The Commission accepts for public comment a consent agreement settling allegations that Prolong Super Lubricants, Inc., et al. (AProlong@), made unsubstantiated claims about the attributes and benefits of Prolong=s motor oil additive. I support the provisions in the proposed order prohibiting Prolong from making such claims in the future without adequate substantiation.

The consent agreement, however, also contains provisions prohibiting Prolong, in connection with the sale of any product, from misrepresenting the existence or results of tests and from misrepresenting that a demonstration confirms the benefits of a product. While firms should not misrepresent the existence or results of tests or demonstrations, it is inappropriate to include specific establishment and demonstration requirements as remedies in an order without corresponding complaint allegations. In this case, and in others from the recent past, there is a troubling lack of symmetry between the complaint and the order.

Accordingly, I dissent as to Paragraphs III and V of the proposed order.