EAS Found in Contempt for Violating Advertising Injunction

NEWARK, N.J.--A U.S. District Court judge for the District of New Jersey issued an order enforcing and amending a preliminary injunction against EAS Inc., based in Golden, Colo., and holding EAS in contempt for failing to comply with terms of the injunction. The injunction was originally handed down on Aug. 26 in a lawsuit filed by Manasquan, N.J.-based Cytodyne Technologies.

At issue are claims for the companies' competing fat-loss products: Cytodyne's Xenadrine RFA-1 and EAS's BetaLean HP. In his August decision, Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise found Cytodyne "has suffered and shall continue to suffer irreparable injury if the actions of EAS are not immediately enjoined." This included preventing making any false or misleading product performance and comparison claims.

Judge Debevoise's newest decision, filed on Dec. 23, ordered that EAS be held in contempt and pay Cytodyne's legal fees and costs. In addition, EAS must notify all of its wholesalers, distributors and retailers of the advertising claims and post a notice on its Web site. The notice reads, in part: "In litigation concerning EAS's advertising practices, a United States District Court found that this claim [that BetaLean HP's formula has an enhanced thermogenic effect] is not true and that the proprietary formula has been found to reduce and inhibit the overall thermogenic effect of the ephedrine and caffeine combination."

In a statement from Cytodyne (www.cytodyne.com), Robert Chinery, founder and chief executive officer, noted, "It's unfortunate that EAS has chosen to test the vigilance of the justice system rather than invest its time and resources to develop an efficacious product backed by competent research, as other manufacturers have done. EAS simply did not learn their lesson the first time, when they created this deceitful campaign and were ordered to cease and desist. Hopefully now they will."

There was no comment in the court order regarding counterclaims filed by EAS in December that alleged Cytodyne was making false and misleading advertising claims for its products. Calls for comment to EAS (www.eas.com) had not been returned at press time.