HeadOn - Ineffective? Apply Directly to Your Lawsuit

Joytown · 12th January 2008, 09:23 AM

Woman Directly Sues HeadOn For Being Ineffective
http://cbs2.com/lasvegas/HeadOn.Appl....2.627493.html

Quote:

"According to the complaint, Shapiro bought HeadOn for $6 at a Walgreen's store in Van Nuys on Oct. 15. She applied the substance to her forehead as directed, but "did not obtain any headache pain relief as a result of using HeadOn"

Say it ain't so! You mean this stuff may not actually work as advertised? I'm suprised it took this long for someone to do this - and actually I'm even more suprised the FDA hasn't stepped already.

Another interesting facet to this claim is that:

Quote:

" HeadOn products contain potassium bichromate, a chemical known to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity, and white bryony, classified by the Department of Agriculture as a noxious weed"

This should be fun to watch.

-jon

BenBurch · 12th January 2008, 09:54 AM

One of my radio ventures is "Head On Radio Network" and we REALLY wanted to sue these guys but as we were in a totally different business we could not argue that we would be confused with a quack cure.

Gord_in_Toronto · 12th January 2008, 10:10 AM

Originally Posted by BenBurch

One of my radio ventures is "Head On Radio Network" and we REALLY wanted to sue these guys but as we were in a totally different business we could not argue that we would be confused with a quack cure.

Oh, so now you tell me! I thought you were sponsored by them. I guess I'll stop my Internet campaign to have you boycotted then.

Go for it!

XBoxWarrior · 12th January 2008, 12:44 PM

From the article,

Quote:

HeadOn, a product that has become known for its annoying and redundant commercials

Well that one is a given......(but it's selling like crack)

and again.....

Quote:

The National Advertising Division of the Council of Better Business Bureaus has concluded there is "no competent and reliable scientific evidence supporting (HeadOn's) claims that (it) is a safe and effective headache pain reliever," the suit states.

WTF is the NADCBBB? and what exactly do they ever do?

I hope she wins, and from the article her atty is going class action, well maybe I should buy a ticket.......does that mean I have to actually buy a magic stick?

They should post his info......(the Atty) I wanna piece of this!

Dr. Imago · 12th January 2008, 01:02 PM

Originally Posted by Joytown

Woman Directly Sues HeadOn For Being Ineffective

She's gonna lose. The company never made any structure/function claims. They were careful and clever to not do this in their marketing campaign. People assumed that it was supposed to do something.

-Dr. Imago

XBoxWarrior · 12th January 2008, 01:07 PM

Originally Posted by Dr. Imago

She's gonna lose. Dr. Imago

Spoil Sport......If the case goes to a jury in Las Vegas, I bet she has a preliminary chance.......after all it's Vegas Baby.

Derail: Isn't OJ back in the Clark County High Rise? (yes, been there)

Dogdoctor · 12th January 2008, 01:46 PM

The Headon product that I saw had a money back guarantee. However researching potassium bichromate, there may be something there. Not sure but in legal systems I think the burden is usually on the plaintiff to prove everything so unlikely to be successful.

Joytown · 12th January 2008, 02:19 PM

Originally Posted by XBoxWarrior

Spoil Sport......If the case goes to a jury in Las Vegas, I bet she has a preliminary chance.......after all it's Vegas Baby.

Derail: Isn't OJ back in the Clark County High Rise? (yes, been there)

Yes he is!

Rerail:

Even though the article is from a Las Vegas source, I beleive the suit was filed in L.A. County Superior Court ....

-jon

Tokenconservative · 12th January 2008, 02:22 PM

Originally Posted by Joytown

Woman Directly Sues HeadOn For Being Ineffective
http://cbs2.com/lasvegas/HeadOn.Appl....2.627493.html

Say it ain't so! You mean this stuff may not actually work as advertised? I'm suprised it took this long for someone to do this - and actually I'm even more suprised the FDA hasn't stepped already.

Another interesting facet to this claim is that:

This should be fun to watch.

-jon

I always thought this stuff was like Aspercreme....which supposedly helps with muscle aches...since it's my understanding headaches result from tightness of the skull muscles...nope?

It's homeojokish woo?

Well, I like their commercials.

Especially the ones that make fun of their own commercials.

Tokie

Dogdoctor · 12th January 2008, 02:43 PM

Originally Posted by Tokenconservative

I always thought this stuff was like Aspercreme....which supposedly helps with muscle aches...since it's my understanding headaches result from tightness of the skull muscles...nope?

It's homeojokish woo?

Well, I like their commercials.

Especially the ones that make fun of their own commercials.

Tokie

Yeah it is totally homeowhatever nonsense but oddly they have chosen to use a probable carcinogen as part of the ingredients for some odd reason.

technoextreme · 12th January 2008, 02:53 PM

Originally Posted by Joytown

Woman Directly Sues HeadOn For Being Ineffective
http://cbs2.com/lasvegas/HeadOn.Appl....2.627493.html

Say it ain't so! You mean this stuff may not actually work as advertised? I'm suprised it took this long for someone to do this - and actually I'm even more suprised the FDA hasn't stepped already.

