About

Important information

• Advertising Review:

  On January 27, 2021, BBB contacted this business regarding advertising claims on their website. Despite multiple contacts, the business did not respond to BBB's request for support or substantiation of the claims on their website.  Specifically BBB requested information about the pet health claims related to their products, documentation of the awards claimed on the website, support for the Made In USA claims, information about what is included in the free consultations, and documentation that the testimonials are genuine and reflect outcomes that most consumers will achieve.  In addition, the site refers to it's founder as a 'former human physician'. According to BBB information Weisman was a chiropractor, not a medical doctor. BBB requested this claim be modified.  The site does not include a privacy policy; BBB requested a policy be provided and added to the website. 

  The BBB Code of Advertising Standards used when reviewing the website are: 

  1. Basic Principles of the Code
  1.1 The primary responsibility for truthful and non-deceptive advertising rests with the advertiser. Advertisers should be prepared to substantiate any objective claims or offers made before publication or broadcast. Upon request, they should present such substantiation promptly to the advertising medium or BBB.
  1.2 Advertisements which are untrue, misleading, deceptive, fraudulent, falsely disparaging of competitors, or insincere offers to sell, shall not be used.
  1.3 An advertisement as a whole may be misleading by implication, although every sentence separately considered may be literally true.
  1.4 Misrepresentation may result not only from direct statements, but by omitting or obscuring a material fact.

  2. Comparative Price, Value and Savings Claims
  BBB recognizes that truthful price information helps consumers make informed purchasing decisions and that comparative price advertising1 plays an important role in promoting vigorous competition among retailers. At the same time, misleading or unsubstantiated pricing claims injure both consumers and competitors. The following examples offer guidance on ensuring that pricing claims are truthful and not misleading.
  2.1 Advertisers may offer a price reduction or savings by comparing their selling price with:
  2.1.1 Their own former selling price;
  2.1.2 The current selling price of identical products or services sold by others in the trade area (the area in which the company does business or where the advertisement appears) (e.g., “selling elsewhere at $_______.”); or
  2.1.3 The current selling price of a comparable product or service sold by the advertiser or by others in the trade area (e.g., “comparable value,” “compares with products or services selling at $_____,” “equal to products or services selling for $_____”).
  2.2 In each case, the advertisement must clearly and conspicuously disclose which basis of comparison is being used.
  2.3 When these comparisons are made in advertising, the claims must be based on the provisions in Sections 3 - 7.
  
  3. Comparison with own former selling price
  3.1 The former price must be the actual price at which the advertiser has openly and actively offered the product or service for sale, for a reasonably substantial period of time, in the recent, regular course of business, honestly and in good faith.
  3.2 Where the former price is genuine, the bargain being advertised is a true one.  If, on the other hand, the former price being advertised is not bona fide, the bargain being advertised is a false one. 
  3.2.1 For example, where an artificial, inflated price was established for the purpose of enabling the subsequent offer of a large reduction, the consumer is not receiving the usual value expected.  In such a case, the “reduced” price is, in reality, probably just the seller's regular price.
  3.3 Offering prices, as distinguished from actual former selling prices, may be used to deceptively imply a savings. In the event few or no sales were made at the advertised comparative price, the advertiser must make sure that the higher price does not exceed the advertiser's usual and customary retail markup for similar products or services.
  3.4 Descriptive terminology often used by advertisers includes: “regularly,” “was,” “you save $ _____,” and “originally.” If the word “originally” is used and the original price is not the last previous price, that fact must be clearly and conspicuously disclosed by stating the last previous price, or that intermediate markdowns may have taken place, for example, “originally $400, formerly $300, now $250,” “originally $400, intermediate markdowns taken, now $250.”
  
  4. Comparison with current price of identical products or services sold by others
  Advertisers should be reasonably certain that the comparative price does not appreciably exceed the price at which substantial sales of identical products or services have been made in the trade area for which the claim is made for a reasonably substantial period of time, in the recent, regular course of business. Such comparisons must be substantiated by the advertiser prior to making any advertised comparisons. Descriptive terminology often used by advertisers includes: “selling elsewhere at $______.”
  
  5. Comparison with current price of comparable products or services sold by the advertiser or by others
  5.1 Advertisers should be reasonably certain that the comparative price does not appreciably exceed the price at which substantial sales of comparable products or services have been made in the trade area for which the claim is made for a reasonably substantial period of time, in the recent, regular course of business. Such comparisons must be substantiated by the advertiser prior to making any advertised comparisons. Descriptive terminology often used by advertisers includes: “comparable value,” “compares with products or services selling at $_____,” “equal to products or services selling for $_____.”
  5.2 In all such cases, the advertiser must make certain that the comparable products or services are similar in all material and significant respects.
  
