Australian regulator wins case against tanning industry
01.09.2008 10:02
Shopping
- Source: cbc.ca
An Australian court has found that statements about the effects of tanning used by the industry to promote its business are false or misleading, and has forbidden their use, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) said Friday. The agency said in a news release that the Federal Court of Australia had concluded that a tanning group and two tanning companies had made false claims and misrepresented the risks associated with tanning salons, a violation of the country's Trade Practices Act. ACCC chairman Graeme Samuel said the court declared certain statements made by the companies and the Australian Tanning Association Inc. (ATA) were "false or misleading and deceptive," including: - There is no evidence linking salon use with an increased risk of skin cancer; (there is evidence of increased risk).
- A salon provides the same ultraviolet light as sunlight; (it does not).
- Tanning does not involve damage to the skin; (it does).
- Tanning protects the skin against sunburn; (it does not).
- Tanning protects the skin from ultraviolet light and the risks of ultraviolet light exposure; (it does not).
- The body repairs any damage to the skin caused by ultraviolet light exposure; (it does not).
- The skin is not damaged by ultraviolet light exposure unless it receives a sunburn; (the skin is damaged).
- Forms used by the two companies can accurately assess a person's skin type to predict responses to ultraviolet light; (the forms could not be used in this fashion).
"I suspect some members of the public may have believed one or more of the above statements to be true and decided to purchase solarium services on that basis," Samuel said. The ACCC took the ATA, Body Bronze International Pty. Ltd., Tropical Sun Industries Pty. Ltd. and Scott Meneilly, the former president of the association and former CEO of Body Bronze, to court in July. As well as making the finding that certain statements were wrong, the court told the companies to stop using them, to implement a trade practices compliance program and to publicize the outcome of the case. The defendants were also ordered to pay the ACCC's costs. RelatedInternal LinksNo sun lamps for under 18s, WHO advisesFranchise requires parental presence for teen tanningConsumer HeadlinesB.C. death raises listeriosis outbreak toll to 9The nationwide outbreak of listeriosis is being blamed for a ninth death, the first outside Ontario, public health officials said Friday afternoon.Aviation industry slow to act on safety issues, investigators sayA decade after the Swissair Flight 111 crash off Nova Scotia that claimed 229 lives, the aviation industry has yet to act on recommendations stemming from one of lengthiest and most expensive air investigations in Canadian history.Calgary crime fuels jump in women buying gunsThe number of women buying guns and taking target practice at a Calgary business has jumped six-fold partly as a response to rising crime in the city, says the owner.Zoom's classic entrepreneur: some wins, a loss Hugh Boyle, a Scot transplated to Ottawa in 1998 where he began Zoom Airlines, has had successes and failures in the air travel business.GM recalls 944,000 vehicles with heated wiper fluid featureGeneral Motors is recalling 944,000 vehicles because of a problem with a heated windshield wiper fluid system that could lead to a fire. Consumer Life FeaturesIN DEPTHFood safetyFrequently asked questions about listeriaYOUR INTERVIEWBack to school tipsAn expert takes your questionsSAFETYRecalls and AdvisoriesYOUR INTERVIEWListeriosisDr. Allison McGeer takes questions on the outbreakBLOGFood BytesListeria hysteria?BLOGComm-OdditiesFarmer's winePeople who read this also read …
| 
Add comment