Another interesting facet to this claim is that:

This should be fun to watch.

-jon

You know whats really stupid. I always thought it was acne medication.

JWideman · 12th January 2008, 03:21 PM

Originally Posted by technoextreme

You know whats really stupid. I always thought it was acne medication.

I'm sure it's equally effective for that.

krelnik · 12th January 2008, 04:39 PM

I hope the plaintiff's filings with the court repeat each sentence 3 times all the way through....

Comes now the plaintiff...
Comes now the plaintiff...
Comes now the plaintiff...

blutoski · 12th January 2008, 04:57 PM

Originally Posted by Dr. Imago

She's gonna lose. The company never made any structure/function claims. They were careful and clever to not do this in their marketing campaign. People assumed that it was supposed to do something.

-Dr. Imago

They may not have broken any FDA regs, but it's possible to get them on FTC regs. They could go the Trudeau route.

Advertising can't be misleading.

If the judge/jury feel that a reasonable person would have inferred that the product owners were saying it relieved headaches based on the commercials, then it's 'false or misleading' advertising.

LTC8K6 · 12th January 2008, 05:24 PM

What claims are on the package?

I am pretty sure that the commercials have changed. They were much more irritating initially, and I think they made different claims.

You can probably find the older commercials on you tube.

http://www.randi.org/jr/2006-07/072806academic.html#i15

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HeadOn

Those ingredients aren't actually in the product, so this suit should indeed be interesting.

Quote:

Chemical analysis has shown that the product consists almost entirely of wax. The two ingredients listed as "active", white bryony (a type of vine) and potassium dichromate (a known carcinogen), are diluted to 1 ppt and 1 ppm respectively.[9] This amount of dilution is so great that the product has been described as a placebo. Each 0.2-ounce stick contains a “12X” concentration of white bryony. That means that the whole stick contains 1 part of ingredient in 1 trillion parts of wax - equivalent to 5.670 picograms of ingredient.[citation needed]

Seymour Diamond, director of the Diamond Headache Clinic in Chicago and the inpatient headache unit at St. Joseph Hospital, has been quoted as saying "I see nothing in this product that has any validity whatsoever."[10]

However, the package does list menthol as an inactive ingredient; menthol is one of the active ingredients of Vicks VapoRub.

Correspondence has been published with a statement from HeadOn Customer Service that "It works through the nerves."[11]

Miralus Healthcare claims that HeadOn is safe, so that "it can be used by anyone and as often as needed. There are no dosage restrictions or health risks associated with its use."[12] There are three variants of HeadOn — Extra Strength Headache Pain Reliever,[13] Extra Strength Sinus Headache Relief,[14] and Migraine Pain Reliever.[15] Their active ingredients (converted from the listed homeopathic dilution notation to standard percentages) are:

Extra Strength Headache Pain Reliever
Potassium dichromate 8 × 10−8%
White Bryony 4 × 10−14%

Extra Strength Sinus Headache Relief
Potassium dichromate 5 × 10−8%
White Bryony 4 × 10−14%
Golden Seal Hydrastis 8 × 10−32%

Migraine Pain Reliever
Potassium dichromate 3 × 10−8%
White Bryony 4 × 10−14%
Blue Flag Iris Versicolor 1 × 10−13%

tkingdoll · 12th January 2008, 06:05 PM

Originally Posted by blutoski

They may not have broken any FDA regs, but it's possible to get them on FTC regs. They could go the Trudeau route.

Advertising can't be misleading.

If the judge/jury feel that a reasonable person would have inferred that the product owners were saying it relieved headaches based on the commercials, then it's 'false or misleading' advertising.

I think an interesting question would have to be "if the adverts aren't intended to get people to think the product relieves headaches, what are they intended for?" What, exactly, is this product meant to be for if not headache relief?

I haven't seen the ads but if they show a person in pain, then the same person not in pain, in the UK that would be enough to get them into trouble. No idea if USA is similar, though.

krelnik · 12th January 2008, 07:06 PM

Here is the original ad on YouTube. These have run incessantly for the last two years or so -- those of you outside the U.S., please feel our pain.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

As you can see, it really doesn't claim anything.

After the initial run of these, they had another batch which were self-parodies. Alleged users of the product would run on the screen and say something like "Head On - I hate your ads, but I love your product.".

They also have a whole set of equally ineffective add-on products like "Activ On" for joint pain, "First On" for itches, "Prefer On" to manage scars (!) and "Renew In" for joint+energy. Personally I've seen ads for ActivOn and PreferOn, but not the other two.

Home page:
www.miralus.com

You can see more ads there.

Oh, I see RenewIn contains Glucosamine, I've got a fellow from Scotland on the "wall of harm" that took that for arthritis relief and died.

BenBurch · 12th January 2008, 07:46 PM

I have a friend who was nearly killed by Glucosamine, and it made his arthritis so much worse that he can hardly walk, and destroyed his ability to digest most foods. REALLY bad crap.

