UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
In the Matter of
ROGER J. CALLAHAN, individually.
DOCKET NO. C-3797
The Federal Trade Commission, having reason to believe that Roger J. Callahan, individually ("respondent"), has violated the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act, and it appearing to the Commission that this proceeding is in the public interest, alleges:
1. Respondent Roger J. Callahan has manufactured, advertised, offered for sale, sold, and distributed products to the public, including Dr. Callahans Addiction Breaking System. Individually or in concert with others, he participated in the acts or practices alleged in this complaint. His principal office or place of business is 45350 Vista Santa Rosa, Indian Wells, California 92210.
2. Respondent entered into an agreement with Mega Systems, Inc., a corporation which creates and distributes program-length radio and television commercials which run for 30 minutes or less and fit within normal radio and television broadcasting time slots. The television commercials were and are broadcast on network, independent and cable television stations throughout the United States. The radio commercials were and are broadcast on network and independent radio stations throughout the United States. In at least one of Mega Systems, Inc.s program-length television commercials, respondent acted as the guest and promoted Dr. Callahans Addiction Breaking System.
3. The acts and practices of respondent alleged in this complaint have been in or affecting commerce, as "commerce" is defined in Section 4 of the Federal Trade Commission Act.
4. Respondent has created and disseminated advertisements for Dr. Callahans Addiction Breaking System, including but not necessarily limited to the attached Exhibit A. This advertisement contains the following statements:
5. Through the means described in Paragraph 4, respondent has represented, expressly or by implication, that for all or virtually all users:
6. In truth and in fact:
Therefore, the representations set forth in Paragraph 5 were, and are, false or misleading.
7. Through the means described in Paragraph 4, respondent has represented, expressly or by implication, that he possessed and relied upon a reasonable basis that substantiated the representations set forth in Paragraph 5, at the time the representations were made.
8. In truth and in fact, respondent did not possess and rely upon a reasonable basis that substantiated the representations set forth in Paragraph 5, at the time the representations were made. Therefore, the representation set forth in Paragraph 7 was, and is, false or misleading.
9. The acts and practices of respondent as alleged in this complaint constitute unfair or deceptive acts or practices, and the making of false advertisements, in or affecting commerce in violation of Sections 5(a) and 12 of the Federal Trade Commission Act.
THEREFORE, the Federal Trade Commission this sixth day of April, 1998, has issued this complaint against respondent.
By the Commission, Commissioner Thompson and Commissioner Swindle not participating.
Donald S. Clark