|
|
NEWS
RECALLS
COMPLAINT FORM
SCAM ALERTS
RESOURCES
Small Claims Guide Class Actions Lemon Laws FAQ Newsletters |
Share |
| Automotive Education Employment Electronics Family Finance Health Homeowners Insurance Pets Shopping Travel |
|
|
|
![]() |
Oregon Sues LA Weight Loss and Franchisee |
|||||||||||||
|
July 16, 2007
The lawsuit contends that LA Weight Loss and its franchisee violated Oregon’s Unlawful Trade Practices Act (UTPA) by advertising that the program could be purchased for only $9 a week when, in fact, consumers were required to pay hundreds of dollars for the entire program at the time of enrollment. In addition, the lawsuit alleges that customers were presented with the actual cost of "LA Lites", so-called nutritional bars that are in reality similar to candy bars, three to four days after enrollment. Customers were then told that to take advantage of the "guarantee" and "rebate' of half the program costs, they must eat these bars throughout the program. A box of seven bars costs $16 or, if purchased in bulk at the beginning of the plan, $10.50. The LA Weight Loss program includes eating two bars a day for the initial "weight-loss weeks" plus during an additional six weeks of "stabilization". Consumers also must eat one bar per day for the following "maintenance" year. The lawsuit also claims that advertised one-on-one counseling with an "individualized" menu plan was, in fact, one of eight menu plans based on general factors such as amount of weight to lose, age and gender. The lawsuit further states that LA Weight Loss and its franchisee have no competent and reliable scientific evidence to substantiate effectiveness claims about their "dietary supplements" such as asserting that one of their supplements "FB 500" normalizes blood pressure. AdvertisingDuring the investigation of consumer complaints, the state found the company's advertising to be misleading in many aspects, including use of the word "guarantee". The so-called "guarantee" had nothing to do with guaranteeing weight loss but was instead a "guarantee" that customers can stay on the weight loss program until they reach their target weight. In order to maintain the "guarantee", customers must strictly adhere to the plan and use the required amount of "LA Lites". Investigators also found that so-called "counselors" available for one-on-one counseling were in reality staff (many of them former customers) who had no health or nutritional training or experience; however, they wore white lab coats and took customers' medical history and blood pressure. In addition, the "counselors" pushed customers to buy the "LA Lites", supplements and other products to meet weekly sales quotas. "Although the LA Weight Loss franchisee was quick to give refunds to Oregonians who complained to our office, the 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." The state began its investigation into LA Weight Loss in September 2005 and attempted to negotiate a settlement agreement with the companies at the beginning of 2006. After months of stalling by the companies, the government issued a deadline for agreement and filed suit when the deadline was not met. The lawsuit seeks restitution for Oregon consumers covering most costs and fees connected with joining the weight loss program, including payments for "LA Lites" and any "dietary supplement". The lawsuit also asks for civil penalties of $25,000 for each UTPA violation and for attorney fees and investigative costs. In addition, the lawsuit seeks permanent changes in the way the companies market their products and to require that they only use competent and reliable scientific evidence to substantiate their claims. "Oregonians of all ages should be generally cautious when choosing the right weight loss program," Myers explained. "Consumers should first consult with their doctor or nutritionist before obligating themselves to an expensive program that may or may not work for them." Named in a complaint filed in Marion County Circuit Court is LA Weight Loss Franchise Company, a Delaware corporation operating out of Horsham, Pennsylvania, and an Oregon franchisee, NWM, Inc., of Lake Oswego. NWM, Inc., currently has locations in Clackamas, Corvallis, Eugene, Gresham, Lloyd (Portland), McMinnville, South Salem, Sherwood, Tanasbourne (Portland), Washington Square (Tigard), and Wilsonville. It also operated locations in Bend and North Salem. Report Your Experience
|
|||||||||||||
Advertisement
|
|
Custom Search
|
||||
|
AUTOMOTIVE Dealers Manufacturers Service Extended Warranties Lemon Laws Recalls Tires Transporters FAMILY Aging Children, Parenting Recalls Dating Education Entertainment Pets Weddings |
FINANCE Annuities Banks Credit Cards Debt Collection Debt Counseling Insurance Investing Loans Mortgages Payday Loans Student Loans Tax Prep HEALTH Doctors Drugs, Pharmacies Health Clubs Hearing Care Hospitals Nursing Homes Nutrition, Diets Vision Care Weight Loss |
HOUSE & HOME Appliances Cookware Furniture Home Improvements Lawn & Garden Movers Pools & Spas Realtors, Rental Agents Recalls Utilities ELECTRONICS Cable TV/DBS Cameras Cell Phones Computers Home Electronics Internet Access Local Phone Service Long Distance VoIP |
SHOPPING In-Home Online Retail Stores Sporting Goods Supermarkets Telemarketers TRAVEL Airlines Bus Lines Car Rental Cruises Hotels Travel Agents Trains RESOURCES Class Actions Complaint Form Small Claims Guide Lemon Laws |
CONSUMER NEWS Latest News Automotive Telecom Financial Health Homeowners Scams Seniors Travel More ... RECALLS Automotive Children's Products Drugs Food Household Products Sporting Goods ABOUT US FAQ Privacy Policy Advertise With Us Newsroom Syndication Terms of Use |
Terms of Use Your use of this site constitutes acceptance of the Terms of Use
Copyright © 2003-2009 ConsumerAffairs.com Inc. All Rights Reserved. The contents of this site may not be republished, reprinted, rewritten or recirculated without written permission. |
|