Schneibster · 13th January 2008, 03:05 AM

http://www.quackwatch.com/01Quackery...ucosamine.html

Might as well get the skinny from a trusted source.

Beerina · 13th January 2008, 09:28 AM

Originally Posted by Joytown

Woman Directly Sues HeadOn For Being Ineffective
http://cbs2.com/lasvegas/HeadOn.Appl....2.627493.html

Say it ain't so! You mean this stuff may not actually work as advertised? I'm suprised it took this long for someone to do this - and actually I'm even more suprised the FDA hasn't stepped already.

Given HeadOn never says what it actually does in the TV ads, no doubt to protect themselves against fraud all the while getting rave reviews for clever advertisement by the unfortunately not quite terminally clueless, I'm interested to hear a claim as to what it was actually for.

I thought it was some kind of paste that you used to attach a construction paper cutout "L" to your forehead.

tkingdoll · 13th January 2008, 09:48 AM

Hmm. Looking at the original ad that krelnik posted, there is no mention of headaches, no footage of anyone in pain, nothing. The only thing they say is that it's available without a prescription, which implies it is a medical product, as that is a statement you would only make about a medical product.

So, we have implied medical product. Is that enough?

What does the packaging say?

krelnik · 13th January 2008, 10:50 AM

Originally Posted by Beerina

I thought it was some kind of paste that you used to attach a construction paper cutout "L" to your forehead.

Since it appears to made mostly of wax, it might actually be pretty good for that purpose!

kjkent1 · 13th January 2008, 03:35 PM

Without reading the actual complaint filed in court, it's impossible to say tha the plaintiff has or has no case.

However, the TV ads don't actually claim that the product does anything. Neither does the Miralus website. So, if the packaging doesn't claim anything, either, then it will be nearly impossible to win an unfair trade practice action, because Miralus not only isn't misrepresenting the product -- they're not even "representing" it.

Interestingly, Walgreen's "is" representing Headon as an "extra-strength" headache reliever -- so, the real lawsuilt may be against retailers, rather than the manufacturer.

Kind of an unusual case for the retailer to claim more for the product than the manufacturer. Regardless, this is a true lawyer's lawsuit. There's no money in it for the class -- all of the award will go to pay attorney fees.

Dr. Imago · 13th January 2008, 03:55 PM

I'll give you another one where there's no possible way they manufacturers will ever be successfully sued:

Enzyte.

They, as well, make absolutely no structure/function claims. They imply a lot, but that's not illegal. They never anywhere state that their product does anything... just like the makers of HeadOn.

As always, caveat emptor. This lady's got a loser, unless she was actually injured by the product, and can prove she suffered damages, using it in a manner they described (applied directly to head). In that case, she's entitled to have her medical bills covered. And, if it can be determined that the manufacturers of HeadOn intended to hurt her, she could possibly be awarded punitive damages. Otherwise, sayonara lawsuit.

-Dr. Imago

Skeptical Greg · 13th January 2008, 05:23 PM

Since when is ' intent ' the basis for awarding punitive damages ?

OnlyTellsTruths · 13th January 2008, 09:12 PM

Originally Posted by tkingdoll

So, we have implied medical product. Is that enough?

Did you really forget the catchphrase?

You would have "implied medical product.... with explicit forehead application", in addition to "no alternative explanation for the product's use".

steve s · 13th January 2008, 10:08 PM

The newest commercials show some guy promising your money back if you're not completely satisfied. But it still doesn't say what it is that you'd be satisfied with.

Steve S.

JWideman · 14th January 2008, 12:01 AM

It is my understanding that this product is almost entirely wax and that the active ingredients are in homeopathic proportions, so I don't think it's actually dangerous.

DavidS · 14th January 2008, 01:00 AM

Actually, not many months back the HeadOn commercials did explicitly claim their product relieved headache pain. I remember being surprised at the specificity of the claim for a product so apparently woo (that commercial was too damned hard to ignore when the remote's across the room). I recall hearing a news report that they were revising their ads after a regulatory agency (FTC or FDA, don't remember) took them to task on the claim.

blutoski · 14th January 2008, 02:46 PM

The other question would be about merchandising stipulations, rather than the marketing claims. For example, I was at London Drugs, and they had it in the section for headache remedies.

It's common for distributors to tell the retailers where on the shelf the product needs to sit. If they told London Drugs that it belongs in the headache remedy section, then that contributes to what claim is being communicated to the customer. Especially if they paid for shelf-space.

steve s · 14th January 2008, 07:12 PM

I just saw the ActivOn ad. It makes the claim, both verbally and visually, of "Safe and effective pain relief." Sounds like a testable claim to me.

Steve S.

kjkent1 · 14th January 2008, 08:18 PM

Originally Posted by steve s

I just saw the ActivOn ad. It makes the claim, both verbally and visually, of "Safe and effective pain relief." Sounds like a testable claim to me.

Steve S.

