Oregon Sues L.A. Weight Loss Over False Advertising

Franchisor and Franchisee Implicated. Attorney General Alleges Hidden Program Fees, No Scientific Basis to Product Claims

PORTLAND, Ore. (Blue MauMau) - Attorney General Hardy Myers has filed a lawsuit against LA Weight Loss Franchise Company and an Oregon franchisee alleging false and misleading representations about the costs, fees, products, and benefits associated with the program. The lawsuit asks for civil penalties of $25,000 for each UTPA violation and for attorney fees and investigative costs.

The State of Oregon alleges that LA Weight Loss and its franchisee violated the state's Unlawful Trade Practices Act (UTPA) by false advertising that claimed a consumer could purchased a program for only $9 a week, although consumers were required to pay hundreds of dollars for the entire program at the time of enrollment. In addition, customers were told that in order to qualify for the "guarantee" and "rebate" of half the program costs, they had to eat candy-like nutritional bar, LA Lites, throughout the program. A box of seven bars cost $16. The L.A. Weight Loss program entails eating two bars a day for an initial weight-loss weeks, then six weeks during a "stabilization" period, and finally one per day during the following "maintenance" year.

The Attorney General's office alleges several other false advertising problems. For one, LA Weight Loss and its Lake Oswego franchisee have no reliable scientific evidence to support claims that an advertised dietary supplement, FB 500 normalizes blood pressure. LA Weigt Loss advertised an "individualized" menu plan that was actually just one of eight generic menu plans based on weight to lose, age and gender. So called counselors were in reality staff who had no health or nutrional training but wearing white lab coats, took customers' medical history and blood pressure.

The lawsuit seeks permanent changes in the way the companies market their products and to require that they use competent and reliable scientific evidence to substantiate product claims.

“Misleading marketing continued,” Myers said. “It’s always good to offer disgruntled consumers their money back but if the company continues to operate in the same misleading manner, the refunds are just ‘smoke screens’ devised to hide the intentional violation of law.”