Statement of
Chairman Pitofsky and
Commissioners Anthony and Thompson

In the Matters of

Care Technologies, Inc., C-
Del Pharmaceuticals, Inc., C-
Pfizer Inc.,

We write to express our views about the concerns Commissioner Swindle raises regarding the disclosure remedy in these cases. The orders require that, for two years, whenever a claim is made regarding the efficacy of the lice removal products, the respondents include a disclosure about the necessity for a second application of their product.

The disclosure remedy in these cases is fencing-in relief, designed to prevent purchasers of respondents’ products from being deceived by future advertising.(1) The triggered disclosure about the need for two treatments provides additional assurance that consumers will not be misled by future ads. We are satisfied that the triggered disclosures in these orders are appropriate and reasonable.


(1)It is also worth noting that the Commission has distinguished triggered disclosures such as those in these cases from corrective advertising, which is required regardless of the contents of the ad. Removatron Int’l Corp., 111 F.T.C. 206, 311-12 n. 28 (1988), aff’d, 884 F.2d 1489 (1st Cir. 1989). See also American Home Prods. Corp. v. F.T.C., 695 F.2d 681, 700 (3rd Circ. 1982).