ActiveOn is a different product. No claims are made concerning HeadOn, so the manufacturer can't be held liable for misrepresentation, because they don't represent that HeadOn does anything.

The other claims would be for product liability or negligence, both of which require damages. So, the lead plaintiff's damages will be a couple of dollars, unless there were proof that HeadOn actually injured someone. I don't see a case here, but, as previously mentioned, I haven't read the complaint, so I don't know what the plaintiff is up to.

Note: for the person who asked about "intent" and punitive damages, in order to obtain punitive damages, a plaintiff must show that the defendant's acts were either intentional or a gross deviation from the standard of care due by the defendant to the plaintiff (gross negligence). So, yes, intent is required for punitives.

patnray · 15th January 2008, 12:01 PM

Originally Posted by krelnik

Here is the original ad on YouTube. These have run incessantly for the last two years or so -- those of you outside the U.S., please feel our pain.

Actually, this is not the original ad. The original, which ran for about six months did mention headache relief (as David S has pointed out). I believe they were forced to pull those ads, which is when the new ones, which make no specific claims, began airing. Look closely at the product packaging in the ads. The parts of the package that mention headaches is blurred out.

Whenever I'm in a drugstore I peruse the placebo section to see what's currently in fashion. Head On is common these days, and the package does mention headache relief. So, based on the packaging, the law suit may have merit. I certainly hope so.

Some of their other products do have active ingredients. Which is an interesting marketing strategy. The first product is totally a placebo promoted with a major marketing campaign. Some people feel relief, some don't (rubbing menthol on the forehead probably does offer some relief for simple tension headaches). Just about the time people begin questioning its effacacy they promote a new product which does offer some relief, which then bolsters belief that the first product must be effective, too.

wdimac · 15th January 2008, 03:59 PM

Their website does claim that it is a medication. Though it still doesn't explicitly say what it does...

Quote:

HeadOn® is one of the safest medications available on the market today. It can be used by anyone and as often as needed. There are no dosage restrictions or health risks associated with its use. See Drug Facts on product package.

Dr. Imago · 15th January 2008, 05:56 PM

Originally Posted by Diogenes

Since when is ' intent ' the basis for awarding punitive damages ?

There are two types of damage awards given in legal torts: punitive and compensatory. Compensatory is easy, and just as it sounds. The person is being compensated for their out of pocket expenses, pain and suffering, and any other incursions into their own finances that the tort placed upon them. Compensation requires that damage was done, someone was responsible, and that recompense must be instituted.

Punitive damages take this one step further. In order to get punitive damages, the plaintiff has to prove that the defendant knowingly continued the tort once they realized that damage was occurring or initiated the tort despite the fact that they knew the damage would occur. Much harder legal obstacle to overcome.

Judges and juries will usually limit compensatory payouts to what are reasonable to individuals (reimbursement for lost wages, medical expenses, etc.) and some pain and suffering. Punitive can be a "skies the limit" kind of thing, where judges and juries often set a strong precedent to other would-be perpetrators not to engage in that type of bad behavior.

-Dr. Imago

Eos of the Eons · 15th January 2008, 06:07 PM

http://www.miralus.com/headon.php

Their website makes claims for of all their products, except for the forehead wax. More on homeopathic preparation there too.

Beerina · 24th January 2008, 03:31 PM

So nobody knows what it's supposed to do?

12th January 2008, 09:23 AM	#1
Joytown Scholar Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 65	HeadOn - Ineffective? Apply Directly to Your Lawsuit Woman Directly Sues HeadOn For Being Ineffective http://cbs2.com/lasvegas/HeadOn.Appl....2.627493.html Quote: "According to the complaint, Shapiro bought HeadOn for $6 at a Walgreen's store in Van Nuys on Oct. 15. She applied the substance to her forehead as directed, but "did not obtain any headache pain relief as a result of using HeadOn" Say it ain't so! You mean this stuff may not actually work as advertised? I'm suprised it took this long for someone to do this - and actually I'm even more suprised the FDA hasn't stepped already. Another interesting facet to this claim is that: Quote: " HeadOn products contain potassium bichromate, a chemical known to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity, and white bryony, classified by the Department of Agriculture as a noxious weed" This should be fun to watch. -jon
Joytown Scholar Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 65

12th January 2008, 09:54 AM	#2
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 32,091	One of my radio ventures is "Head On Radio Network" and we REALLY wanted to sue these guys but as we were in a totally different business we could not argue that we would be confused with a quack cure.
	__________________ Are you IN? Join the IN crowd now!

