© ACCC July 21st, 2011:
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has instituted proceedings against Sensaslim Australia Pty Ltd (Administrator Appointed) (Sensaslim), Mr Peter Clarence Foster, Mr Peter Leslie O’Brien, Mr Adam Troy Adams and Mr Michael Anthony Boyle.
The ACCC alleges that Sensaslim and several of its officers engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct and made false representations in relation to the identity of Sensaslim officers, the Sensaslim Spray and the business opportunities offered by Sensaslim. The alleged conduct includes:
- Failing to disclose the involvement of Peter Foster in the business of Sensaslim;
- Falsely representing that the Sensaslim Spray was the subject of a large worldwide clinical trial when in fact no such trial was conducted;
- Falsely representing that Dr Capehorn, an obesity specialist, gave unqualified support to the effectiveness of the Sensaslim Spray and the purported clinical trials;
- Falsely representing that Michael Boyle was managing the business of Sensaslim;
- Failing to disclose that Michael Boyle was intending to resign as Director immediately following the launch of Sensaslim;
- Falsely representing that Sensaslim franchisees were already participating in, and profiting from, the Sensaslim franchise, that a Sensaslim franchise had a certain earning potential and that there was a “money back buy back guarantee”.
The ACCC is seeking court orders including declarations, injunctions, penalties, compensation orders, orders that Sensaslim officers be disqualified from managing corporations in the future and costs. In the Federal Court NSW on 20 July 2011, Justice Yates made orders by consent granting leave for the ACCC to proceed against Sensaslim Australia Pty Ltd (Administrator Appointed) up to 27 July 2011.
Orders are extended to 27 July 2011 that Foster, O’Brien and Adams be restrained from taking further steps to make representations regarding the efficacy of the Sensaslim Spray where the basis for the representation is a clinical trial or scientific report, unless the clinical trial was conducted and is the subject of a scientific report which has been published in a peer reviewed scientific journal.
The matter has been adjourned for further hearing to 27 July 2011.