9723159

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

In the Matter of

PFIZER INC., a corporation.

DOCKET NO. C-3841

COMPLAINT

The Federal Trade Commission, having reason to believe that Pfizer Inc., a corporation ("respondent"), has violated the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act, and it appearing to the Commission that this proceeding is in the public interest, alleges:

1. Respondent Pfizer Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal office or place of business at 235 East 42nd Street, New York, New York 10017-5755.

2. Respondent has manufactured, advertised, labeled, offered for sale, sold, and distributed over-the-counter pharmaceuticals to the public, including “RID Lice Killing Shampoo.” RID Lice Killing Shampoo is a "drug," within the meaning of Sections 12 and 15 of the Federal Trade Commission Act.

3. The acts and practices of respondent alleged in this complaint have been in or affecting commerce, as "commerce" is defined in Section 4 of the Federal Trade Commission Act.

4. Respondent has disseminated or has caused to be disseminated advertisements for RID Lice Killing Shampoo, including but not necessarily limited to the attached Exhibits A through D. These advertisements contain the following statements and depictions:

A. “RID erases head lice completely.
MAXIMUM STRENGTH
Kills lice in just the first treatment.*1
MAXIMUM STRENGTH RID kills lice completely in minutes. And RID leaves no lasting active residue on the hair. RID rinses away completely. Not all lice treatments do.
The patented RID egg removal comb is proven 100% effective and can leave hair free of lice eggs1-a must for many schools when re-admitting children. Many schools also recommend a second treatment. RID directions state to repeat treatment 7 to 10 days later.
RID.
Nothing is more effective or safer.
...
*Read label. When used as directed.
1Data on file, Pfizer Inc.”
[The advertisement depicts a woman’s hand holding a box of RID as if it were an eraser, wiping the word “LICE” off a blackboard. The box contains the following statement:
“MAXIMUM STRENGTH
RID
LICE KILLING SHAMPOO
PEDICULICIDE (LICE TREATMENT)
KILLS LICE & THEIR EGGS
(HEAD LICE, CRAB LICE & BODY LICE)
-100% EFFECTI[VE is obscured by the hand]
EGG REMOVAL ['COMB' is obscured by the hand]”]
(Exhibit A)
 
B. “New clinical study impacts head lice season.
MAXIMUM STRENGTH
Proven effective in a single treatment.*1 ”
[The advertisement depicts a graph entitled “Efficacy/Lice Elimination Results at Day 7.” The horizontal axis is marked “Percent Cured.” The statement “MAXIMUM STRENGTH RID 100%” appears above the horizontal axis.]
“A randomized evaluator-blinded clinical study of 190 patients measured the efficacy of MAXIMUM STRENGTH RID, and a competitor product. The results:
  • In a single treatment, RID was found 100% effective in controlling head lice (day 7 of the study; n=78).
  • RID was also 100% effective after a second treatment (day 14 of the study; n=75). RID directions state to repeat treatment 7 to 10 days after the first treatment. And, RID leaves no lasting active residue.
To eliminate nits, the patented RID egg removal comb provides gentle combing action. It’s proven 100% effective.
For unsurpassed efficacy and safety...recommend MAXIMUM STRENGTH RID.
To receive an abstract of the RID study, call 1-800-322-LICE.
...
Nothing is more effective or safer.
1 'An evaluator-blinded comparative study of the clinical effectiveness of a pyrethrin-based pediculicide with combing vs a permethrin-based pediculicide with combing.' Presented at the National Association of School Nurses Annual Meeting, June, 1995.
  • Read label. When used as directed.
  • *Estimates of clinical effectiveness were based on percentage of patients with no live lice or nits within .25 inches of the scalp.”
[The advertisement depicts a woman’s hand holding a box of RID as if it were an eraser, wiping the word “LICE” off a blackboard. The box contains the following statement:
“MAXIMUM STRENGTH
RID
LICE KILLING SHAMPOO
PEDICULICIDE (LICE TREATMENT)
KILLS LICE & THEIR EGGS
(HEAD LICE, CRAB LICE & BODY LICE)
-100% EFFECTI[VE is obscured by the hand]
EGG REMOVAL ['COMB' is obscured by the hand]”]
(Exhibit B)
C. Announcer: “Your child could get lice!”
[The advertisement depicts a blackboard with the word “LICE” written on it.]
Announcer: “To kill lice and their eggs...”
[The advertisement depicts a RID box with the statement “KILLS LICE & THEIR EGGS” on the box enlarged. The advertisement contains a statement at the bottom of the screen in a light-colored print: “Read label. Use only as directed.”]
Announcer: “get Maximum Strength RID.”
[The advertisement depicts a RID box.]
Announcer: “In just the first treatment,”
[The advertisement depicts a woman’s hand holding a box of RID as if it were an eraser, wiping the word “LICE” off a blackboard. The advertisement contains a statement at the bottom of the screen in a light-colored print: “Two treatments required.”]
Announcer: “it kills lice completely.”
[The advertisement depicts the blackboard with the word “LICE” now just a smear on the blackboard, with the statement “Kills lice completely.”]
Announcer: “And RID leaves no active residue behind.”
[The advertisement depicts a mother hugging her child in front of school bus.]
Announcer: “Nothing”
[The advertisement depicts a woman’s hand holding a box of RID as if it were an eraser, wiping the word “LICE” off a blackboard.]
Announcer: “is more effective or safer than RID.”
[The advertisement depicts the RID logo on the smeared blackboard, with the statement: “Nothing is more effective.”]
(Exhibit C)
 
D. “MAXIMUM STRENGTH RID
LICE KILLING SHAMPOO
PEDICULICIDE (LICE TREATMENT)
KILLS LICE & THEIR EGGS
(HEAD LICE, CRAB LICE & BODY LICE)
--100% EFFECTIVE--
EGG REMOVAL COMB*”
(Exhibit D)

5. Through the means described in Paragraph 4, respondent has represented, expressly or by implication, that.

A. RID Lice Killing Shampoo cures lice infestations in a single treatment.
 
B. The RID egg removal comb is one hundred percent effective.

6. In truth and in fact:

A. RID Lice Killing Shampoo does not cure lice infestations in a single treatment. RID Lice Killing Shampoo is based on a pesticide which is not one hundred percent effective against lice eggs. Consequently, a second treatment is required in seven to ten days to kill any lice that have hatched. In addition, consumers are instructed to remove any lice eggs or “nits” from the infested person’s hair.
 
B. The RID comb is not necessarily one hundred percent effective. Lice eggs are difficult to see and to remove. The effectiveness of the comb is largely dependent on the skill and tenacity of the comber.

Therefore, the representations set forth in Paragraph 5 were, and are, false or misleading.

7. Through the means described in Paragraph 4, respondent has represented, expressly or by implication, that it possessed and relied upon a reasonable basis that substantiated the representations set forth in Paragraph 5, at the time the representations were made.

8. In truth and in fact, respondent did not possess and rely upon a reasonable basis that substantiated the representations set forth in Paragraph 5, at the time the representation was made. Therefore, the representation set forth in Paragraph 7 was, and is, false or misleading.

9. Through the means described in Paragraph 4, respondent has represented, expressly or by implication, that:

A. Clinical studies prove that RID Lice Killing Shampoo cures lice infestations in a single treatment.
 
B. Clinical studies prove that the RID egg removal comb is one hundred percent effective.

10. In truth and in fact:

A. Clinical studies do not prove that RID Lice Killing Shampoo cures lice infestations in a single treatment. The study relied upon to make this claim included the application of a single treatment along with a thorough combing that removed all lice eggs.
 
B. Clinical studies do not prove that the RID comb is one hundred percent effective. The studies relied upon to make this claim employed individuals trained in egg removal to comb patients’ hair. There is no evidence that the same results are achievable by an average consumer.

Therefore, the representations set forth in Paragraph 9 were, and are, false or misleading.

11. The acts and practices of respondent as alleged in this complaint constitute unfair or deceptive acts or practices, and the making of false advertisements, in or affecting commerce in violation of Sections 5(a) and 12 of the Federal Trade Commission Act.

THEREFORE, the Federal Trade Commission this fourteenth day of December, 1998 , has issued this complaint against respondent.

By the Commission.

Donald S. Clark
Secretary

SEAL: