The Federal Trade Commission has filed three separate complaints against the following marketers of electronic exercise belts:

• AB Energizer marketers: Electronic Products Distribution, L.L.C., based in San Diego, California, and its general partners, Thomas Nelson and Holly Hernandez, also known as Holly Bryan; Energizer Products, Inc., based in Tarzana, California; Ab Energizer, L.L.C., based in San Diego, California; and AbFlex USA, Inc., also located in San Diego, and its president, Martin Van Der Hoeven;
• AbTronic marketers: Hudson Berkley Corporation, based in Las Vegas, Nevada, and also doing business as Hudson Berkeley, Inc., and its officer and director, Matthias Granic; Bismarck Labs Corporation, based in Palm Springs, California and also doing business as BLC Bismarck Labs Corporation; TMI Tricom Marketing, Inc., a Delaware corporation; CCI CAD CAM Industries Ltd., Inc., located in Hong Kong; and Bernd Ebert, a director and officer of BLC, managing director of TMI, and president of CCI; and
• Fast Abs marketers: United Fitness of America, L.L.C., based in Ventura, California, and its sole manager, George Sylva; and Tristar Products, Inc., based in Parsippany, New Jersey, and its president, Kishore Mirchandani, also known as Keith Mirchandani.

According to the FTC, the defendants sold their devices through heavily aired, 30-minute infomercials on national cable television stations such as USA, TNN, Lifetime, E!, FX, and Comedy Central. Each of the infomercials has been among the ten most frequently aired infomercials in weekly U.S. rankings and has aired well over a thousand times. The infomercials feature fitness professionals who tout the products' efficacy, user testimonials, photos of models sporting trim, sculpted midsections, and purported expert opinions from health care professionals. The AB Energizer and AbTronic marketers also aired shorter television commercials. In addition, Fast Abs has been advertised in national newspaper magazines such as Parade, and mailed circulars such as Clipper Magazine.

The defendants advertised the three devices through Internet Web sites and at national retail outlets. In addition, the defendants made claims on the packaging for the three products, which the FTC also allege were false and deceptive. The products sell for about $40-$120.

The FTC's complaints allege that the advertisements for the three ab devices falsely represent that:

• the ab devices cause fat loss and inch loss;
• the ab devices will give users well-defined abdominal muscles (e.g., "rock hard," "six pack" or "washboard" abs); and
• use of the ab devices is equivalent to (and, for AbTronic and Fast Abs, superior to) conventional abdominal exercises, such as sit-ups or crunches.

The complaint against the AB Energizer defendants also alleges that they falsely represented that the device will cause weight loss. The AbTronic complaint alleges that the defendants falsely represented that the device eliminates cellulite, and that a scientific study proves that use of the AbTronic improves abdominal strength better than exercise alone.

The FTC complaints further allege that the advertising for all three devices falsely claimed that the devices are safe for all users and failed to disclose, or failed to disclose adequately, warnings about health hazards for some people. According to the FDA and leading texts on EMS therapy, EMS devices should not be used by persons with certain conditions, including implanted pacemakers or other implanted metallic or electronic devices, swollen or inflamed areas (such as phlebitis), or cancerous lesions. Additionally, safety of EMS during pregnancy has not been established. The AbTronic and Fast Abs complaints also allege that the marketers falsely advertised that the products are safe for use over the chest area.

In addition to the false advertising allegations, the FTC complaints challenge refund, shipping, and warranty practices. The FTC alleges that all of the defendants misrepresented their "money-back guarantees" and, in many cases, failed to provide timely refunds. The FTC also alleges that marketers for all three devices violated the FTC's Mail or Telephone Order Merchandise Rule by failing to ship their direct-order products within the promised shipment time (and in some cases, failing to ship the products at all), and failing either to notify consumers of the delay or cancel the order and make a prompt and full refund. Further, the FTC alleges that the Fast Abs infomercial represented that the product comes with a one-year limited warranty, when in fact, some consumers received only a 30-day limited warranty with the product.

The FTC is seeking permanent injunctions in each of these cases to prohibit the defendants from making false or deceptive advertising claims, stop them from engaging in other deceptive marketing practices, and require them to pay redress to consumers.