Misleading advertisements- weight loss devices

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 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.


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

Testimonials

Fast results

Guaranteed results

All natural

Before and after photos

No side effects

No diet or exercise

Long term results

Clinically proven

No more failure

Medical approval

Excessive weight loss warning

0 50 100 150 200 250

65

57

52

44

42

42

42

41

40

34

25

7

195

170

157

131

127

127

125

124

119

103

75

22

NumberPercentage


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 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


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


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


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.


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


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


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.


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


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


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,


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


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.


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

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa050902a.htm

http://www.theflexbelt.com/index.html

http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/business/adv/bus60.pdf

http://www.bsu.edu/news/article/0,1370,-1019-5821,00.html

http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/reports/weightloss.pdf

https://www.abcirclepro.com/


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


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.