12th January 2008, 10:10 AM	#3
Gord_in_Toronto Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 13,411	Originally Posted by BenBurch One of my radio ventures is "Head On Radio Network" and we REALLY wanted to sue these guys but as we were in a totally different business we could not argue that we would be confused with a quack cure. Oh, so now you tell me! I thought you were sponsored by them. I guess I'll stop my Internet campaign to have you boycotted then. Go for it!
	__________________ "Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." Philip K. Dick

12th January 2008, 01:02 PM	#5
Dr. Imago Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 2,050	Originally Posted by Joytown Woman Directly Sues HeadOn For Being Ineffective She's gonna lose. The company never made any structure/function claims. They were careful and clever to not do this in their marketing campaign. People assumed that it was supposed to do something. -Dr. Imago
Dr. Imago Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 2,050	__________________ DISCLAIMER: The above post is for informational and/or educational purposes only. It is not a substitute for the professional judgment of, in direct consultation with, a health care professional in diagnosing, treating, and/or preventing any disease or disorder. It is not to be construed as individualized medical advice, diagnosis, or a treatment recommendation. Your reliance upon the information obtained or used by you at, through, or as a result of this post is solely at your own risk.

12th January 2008, 01:46 PM	#7
Dogdoctor Canis Doctorius Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Pacific Ocean Posts: 14,276	The Headon product that I saw had a money back guarantee. However researching potassium bichromate, there may be something there. Not sure but in legal systems I think the burden is usually on the plaintiff to prove everything so unlikely to be successful.
	__________________

12th January 2008, 12:44 PM	#4
XBoxWarrior Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Down in the Treme... Posts: 1,232	From the article, Quote: HeadOn, a product that has become known for its annoying and redundant commercials Well that one is a given......(but it's selling like crack) and again..... Quote: The National Advertising Division of the Council of Better Business Bureaus has concluded there is "no competent and reliable scientific evidence supporting (HeadOn's) claims that (it) is a safe and effective headache pain reliever," the suit states. WTF is the NADCBBB? and what exactly do they ever do? I hope she wins, and from the article her atty is going class action, well maybe I should buy a ticket.......does that mean I have to actually buy a magic stick? They should post his info......(the Atty) I wanna piece of this!

12th January 2008, 01:07 PM	#6
XBoxWarrior Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Down in the Treme... Posts: 1,232	Originally Posted by Dr. Imago She's gonna lose. Dr. Imago Spoil Sport......If the case goes to a jury in Las Vegas, I bet she has a preliminary chance.......after all it's Vegas Baby. Derail: Isn't OJ back in the Clark County High Rise? (yes, been there)

12th January 2008, 02:19 PM	#8
Joytown Scholar Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 65	Originally Posted by XBoxWarrior Spoil Sport......If the case goes to a jury in Las Vegas, I bet she has a preliminary chance.......after all it's Vegas Baby. Derail: Isn't OJ back in the Clark County High Rise? (yes, been there) Yes he is! Rerail: Even though the article is from a Las Vegas source, I beleive the suit was filed in L.A. County Superior Court .... -jon
Joytown Scholar Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 65

12th January 2008, 02:22 PM	#9
Tokenconservative Banned Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 2,204	Originally Posted by Joytown Woman Directly Sues HeadOn For Being Ineffective http://cbs2.com/lasvegas/HeadOn.Appl....2.627493.html Say it ain't so! You mean this stuff may not actually work as advertised? I'm suprised it took this long for someone to do this - and actually I'm even more suprised the FDA hasn't stepped already. Another interesting facet to this claim is that: This should be fun to watch. -jon I always thought this stuff was like Aspercreme....which supposedly helps with muscle aches...since it's my understanding headaches result from tightness of the skull muscles...nope? It's homeojokish woo? Well, I like their commercials. Especially the ones that make fun of their own commercials. Tokie

12th January 2008, 02:43 PM	#10
Dogdoctor Canis Doctorius Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Pacific Ocean Posts: 14,276	Originally Posted by Tokenconservative I always thought this stuff was like Aspercreme....which supposedly helps with muscle aches...since it's my understanding headaches result from tightness of the skull muscles...nope? It's homeojokish woo? Well, I like their commercials. Especially the ones that make fun of their own commercials. Tokie Yeah it is totally homeowhatever nonsense but oddly they have chosen to use a probable carcinogen as part of the ingredients for some odd reason.
	__________________

12th January 2008, 02:53 PM	#11
technoextreme Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 3,786	Originally Posted by Joytown Woman Directly Sues HeadOn For Being Ineffective http://cbs2.com/lasvegas/HeadOn.Appl....2.627493.html Say it ain't so! You mean this stuff may not actually work as advertised? I'm suprised it took this long for someone to do this - and actually I'm even more suprised the FDA hasn't stepped already. Another interesting facet to this claim is that: This should be fun to watch. -jon You know whats really stupid. I always thought it was acne medication.

12th January 2008, 03:21 PM	#12
JWideman Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 1,241	Originally Posted by technoextreme You know whats really stupid. I always thought it was acne medication. I'm sure it's equally effective for that.

12th January 2008, 04:39 PM	#13
krelnik Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Atlanta, Georgia Posts: 1,185	I hope the plaintiff's filings with the court repeat each sentence 3 times all the way through.... Comes now the plaintiff... Comes now the plaintiff... Comes now the plaintiff...

