EAS Ordered to Cease False Advertising of BetaLean vs.Cytodyne's Xenadrine

EAS Ordered to Cease False Advertising of BetaLean vs.Cytodyne's Xenadrine

NEWARK, N.J.--A U.S. District Court judge for theDistrict of New Jersey issued a preliminary injunction against EAS Inc., basedin Golden, Colo., barring the company from making continued "false,misleading and deceptive advertising and product comparison claims" for itsBetaLean and BetaLean HP products. The suit was filed in late June by Manasquan,N.J.-based Cytodyne Technologies, makers of Xenadrine RFA-1.

Cytodyne filed suit after requesting in early 2002 that EAScease advertising that makes superiority claims for its product compared toCytodyne's RFA-1. Among the claims that EAS made in advertisements in Muscle& Fitness and Muscle Media were: "None of the other fat-lossproducts on the market has more cutting edge fat-burning features than BetaLeanHP;" the amount of green tea extract in Xenadrine RFA-1: "0 mg;"and as to whether Xenadrine RFA-1 contains L-tyrosine: "unknown."

In his decision, filed Aug. 26, Judge Dickinson R. Debevoisenoted that he found Cytodyne "has suffered and shall continue to sufferirreparable injury if the actions by EAS are not immediately enjoined andrestrained." In addition to preventing EAS from making any false ormisleading product performance and comparison claims, the court ordered EAS torecall all advertisements containing such claims. EAS filed a report on itscompliance with the terms of the injunction before the end of September.

Robert Chinery, chief executive officer of Cytodyne (www.cytodyne.com),said the company was pleased with this victory in the "first round againstrival EAS." "We feel this latest victory is one for the consumer aswell as the entire industry," he said. "Cytodyne will continue tomonitor the advertising of its competitors and will vigorously pursue anycompany that resorts to deceptive or misleading tactics in the promotion oftheir products."

EAS did not return calls for comment on the court's decision.