EAS Ordered to Cease False Advertising of BetaLean vs. Xenadrine

NEWARK, N.J.--A U.S. District Court judge for the District of New Jersey issued a preliminary injunction against EAS Inc., based in Golden, Colo., barring the company from making continued "false, misleading and deceptive advertising and product comparison claims" for its BetaLean 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 EAS cease advertising that makes superiority claims for its product compared to Cytodyne's RFA-1. Among the claims that EAS made in advertisements in Muscle & Fitness and Muscle Media were: "None of the other fat-loss products on the market has more cutting edge fat-burning features than BetaLean HP;" 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. Debevoise noted that he found Cytodyne "has suffered and shall continue to suffer irreparable injury if the actions by EAS are not immediately enjoined and restrained." In addition to preventing EAS from making any false or misleading product performance and comparison claims, the court ordered EAS to recall all advertisements containing such claims. EAS filed a report on its compliance 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 against rival EAS." "We feel this latest victory is one for the consumer as well as the entire industry," he said. "Cytodyne will continue to monitor the advertising of its competitors and will vigorously pursue any company that resorts to deceptive or misleading tactics in the promotion of their products."

Calls for comment to EAS (www.eas.com) had not been returned at press time.