In the Matters of

Care Technologies, Inc.,C-________

Del Pharmaceuticals, Inc., C-_______

Pfizer, Inc., C-_______

I have voted in favor of issuance of the final orders in these cases because there is reason to believe that the respondents have violated the law and most of the relief contained in the orders is necessary and appropriate. However, I continue to have concerns with regard to the need for and scope of one of the disclosure requirements contained in the orders.

The complaints include the allegation that the respondents claimed that their respective lice products eradicate a lice infestation after a single treatment. In truth, reapplication and careful combing are required to complete the treatments. To address this allegedly false claim, the orders prohibit the respondents from making, expressly or by implication, any claim that their lice treatment products work in only one treatment, unless that claim is true and substantiated. I agree that this prohibition is necessary and appropriate.

The orders, however, go further. For a period of two years, whenever the respondents make any efficacy claim for one of their lice treatment products, they must disclose “Two Treatments Required.” The majority of the Commission has cast this provision as a “triggered disclosure requirement” and concluded that it is “appropriate and reasonably related to the alleged violations of Section 5.” Even if this is a triggered disclosure requirement,(1) I do not believe that it is either necessary or appropriate.

The majority apparently believes that consumers will be misled if the respondents do not disclose that two treatments are required whenever they make an efficacy claim for their products. However, if a respondent makes a one-treatment claim that is false or unsubstantiated, the Commission can bring an action for violating the injunctive provisions of the order, and thus the two-treatment disclosure requirement would be unnecessary. On the other hand, if a respondent makes a one-treatment claim that is true and substantiated, the disclosure itself -- “Two Treatments Required” -- would be false, because the product would require only one treatment to be effective. Consequently, the disclosure requirement is not needed to prevent the respondents from making the misleading claim that their lice products work in one treatment.

Even if some sort of disclosure requirement were needed to prevent deception, the disclosure requirement imposed here is not appropriate. It appears both overbroad and inadequate in duration. The triggered disclosure must be made whenever an efficacy claim is made, but not every efficacy claim (e.g., the product “works”) creates the impression that the product will work in only one treatment. Without such an impression, there may well be no need to disclose that two treatments are required. Moreover, the triggered disclosure requirement is inadequate because it terminates after two years. If the disclosure in fact is necessary to prevent deception, then why does it end after two years? If the Commission decides to impose a triggered disclosure requirement to prevent future ads from being deceptive, it should be triggered by a claim that would be deceptive in the absence of the information to be disclosed and should continue as long as necessary to prevent deception.

I support the Commission’s move toward stronger remedies. The injunctive provisions of these orders, together with the FDA-mandated labeling,(2) should ensure that consumers have truthful and accurate information before and after purchase. The disclosure requirement here, however, is unnecessary and inappropriate.


(1) The majority is correct that the requirement has the form of a triggered disclosure, but the substance of the requirement is indistinguishable from corrective advertising. The disclosure will be required whenever the respondents make any express or implied claim that their products are efficacious, which likely would include all or virtually all of the ads they run for their lice treatment products. The disclosure also is required for only a limited period of time, which is also consistent with being a corrective advertising measure.

(2)The FDA requires the following statement on the label of any shampoo formulated to treat head lice: “Apply to affected area until all the hair is thoroughly wet with product. Allow product to remain on area for 10 minutes but no longer. Add sufficient warm water to form a lather and shampoo as usual. Rinse thoroughly. A fine-toothed comb or special lice/nit removing comb may be used to help remove dead lice or their eggs (nits) from hair. A second treatment must be done in 7 to 10 days to kill any newly hatched lice.”