  6. List prices
  6.1  “List price,” “manufacturer's list price,” “reference price,” “suggested retail price,” and similar terms, hereinafter collectively referred to as “list price,” may be used deceptively to state or imply a savings which was not, in fact, the case. To the extent that a list price does not in fact correspond to the price at which substantial sales of the product in question have been made, the advertisement of a reduction may mislead the consumer. Such a comparison must be substantiated by the advertiser prior to making any advertised comparison.
  6.2 An advertiser, however, can also reference a list price non-deceptively where the advertiser:
  6.2.1 Does not describe the difference as a “savings,” or use any other words of similar meaning; and
  6.2.2 Clearly and conspicuously discloses2 that the list price may not necessarily be the price at which the product or service is sold. This disclosure may be unnecessary in situations where consumers generally know that the list price may not necessarily be the price at which the product or service is sold. This may be the case, for example, when an automobile dealer references, in its ad, a new car’s Monroney Sticker price.

  21. Layout and Illustrations
  21.1 The composition and layout of advertisements should be such as to minimize the possibility of misunderstanding by the reader.
  21.1.1 For example, prices, illustrations or descriptions must not be so placed or displayed in an advertisement as to give the impression that the price or terms of featured products or services apply to other products or services in the advertisement, when such is not the case.

  27. Superiority Claims-Comparatives-Disparagement
  27.1 Advertisers must not deceptively or falsely disparage a competitor or competing products or services in their advertising. Truthful comparisons using factual information may help consumers make informed buying decisions, provided:
  27.1.1 All representations are consistent with the general rules and prohibitions against false and deceptive advertising;
  27.1.2 All comparisons that claim or imply, unqualifiedly, superiority to competitive products or services are not based on a selected or limited list of characteristics in which the advertiser excels while ignoring those in which the competitor excels;
  27.1.3 The advertisement clearly and conspicuously discloses any material or significant limitations of the comparison; and
  27.1.4 The advertiser can substantiate all claims made.
  
  28. Objective Superlative Claims
  Superlative statements in advertisements about the tangible qualities and performance values of a product or service are objective claims for which the advertiser must possess substantiation as they can be based upon accepted standards or tests. As statements of fact, such claims, like “#1 in new car sales in the city,” can be proved or disproved.
  
  29. Subjective Puffery Claims
  29.1 Expressions of opinion or personal evaluation of the intangible qualities of a product or service are likely to be considered puffery. Such claims are not subject to the test of truth and accuracy and would not need substantiation.
  29.2 Puffery may include statements such as “best food in the world” and “we try harder” as well as other individual opinions, statements of corporate pride, exaggerations, blustering and boasting statements upon which no reasonable buyer would be justified in relying. Puffery also includes general claims of superiority over comparable products that are so vague that it can be understood as nothing more than a mere expression of opinion.
  29.3 Ultimately, whether any particular statement or claim is puffery will depend upon the context in which it is used in the advertisement.
  
  30. Testimonials and Endorsements
  30.1 In general, advertising which uses testimonials or endorsements is likely to mislead or confuse if:
  30.1.1 It is not genuine and does not actually represent the current opinion of the endorser;
  30.1.2 The actual wording of the testimonial or endorsement has been altered in such a way as to change its overall meaning and impact;
  30.1.3 It contains representations or statements which would be misleading if made directly by the advertiser;
  30.1.4 While literally true, it creates deceptive implications;
  30.1.5 The endorser has not been a bona fide user of the endorsed product or service at the time when the endorsement was given, where the advertiser represents that the endorser uses the product or service;
  30.1.6 It is not clearly stated that the endorser, associated with some well-known and highly-regarded institution, is speaking only in a personal capacity, and not on behalf of such an institution, if such be the fact;
  30.1.7 The advertising makes broad claims as to the endorsements or approval by indefinitely large or vague groups, for example, “the homeowners of America,” “the doctors of America;”
  30.1.8 The endorser has a financial interest in the company whose product or service is endorsed and this is not made known in the advertisement;
  30.1.9 An expert endorser does not possess the qualifications that give the endorser the expertise represented in the advertisement;
  30.1.10 The advertiser represents, directly or by implication, that the endorser is an “actual consumer” when such is not the case and the advertisement fails to clearly and conspicuously disclose that fact;
  30.1.11 A consumer’s experience represented in an advertisement is not the typical experience of those using the product or service, unless the advertisement clearly and conspicuously discloses what the expected results will be;
  30.1.12 Endorsements placed by advertisers in online blogs or on other third-party websites do not clearly and conspicuously disclose the connection to the advertiser and comply with each of the provisions in this Code; and
  30.1.13 Advertisers compensate consumers for leaving feedback on third-party online blogs or websites but fail to ensure that consumers disclose such facts on those blogs or websites.
  In the U.S., advertisers should consult the Federal Trade Commission Guides on Testimonials and Endorsements for detailed guidance. In Canada, advertisers should review the Competition Bureau’s publication on Untrue, Misleading or Unauthorized Use of Tests and Testimonials for specific guidance.

  34. