethical for companies such as The Flex Belt and the Ab Circle Pro to run deceptive advertisements to get consumers to purchase the products.

Misleading Advertisements 12 Kant s categorical imperative states that, One should act such that the principle of one s act could become universal law of human action in a world in which one would hope to live; do not treat people as a means of achieving an end; it disregards their humanity and relegates them to classification of a thing . Therefore, in judging the morality of an act, one must ask how it would be if everyone else in the same situation choose to do the same. An act is not ethical if it is not derived from the purest form of intent. Under Kant s categorical imperative, it is not ethical for companies selling these misleading weight loss devices to use consumers as a means of achieving an end of increased profits. Garrett s principle of proportionality declares that ethical decisions are based on intent, means and end. Intent refers to the motivation behind an action. Means refers to the method used to bring out a specific end. Lastly, end refers to the outcomes, results, or consequences of the action. In order for an action to be considered ethical, the stated intent, means, and end should be congruent with the actual intent, means, and end. In other words, the completed action is considered ethical if it reflects the intended motivation and method. In relation to Garrett s principle of proportionality, it is not ethical to run misleading weight loss advertisements to convince consumers to purchase the products. Under John Stuart Mill s utilitarianism, companies running these misleading advertisements, such as The Flex Belt and the Ab Circle Pro, are not producing the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. In this questionable ethical situation, the consumers in society are considered the greatest number of people and are the direct target of

Misleading Advertisements 13 these false and deceitful advertisements. In fact, according to a survey done by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: More than two thirds of American adults are trying either to lose weight or to forestall weight gain . . . the Nearly 29 percent of men and 44 percent of women who are trying to lose weight, an estimated 68 million Americans adults, comprise a huge potential market for sellers of weight loss products and services (Cleland et al, 2002, p. 2). With these statistics in mind, it is quite obvious that consumers represent the greatest number of people in this situation since the majority of Americans are unhappy with their weight, not just extremely overweight and obese people. Running misleading advertisements that promise bogus results will not produce the greatest good or the greatest happiness for these vulnerable people. These misleading weight loss advertisements are definitely not fulfilling the obligation to do good, or Ross duty of beneficence. It is clear that companies such as The Flex Belt and the Ab Circle Pro are not fulfilling the duty to improve the virtue or happiness of others by pretending to offer a miracle product that can make consumers happier with their bodies. These advertisements are simply giving consumers a sense of false hope based on false claims, which makes them unhappy once they realize they were taken advantage of and didn t get the miracle results that they were promised. Furthermore, companies such as The Flex Belt and the Ab Circle Pro have the duty to keep promises and to tell the truth, according to Ross duty of fidelity. Unfortunately, these companies are far from keeping promises and telling consumers the truth. The Flex Belt lies to

Misleading Advertisements 14 consumers by promising that they can get strong, firm toned abs in just 4 weeks without any effort whatsoever. Similarly, the Ab Circle Pro lies to consumers by telling them that 3 minutes on the device is equivalent to more than 100 sit-ups and promising that they can lose 10 pounds in just 2 weeks, which is also unhealthy. Both of these companies are not capable of keeping these ridiculously exaggerated promises and are far from telling the truth. They are blatantly lying to consumers in order to get money. Additionally, lying to consumers in order to increase profits goes against Ross duty of nonmaleficence. These misleading advertisements are not fulfilling the duty not to cause undue harm. Tricking consumers into thinking that they can look like the models shown in the advertisements is obviously causing undue harm. Consumers are harmed due to the fact that they not only lose money because of these misleading weight loss devices, but are also left with a strong sense of disappointment. They are left feeling disappointed not only with the product, but with themselves for being fooled into purchasing a product because they actually believed the extremely false claims made in the advertisements. Under Kant s categorical imperative, companies running these misleading weight loss advertisements are using consumers as a means of achieving an end. Individuals working for these companies should ask themselves, If I was desperately trying to find a way to lose weight, would I want to see an advertisement that lies and tricks me into thinking I can lose weight without even trying by purchasing the product? . Companies like The Flex Belt and the Ab Circle Pro that run these misleading advertisements are treating consumers as a thing, or method, that will allow them to accomplish their goal of making more money. Obviously,

Misleading Advertisements 15 running misleading weight loss advertisements that lie to consumers and make false promises should not become a universal law of human action. This should not become a universal law of human action because people do not wish or hope to live in a world where they are directly targeted, purposely lied to and taken advantage of for money. The intent in this situation is certainly not pure. Lastly, under Garrett s principle of proportionality, the stated intent of companies such as The Flex Belt and the Ab Circle Pro is to help people to lose weight and get into shape so that they can finally be proud of their bodies. However, the actual intent in this situation is increased profits for companies such as The Flex Belt and the Ab Circle Pro. Furthermore, the stated means is to help consumers lose weight from their midsections and get strong, toned, sexy abs fast. The actual means in this situation, though, is to deceive consumers into thinking they are getting a miracle product that will solve their weight loss problems. The actual means in this situation involves making false claims and lying to consumers. Lastly, the stated end of companies such as The Flex Belt and the Ab Circle Pro is to allow consumers to look toned and in shape like the people in the advertisements, with little to no effort. The actual end, however, involves taking advantage of vulnerable consumers by selling them a product that will not deliver the promised results. Consequently, the stated intent, means, and end were not congruent with the actual intent, means, and end, proving that the action is not ethical. Implications It is not ethical to run misleading advertisements for weight loss devices in order to get consumers to purchase the products. Since companies, such as the Ab Energizer, AbTronic, and

