Frederic Breitwieser wrote:
>
> I forwarded this in since we were talking about this goo :)
> FOR RELEASE: JULY 16, 1996
QUAKER STATE ADS FOR SLICK 50
ARE FALSE AND MISLEADING, FTC CHARGES
The Federal Trade Commission has charged Quaker State - Slick 50, Inc.,
the manufacturer of
Slick 50, the best-selling auto engine treatment in the U.S., with
making false and unsubstantiated
advertising claims. According to the FTC, ads for Slick 50 that tout
tests showing improved engine
performance are false and its claims of reduced engine wear are
unsubstantiated..
Quaker State - Slick 50 is based in Houston, Texas. Since its 1978
introduction, Slick 50 has
attracted about 30 million users world-wide. Slick 50 retails for about
$18 a quart, and the company
claims to have about 60% of the engine treatment market..
"Slick 50's ads claim that compared to motor oil alone, it reduces
engine wear, lengthens engine life,
and provides a host of other benefits. The claims sound good, but the
evidence doesn't back them
up," said Jodie Bernstein, Director of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer
Protection. "We believe the
ads exaggerate the lack of protection motor oils provide modern engines
at start-up, as well as the
risk of premature engine failure. The premature engine failure Slick 50
claims to guard against is
uncommon, and the company lacks reliable evidence it would be prevented
by using Slick 50, in any
case," she said. "In fact, all the evidence we've seen so far suggests
that the best thing you can do for
your car's engine is to get an oil change performed at manufacturer
recommended intervals," she
said. "People who want to maximize their automobile performance and
enhance its long life should
read the owner's manual and follow the directions."
Slick 50 is the most recent in a series of FTC cases challenging
allegedly deceptive ad claims for oil
additives or high octane fuel. "Last year, STP Corporation and its
parent corporation, First Brands,
paid an $888,000 civil penalty to settle FTC charges that they were
making false and
unsubstantiated claims for their engine treatment," Bernstein said..
According to the FTC complaint detailing the charges in this case, Slick
50 aired television and radio
commercials and published brochures carrying claims such as:
"Every time you cold start your car without Slick 50 protection,
metal grinds against
metal in your engine...
" With each turn of the ignition you do unseen damage, because at
cold start- up most of
the oil is down in the pan. But Slick 50's unique chemistry bonds
to engine parts. It
reduces wear up to 50% for 50, 000 miles," and;
"What makes Slick 50 Automotive Engine Formula different is an
advanced chemical
support package designed to bond a specially activated PTFE to the
metal in your engine..
"
According to the FTC, these claims and others falsely represented that
auto engines generally have
little or no protection from wear without Slick 50. It is uncommon,
however, for engines to
experience premature failure caused by wear, whether they are treated
with Slick 50 or not. Finally,
the FTC alleges that Slick 50 neither coats engine parts with a layer of
PTFE nor meets military
specifications for motor oil additives..
The FTC complaint also specifically charges that Slick 50 did not have
adequate substantiation for
its advertising claims that, compared to motor oil alone, the product:
reduces engine wear;
reduces engine wear by more than 50%;
reduces engine wear by up to 50%;
reduces engine wear at start-up;
extends the duration of engine life;
lowers engine temperatures;
reduces toxic emissions;
increases gas mileage; and
increases horsepower.
The complaint also alleges that the company did not have adequate
substantiation for its advertising
claims that one treatment of Slick 50 continues to reduce wear for
50,000 miles and that it has been
used in a significant number of U.S. government vehicles..
Finally, the complaint challenges ads stating that "tests prove" the
engine wear claims made by Slick
50. In fact, according to the FTC complaint, tests do not prove that
Slick 50 reduces engine wear at
start up, or by 50%, or that one treatment reduces engine wear for
50,000 miles..
The order the FTC is seeking would prohibit misrepresentations about the
benefits of using Slick 50
and require that ad claims be backed by competent and reliable evidence..
In addition, if the facts are
found as alleged, and issuance of a cease and desist order alone is
inadequate to protect consumers,
the Commission may require corrective advertising or other affirmative
disclosures. It may also apply
to a federal court to obtain restitution for consumers..
The complaint also names three subsidiaries: Slick 50 Management, Inc.,
Slick 50 Products Corp.,
and Slick 50 Corp..
The Commission vote to issue the complaint was 5-0.
NOTE: The Commission issues a complaint when it has "reason to believe"
that the law has been or
is being violated, and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is
in the public interest. The
issuance of a complaint is not a finding or ruling that the respondent
has violated the law. The
complaint marks the beginning of a proceeding in which the allegations
will be ruled upon after a
formal hearing..
Copies of the complaint and an FTC brochure, "Penny Wise or Pump
Fuelish" are available from the
FTC's Public Reference Branch, Room 130, 6th Street and Pennsylvania
Avenue, N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20580; 202- 326-2222; TTY for the hearing impaired
202-326-2502. To find
out the latest news as it is announced, call the FTC NewsPhone recording
at 202-326-2710. FTC
news releases and other materials also are available on the Internet at
the FTC's World Wide Web
site at: http.//www.ftc.gov
MEDIA CONTACT:
Claudia Bourne Farrell
Office of Public Affairs
202-326-2181
STAFF CONTACT:
Elaine D. Kolish or Mary K. Engle
Bureau of Consumer Protection
202-326-3042 or 202-326-3161
(FTC File No. 932 3050)
(Docket No. D-9280)
(slick)
|