I got this from another group but it might apply.
>X-Authentication-Warning: hitchhikers.net: Host
user-37kbu27.dialup.mindspring.com [207.69.248.71] claimed to be
smtp.hitchhikers.net
>Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 11:14:46 -0500
>From: Steve Zinski <szinski@richmond.edu>
>To: Late-Model F-150 Mailing List <f150list@hitchhikers.net>
>Reply-To: Late-Model F-150 Mailing List <f150list@hitchhikers.net>
>Subject: SplitFire Plugs
>
>
>Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 10:28:08 -0500
>From: Steve Zinski <szinski@richmond.edu>
>Subject: SplitFire Plugs
>
>Hey guys, look's like the infamous SplitFire plugs ran into some legal
>problems with the Federal Trade Commission. Looks like their marketing
>hype was just that... pure hype. I've enclosed a snippet for you to
>read. The full article can be found at:
>
>http://www.ftc.gov/WWW/os/9702/splitfir.htm
>
>
> --Steve
>
>-------------------------------------
>
>UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
>FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
>
>In the Matter of
>SPLITFIRE, INC., a corporation.
>
>FILE NO. 952-3029
>
>Analysis of Proposed Consent Order
>to Aid Public Comment
>
>The Federal Trade Commission has provisionally accepted an agreement to
>a proposed consent order from respondent SplitFire, Inc., an Illinois
>corporation that markets automotive products.
>
>The proposed consent order has been placed on the public record for
>sixty (60) days for receipt of comments by interested persons. Comments
>received during this period will become part of the public record. After
>sixty (60) days, the Commission will again review the agreement and the
>comments received and will decide whether it should make final the
>agreement's proposed order, or withdraw from the agreement and take
>other appropriate action.
>
>This matter concerns the advertising of SplitFire's "SplitFire" spark
>plug, which has one v-shaped, or "split" electrode. The Commission's
>complaint charges that SplitFire's advertising represented, without a
>reasonable basis, that use of SplitFire Spark Plugs results in
>significantly better fuel economy, significantly greater horsepower, and
>significantly lower emissions than use of either conventional (non
>split-electrode) spark plugs or platinum-tipped spark plugs. The
>Commission's complaint also charges that respondent represented, without
>a reasonable basis, that use of SplitFire Spark Plugs will result in
>significant cost savings over use of either conventional or
>platinum-tipped spark plugs.
>
>In addition, the complaint alleges that the company lacked a reasonable
>basis for its claim that 70% of SplitFire Spark Plug users achieve a gas
>mileage increase of from 1 to 6 more miles per gallon. Furthermore, the
>complaint alleges as false SplitFire's claim that these figures were
>based on competent and reliable studies or surveys.
>
>Lastly, the Commission's complaint charges that respondent represented,
>without a reasonable basis, that the testimonials or endorsements from
>consumers appearing in advertisements and promotional materials for its
>spark plugs reflect the typical or ordinary experience of members of the
>public who use SplitFire Spark Plugs.
>
>The proposed consent order contains provisions designed to remedy the
>violations charged and to prevent the respondent from engaging in
>similar acts and practices in the future.
>
>Part I of the proposed order prohibits SplitFire, Inc., from
>representing, without competent and reliable scientific evidence, the
>effect of any motor vehicle product on a vehicle's fuel economy,
>emissions, or horsepower. Part I also prohibits the company from
>representing, without competent and reliable scientific evidence, the
>comparative or absolute cost savings that any motor vehicle product will
>contribute to or achieve. Part II of the proposed order prohibits
>respondent, when advertising any motor vehicle product, from
>misrepresenting the existence, contents, validity, results, conclusions
>or interpretations of any test, study, or research.
>
>Part III of the proposed order addresses claims made through
>endorsements or testimonials. Under Part III, respondent may make such
>representations if respondent possesses and relies upon competent and
>reliable scientific evidence that substantiates the representations; or
>respondent must disclose either what the generally expected results
>would be for users of the advertised product, or the limited
>applicability of the endorser's experience to what consumers may
>generally expect to achieve. The proposed order's treatment of
>testimonial claims is in accordance with the Commission's "Guides
>Concerning Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising," 16
>C.F.R. 255.2 (a).
>
>Part IV of the proposed order requires respondent to possess adequate
>substantiation for any representation regarding the performance,
>benefits, or efficacy of any motor vehicle product.
>
>The proposed order also requires respondent to maintain advertising
>materials and materials relied upon to substantiate claims covered by
>the order; to provide a copy of the consent agreement to certain
>personnel in the company; to notify the Commission of any change in the
>corporate structure that might affect compliance with the order; and to
>file one or more reports detailing compliance with the order.
>
>Under Part IX, the order terminates 20 years from the date of issuance,
>except under certain specified conditions.
>
>The purpose of this analysis is to facilitate public comment on the
>proposed order. It is not intended to constitute an official
>interpretation of the agreement and proposed order or to modify in any
>way their terms.
Doug Pruitt
Maryland
Narf!
|