FTC Charges Motor Oil Additive Marketers with False and Unsubstantiated Advertising
AMSOIL has been around since 1972, and although AMSOIL is a small company by comparison to many other companies in the motor oil business and related automotive maintenance business, it has continued to conduct itself with great integrety. AMSOIL markets its products through a network of independent dealers, and has utilized the multi-level marketing plan for distributing its products since 1973 (there are few MLM companies who can claim a longer, more successful history in MLM). As such, there is often skeptisicm on the part of the public about the validity of the claims AMSOIL makes about its products. Unfortunately, a few of AMSOIL's independent dealers on occasion get over-enthusiastic, and, as a result, many potential customers are "put off" by such claims, opting more for those familiar products advertised on TV and more readily available on the shelves of the local auto parts store.
AMSOIL goes to great lengths to provide its dealer network with clear and informative brochures and documentation about its products. This web site was created to a large part based on information contained in this AMSOIL-provided information. It has long been AMSOIL's policy to make realistic promises, but deliver just a little more than the customer expects. This principle, and the integrity with which AMSOIL conducts it's affairs, is paramount to what drew me to become an AMSOIL Dealer and shy away (after due investigation) from other MLM companies.
I spend a considerable amount of time at trade shows, boat shows, car shows, auto swap meets, etc., spreading the word about AMSOIL and always have people unfamiliar with AMSOIL think it is an oil additive, much like those advertised on television. I try to make it clear that AMSOIL is Synthetic Motor Oil, and if you think you need an after-market additive to supplement your motor oil's performance, then you are using the wrong motor oil. Sort of like the old advertisements about some spaghetti sauce: if you use AMSOIL and you think you need it, "it's in there".
Discussions with the shade-tree mechanic, as well as the professional mechanic, always turn to these hyped products. I usually have copies of trade publications or magazines such as Consumer Reports that discuss the different engine additives to show, as well as trade magazine articles on their potential damaging effects, but nothing is more convincing then when it becomes apparent that the Federal Government is investigating one of these products. It is unfortunate that you don't read more about these investigations in the newspapers or see it on the television news casts, but I guess the media doesn't want to bite the hand that feeds them!
Unfortunately, it seems that the larger, better known companies selling their products through more conventional means are more apt to exagerate their claims and patently use misleading tactics to sell their products, as evidenced by the past and more current actions of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). In the past, the FTC charged the marketers of Prolong Super Lubricants, Valvoline Engine Treatment, Slick 50 Engine Treatment and STP Engine Treatment with allegedly deceptive advertising.
Recently, the FTC has charged the marketers and others of Dura Lube Super Engine Treatment and Dura Lube Advanced Engine Treatment with making false and unsubstantiated advertising claims. The following is an excerpt from a release from the FTC:
"Dura Lube is one of the largest engine treatment companies in the country and the fifth to be charged by the FTC with making false or unsubstantiated claims. The FTC has previously halted allegedly deceptive ads for Valvoline Engine Treatment, Slick 50 Engine Treatment and STP Engine Treatment. Motor Up Corporation, which was sued by the FTC on April 14, 1999, is awaiting administrative trial on charges that its ads were unsubstantiated.
The FTC alleges that packaging, labeling, print ads and infomercials for Dura Lube claim that compared to motor oil alone, or motor oil treated with any other product, using Dura Lube:
- reduces engine wear by more than 50 percent;
- prolongs engine life and reduces emissions;
- reduces the risk of serious engine damage when oil pressure is lost; and
- improves gas mileage by up to 35 percent.
The FTC alleges Dura Lube did not have a reasonable basis to substantiate these claims.
The FTC also alleges that the advertising represents that tests establish that compared to motor oil alone, using Dura Lube:
- reduces engine wear by more than 50 percent and prolongs engine life;
- improves gas mileage by up to 35 percent and reduces emissions;
- reduces the risk of serious engine damage when oil pressure is lost; and
- one treatment continues to protect the engine for up to 50,000 miles.
However, tests do not prove that Dura Lube provides these benefits and therefore the representation that tests prove that consumers will realize these benefits is false and misleading. In addition, Dura Lube ads claimed that its product does not contain chlorinated compounds and that it has been tested by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. According to the FTC, these claims are false because Dura Lube contains chlorinated paraffin, a chlorinated compound, and Dura Lube has not been tested by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency."
In addition, the FTC has charged the seller of Motor Up Engine Treatment with making unsubstantiated and deceptive advertising claims.
The following is excerpted from a release from the FTC:
"According to the FTC, labeling, packaging, Internet Website ads and other ads -- including infomercials prepared and placed by National Media Corporation for Motor Up -- carried claims such as:
- "Compared to a leading motor oil, Motor Up has eleven times the anti-wear agents;"
- ". . .seventy times more extreme pressure agents which dramatically reduce wear and tear under severe conditions"; and
- "We wanted scientific proof that Motor Up reduces wear and tear on your engine by up to fifty percent . . . "
- Demonstrations proved that Motor Up prevents corrosion in engines, reduces engine wear and helps prevent engine breakdowns.
The agency alleges that the ads represent that, compared to motor oil alone, Motor Up reduces engine wear as much as 50 percent; reduces adhesive engine wear by up to 90.17 percent; reduces engine wear during cold starts; extends engine life and helps prevent engine breakdowns. The ads also represent that Motor Up prevents corrosion; won't drain out of the engine, even when the oil is changed; protects engines for up to 50,000 miles; and protects against wear even without motor oil, according to the complaint. The FTC alleges that the companies did not possess or rely on competent evidence to substantiate the claims, and therefore the claims are deceptive. In addition, the infomercial demonstrations that were used to "prove" Motor Up reduces engine wear, prevents corrosion and helps prevent engine breakdowns, do not "prove, demonstrate or confirm" those claims, the FTC alleges, and the claims are false. Finally, claims that "tests prove" that compared to motor oil alone, Motor Up reduces engine wear by up to 50 percent are false, the FTC alleges."
I'm not saying AMSOIL is beyond question. I don't know for sure, but it is my guess that with the claims AMSOIL makes about extended oil drain and increased performance that someone, at some time, has investigated AMSOIL. But I did a search at the FTC web site on "AMSOIL" and came up with zero matches. I am quite comfortable with AMSOIL's means of proving their products through independent lab testing (as with the four-ball wear test that is on each and every Series 2000 and 3000 Motor Oil quart bottle, the results are confirmed by outside independent labs). Actually, with AMSOIL's habit of naming brand names, the FTC is probably their least worry. It is more likely that, if AMSOIL's claims were false or misleading, the Mobils, Pennzoils and others to which AMSOIL publishes it's comparisons would be dragging AMSOIL into court all over the place. But you can't complain if what AMSOIL represents is backed up by independent testing and adequate field trials.
|