Misleading Advertisements 16 Fast Abs, have already been charged with false advertising by the FTC, it is clear that similar companies should learn from this lesson. The Flex Belt and the Ab Circle Pro are headed in the same direction, and should change their advertisements accordingly. It is only a matter of time before The Flex Belt and Ab Circle Pro advertisements are red flagged and charged with false advertising too. This implies how important it is for consumers to be aware of what constitutes false claims so that they will not be lured into the false promises that these products make. Final Discussion Therefore, it is not ethical to run advertisements for weight loss devices that exaggerate or falsely claim results in order to get consumers to purchase them. Under Mill s utilitarianism, it is not ethical because it is not producing the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people, the consumers. Additionally, according to Ross duties of beneficence, fidelity and nonmaleficence, it is not ethical to run misleading weight loss advertisements because they do not fulfill the obligation to do good, improve the happiness of others, keep promises or tell the truth, and they cause undue harm to consumers. Under the categorical imperative, the action is not ethical because companies such as The Flex Belt and the Ab Circle Pro are treating consumers as a means of achieving an end of increased profits. Furthermore, under Garrett s principle of proportionality, the stated intent, means, and end were not congruent with the actual intent, means, and end, so it is not ethical to run misleading advertisements for weight loss devices.

Misleading Advertisements 17 References Ab Circle Pro. (2009). Retrieved November 26, 2009 from the Ab Circle Pro website: https://www.abcirclepro.com/ Cleland, R. L., Gross, W. C., Koss, L. D., Daynard, M., and Muoio, K. M (2002, September). Weight-loss advertising: an analysis of current trends. Retrieved November 20, 2009, from the Federal Trade Commission website: http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/reports/weightloss.pdf Dobbs, J. (2002, May 14). Fitness expert: electronic belts cannot produce ripped abs. Retrieved November 20, from Ball State University website: http://www.bsu.edu/news/article/0,1370,-1019-5821,00.html Federal Trade Commission. (2003). Red flag bogus weight loss claims. Retrieved November 10, 2009, from the Federal Trade Commission website: http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/business/adv/bus60.pdf The Flex Belt. (2009). Retrieved November 26, 2009 from The Flex Belt website: http://www.theflexbelt.com/index.html Johannes, L. (2009, November 25). Cinching your belt without a crunch. The Wall Street Journal, p. A31. Longley, R. (2002, May 5). Ab belt device claims false, says FTC. Retrieved November 17, 2009, from http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa050902a.htm

Misleading Advertisements 18 Literature Review The purpose of this literature review was to select a case that delineates a questionable ethical practice. The topic originally chosen was false and misleading advertisements, which was narrowed down to false and misleading advertisements for weight loss devices. The sources selected for use in this paper were chosen because they provided the most relevant information on the topic. Background Information The Federal Trade Commission website was used for background information on the topic of false and misleading advertising pertaining to weight loss devices. This source was very beneficial for getting an understanding of previous cases and specific companies, such as the Ab Energizer, AbTronic, and Fast Abs, in the weight loss category, that have been charged with false advertising in recent years. The FTC website also provided useful links to documents related to the FTC, such as the Red Flag initiative and an analysis of advertisements. FTC Related Documents As previously stated, the FTC is a credible source that was used in this paper because it provided an abundance of information. The website provided access to Weight-Loss Advertising: An Analysis of Current Trends , which provided many supporting details on the topic. This source provided valuable information about the obesity epidemic in the United States. Additionally, the types of techniques used in misleading advertising for weight loss were discussed in detail. The authors of this document were staff members of the FTC. Red Flag Bogus Weight Loss Claims was another source chosen through the FTC website. This document provides examples of misleading weight loss advertisements that the

Misleading Advertisements 19 FTC created for this brochure to help consumers to get a better understanding of what to look for and how to identify false advertising for weight loss devices. This document also outlines the 7 typical claims made by weight loss device companies that are sure signs that the advertisements are misleading or false. Articles The articles that were selected for this paper were chosen because they provided more insight on the false advertising done by the Ab Energizer, AbTronic, and Fast Abs. These articles explained the details of why these three companies were charged with false advertising, specifically. Furthermore, the articles chosen provided information on how to lose weight in a healthy way, to help consumers to understand that there is no such thing as a miracle weight loss solution. The articles also included insight from a Ball State University fitness expert, an exercise physiologist, and the FTC chairman. Weight Loss Device Websites An online search was conducted in order to find specific examples of weight loss devices that are currently on the market. The chosen devices, The Flex Belt and the Ab Circle Pro, have many similarities to the Ab Energizer, AbTronic, and Fast Abs, which were previously charged with false advertising. The Flex Belt and the Ab Circle Pro make many of the same claims that these devices had made in the past, demonstrating that false advertising continues to trick consumers. This demonstrates that the FTC still has more work to do in order to reduce these misleading advertisements for weight loss devices and prevent consumers from wasting their money.