12th January 2008, 04:57 PM	#14
blutoski Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Vancouver BC Canada Posts: 5,966	Originally Posted by Dr. Imago She's gonna lose. The company never made any structure/function claims. They were careful and clever to not do this in their marketing campaign. People assumed that it was supposed to do something. -Dr. Imago They may not have broken any FDA regs, but it's possible to get them on FTC regs. They could go the Trudeau route. Advertising can't be misleading. If the judge/jury feel that a reasonable person would have inferred that the product owners were saying it relieved headaches based on the commercials, then it's 'false or misleading' advertising.
	__________________ "Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett

12th January 2008, 05:24 PM	#15
LTC8K6 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail Posts: 12,616	What claims are on the package? I am pretty sure that the commercials have changed. They were much more irritating initially, and I think they made different claims. You can probably find the older commercials on you tube. http://www.randi.org/jr/2006-07/072806academic.html#i15 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HeadOn Those ingredients aren't actually in the product, so this suit should indeed be interesting. Quote: Chemical analysis has shown that the product consists almost entirely of wax. The two ingredients listed as "active", white bryony (a type of vine) and potassium dichromate (a known carcinogen), are diluted to 1 ppt and 1 ppm respectively.[9] This amount of dilution is so great that the product has been described as a placebo. Each 0.2-ounce stick contains a “12X” concentration of white bryony. That means that the whole stick contains 1 part of ingredient in 1 trillion parts of wax - equivalent to 5.670 picograms of ingredient.[citation needed] Seymour Diamond, director of the Diamond Headache Clinic in Chicago and the inpatient headache unit at St. Joseph Hospital, has been quoted as saying "I see nothing in this product that has any validity whatsoever."[10] However, the package does list menthol as an inactive ingredient; menthol is one of the active ingredients of Vicks VapoRub. Correspondence has been published with a statement from HeadOn Customer Service that "It works through the nerves."[11] Miralus Healthcare claims that HeadOn is safe, so that "it can be used by anyone and as often as needed. There are no dosage restrictions or health risks associated with its use."[12] There are three variants of HeadOn — Extra Strength Headache Pain Reliever,[13] Extra Strength Sinus Headache Relief,[14] and Migraine Pain Reliever.[15] Their active ingredients (converted from the listed homeopathic dilution notation to standard percentages) are: Extra Strength Headache Pain Reliever Potassium dichromate 8 × 10−8% White Bryony 4 × 10−14% Extra Strength Sinus Headache Relief Potassium dichromate 5 × 10−8% White Bryony 4 × 10−14% Golden Seal Hydrastis 8 × 10−32% Migraine Pain Reliever Potassium dichromate 3 × 10−8% White Bryony 4 × 10−14% Blue Flag Iris Versicolor 1 × 10−13%
	__________________ What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing. 2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break? Last edited by LTC8K6; 12th January 2008 at 05:25 PM.

12th January 2008, 06:05 PM	#16
tkingdoll AKA TEEK Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Up Myself Posts: 12,471	Originally Posted by blutoski They may not have broken any FDA regs, but it's possible to get them on FTC regs. They could go the Trudeau route. Advertising can't be misleading. If the judge/jury feel that a reasonable person would have inferred that the product owners were saying it relieved headaches based on the commercials, then it's 'false or misleading' advertising. I think an interesting question would have to be "if the adverts aren't intended to get people to think the product relieves headaches, what are they intended for?" What, exactly, is this product meant to be for if not headache relief? I haven't seen the ads but if they show a person in pain, then the same person not in pain, in the UK that would be enough to get them into trouble. No idea if USA is similar, though.
	__________________ www.stormmovie.net Official website of Tim Minchin's Storm Movie

12th January 2008, 07:46 PM	#18
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 32,091	I have a friend who was nearly killed by Glucosamine, and it made his arthritis so much worse that he can hardly walk, and destroyed his ability to digest most foods. REALLY bad crap.
	__________________ Are you IN? Join the IN crowd now!

13th January 2008, 03:05 AM	#19
Schneibster Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 3,966	http://www.quackwatch.com/01Quackery...ucosamine.html Might as well get the skinny from a trusted source.
Schneibster Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 3,966

13th January 2008, 09:28 AM	#20
Beerina Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: A floating island above the clouds Posts: 23,835	Originally Posted by Joytown Woman Directly Sues HeadOn For Being Ineffective http://cbs2.com/lasvegas/HeadOn.Appl....2.627493.html Say it ain't so! You mean this stuff may not actually work as advertised? I'm suprised it took this long for someone to do this - and actually I'm even more suprised the FDA hasn't stepped already. Given HeadOn never says what it actually does in the TV ads, no doubt to protect themselves against fraud all the while getting rave reviews for clever advertisement by the unfortunately not quite terminally clueless, I'm interested to hear a claim as to what it was actually for. I thought it was some kind of paste that you used to attach a construction paper cutout "L" to your forehead.
	__________________ "Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales *now!* More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?

13th January 2008, 09:48 AM	#21
tkingdoll AKA TEEK Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Up Myself Posts: 12,471	Hmm. Looking at the original ad that krelnik posted, there is no mention of headaches, no footage of anyone in pain, nothing. The only thing they say is that it's available without a prescription, which implies it is a medical product, as that is a statement you would only make about a medical product. So, we have implied medical product. Is that enough? What does the packaging say?
	__________________ www.stormmovie.net Official website of Tim Minchin's Storm Movie

13th January 2008, 10:50 AM	#22
krelnik Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Atlanta, Georgia Posts: 1,185	Originally Posted by Beerina I thought it was some kind of paste that you used to attach a construction paper cutout "L" to your forehead. Since it appears to made mostly of wax, it might actually be pretty good for that purpose!

13th January 2008, 03:35 PM	#23
kjkent1 Muse Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: coming to a courtroom near you Posts: 731	Without reading the actual complaint filed in court, it's impossible to say tha the plaintiff has or has no case. However, the TV ads don't actually claim that the product does anything. Neither does the Miralus website. So, if the packaging doesn't claim anything, either, then it will be nearly impossible to win an unfair trade practice action, because Miralus not only isn't misrepresenting the product -- they're not even "representing" it. Interestingly, Walgreen's "is" representing Headon as an "extra-strength" headache reliever -- so, the real lawsuilt may be against retailers, rather than the manufacturer. Kind of an unusual case for the retailer to claim more for the product than the manufacturer. Regardless, this is a true lawyer's lawsuit. There's no money in it for the class -- all of the award will go to pay attorney fees.
	__________________ "A child of five would understand this -- send someone to fetch a child of five!" -- Groucho Marx Last edited by kjkent1; 13th January 2008 at 03:35 PM.

13th January 2008, 03:55 PM	#24
Dr. Imago Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 2,050	I'll give you another one where there's no possible way they manufacturers will ever be successfully sued: Enzyte. They, as well, make absolutely no structure/function claims. They imply a lot, but that's not illegal. They never anywhere state that their product does anything... just like the makers of HeadOn. As always, caveat emptor. This lady's got a loser, unless she was actually injured by the product, and can prove she suffered damages, using it in a manner they described (applied directly to head). In that case, she's entitled to have her medical bills covered. And, if it can be determined that the manufacturers of HeadOn intended to hurt her, she could possibly be awarded punitive damages. Otherwise, sayonara lawsuit. -Dr. Imago
Dr. Imago Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 2,050	__________________ DISCLAIMER: The above post is for informational and/or educational purposes only. It is not a substitute for the professional judgment of, in direct consultation with, a health care professional in diagnosing, treating, and/or preventing any disease or disorder. It is not to be construed as individualized medical advice, diagnosis, or a treatment recommendation. Your reliance upon the information obtained or used by you at, through, or as a result of this post is solely at your own risk.

13th January 2008, 05:23 PM	#25
Skeptical Greg Agave Wine Connoisseur Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Just past 'Resume Speed' Posts: 12,873	Since when is ' intent ' the basis for awarding punitive damages ?
	__________________ " Somewhere between Jesus dying on the cross, and a giant bunny hiding eggs,there seems to be a gap in information. " Stan - Southpark Prove your computer is not a wimp ! Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232

13th January 2008, 09:12 PM	#26
OnlyTellsTruths Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 5,786	Originally Posted by tkingdoll So, we have implied medical product. Is that enough? Did you really forget the catchphrase? You would have "implied medical product.... with explicit forehead application", in addition to "no alternative explanation for the product's use".
OnlyTellsTruths Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 5,786	__________________ ________________________ Last edited by OnlyTellsTruths; 13th January 2008 at 09:17 PM.

13th January 2008, 10:08 PM	#27
steve s Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 3,659	The newest commercials show some guy promising your money back if you're not completely satisfied. But it still doesn't say what it is that you'd be satisfied with. Steve S.
steve s Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 3,659	__________________ "Nature abhors a moron." -- H. L. Mencken

14th January 2008, 12:01 AM	#28
JWideman Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 1,241	It is my understanding that this product is almost entirely wax and that the active ingredients are in homeopathic proportions, so I don't think it's actually dangerous.

14th January 2008, 01:00 AM	#29
DavidS Muse Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 519	Actually, not many months back the HeadOn commercials did explicitly claim their product relieved headache pain. I remember being surprised at the specificity of the claim for a product so apparently woo (that commercial was too damned hard to ignore when the remote's across the room). I recall hearing a news report that they were revising their ads after a regulatory agency (FTC or FDA, don't remember) took them to task on the claim.
DavidS Muse Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 519

14th January 2008, 02:46 PM	#30
blutoski Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Vancouver BC Canada Posts: 5,966	The other question would be about merchandising stipulations, rather than the marketing claims. For example, I was at London Drugs, and they had it in the section for headache remedies. It's common for distributors to tell the retailers where on the shelf the product needs to sit. If they told London Drugs that it belongs in the headache remedy section, then that contributes to what claim is being communicated to the customer. Especially if they paid for shelf-space.
	__________________ "Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett

14th January 2008, 07:12 PM	#31
steve s Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 3,659	I just saw the ActivOn ad. It makes the claim, both verbally and visually, of "Safe and effective pain relief." Sounds like a testable claim to me. Steve S.
steve s Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 3,659	__________________ "Nature abhors a moron." -- H. L. Mencken

14th January 2008, 08:18 PM	#32
kjkent1 Muse Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: coming to a courtroom near you Posts: 731	Originally Posted by steve s I just saw the ActivOn ad. It makes the claim, both verbally and visually, of "Safe and effective pain relief." Sounds like a testable claim to me. Steve S. ActiveOn is a different product. No claims are made concerning HeadOn, so the manufacturer can't be held liable for misrepresentation, because they don't represent that HeadOn does anything. The other claims would be for product liability or negligence, both of which require damages. So, the lead plaintiff's damages will be a couple of dollars, unless there were proof that HeadOn actually injured someone. I don't see a case here, but, as previously mentioned, I haven't read the complaint, so I don't know what the plaintiff is up to. Note: for the person who asked about "intent" and punitive damages, in order to obtain punitive damages, a plaintiff must show that the defendant's acts were either intentional or a gross deviation from the standard of care due by the defendant to the plaintiff (gross negligence). So, yes, intent is required for punitives.
	__________________ "A child of five would understand this -- send someone to fetch a child of five!" -- Groucho Marx

15th January 2008, 12:01 PM	#33
patnray Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: San Jose, CA Posts: 1,008	Originally Posted by krelnik Here is the original ad on YouTube. These have run incessantly for the last two years or so -- those of you outside the U.S., please feel our pain. Actually, this is not the original ad. The original, which ran for about six months did mention headache relief (as David S has pointed out). I believe they were forced to pull those ads, which is when the new ones, which make no specific claims, began airing. Look closely at the product packaging in the ads. The parts of the package that mention headaches is blurred out. Whenever I'm in a drugstore I peruse the placebo section to see what's currently in fashion. Head On is common these days, and the package does mention headache relief. So, based on the packaging, the law suit may have merit. I certainly hope so. Some of their other products do have active ingredients. Which is an interesting marketing strategy. The first product is totally a placebo promoted with a major marketing campaign. Some people feel relief, some don't (rubbing menthol on the forehead probably does offer some relief for simple tension headaches). Just about the time people begin questioning its effacacy they promote a new product which does offer some relief, which then bolsters belief that the first product must be effective, too.
	__________________ Infidel by Ayaan Hirsi Ali A powerful and moving story of a strong and courageous woman’s struggle to free herself from a culture that treats women as property. Despite repeated death threats from religious zealots, she campaigns tirelessly for the rights of Muslim women. A tearful, chilling, yet inspiring, tale of personal triumph and dedication to free expression.

15th January 2008, 03:59 PM	#34
wdimac Student Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 26	Their website does claim that it is a medication. Though it still doesn't explicitly say what it does... Quote: HeadOn® is one of the safest medications available on the market today. It can be used by anyone and as often as needed. There are no dosage restrictions or health risks associated with its use. See Drug Facts on product package.
wdimac Student Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 26

15th January 2008, 05:56 PM	#35
Dr. Imago Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 2,050	Originally Posted by Diogenes Since when is ' intent ' the basis for awarding punitive damages ? There are two types of damage awards given in legal torts: punitive and compensatory. Compensatory is easy, and just as it sounds. The person is being compensated for their out of pocket expenses, pain and suffering, and any other incursions into their own finances that the tort placed upon them. Compensation requires that damage was done, someone was responsible, and that recompense must be instituted. Punitive damages take this one step further. In order to get punitive damages, the plaintiff has to prove that the defendant knowingly continued the tort once they realized that damage was occurring or initiated the tort despite the fact that they knew the damage would occur. Much harder legal obstacle to overcome. Judges and juries will usually limit compensatory payouts to what are reasonable to individuals (reimbursement for lost wages, medical expenses, etc.) and some pain and suffering. Punitive can be a "skies the limit" kind of thing, where judges and juries often set a strong precedent to other would-be perpetrators not to engage in that type of bad behavior. -Dr. Imago
Dr. Imago Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 2,050	__________________ DISCLAIMER: The above post is for informational and/or educational purposes only. It is not a substitute for the professional judgment of, in direct consultation with, a health care professional in diagnosing, treating, and/or preventing any disease or disorder. It is not to be construed as individualized medical advice, diagnosis, or a treatment recommendation. Your reliance upon the information obtained or used by you at, through, or as a result of this post is solely at your own risk.

15th January 2008, 06:07 PM	#36
Eos of the Eons Mad Scientist Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Alberta Posts: 13,894	http://www.miralus.com/headon.php Their website makes claims for of all their products, except for the forehead wax. More on homeopathic preparation there too.
	__________________ Motion affecting a measuring device does not affect what is actually being measured, except to inaccurately measure it. the immaterial world doesn't matter, cause it ain't matter-Jeff Corey my karma ran over my dogma-vbloke The Lateral Truth: An Apostate's Bible Stories by Rebecca Bradley, read it!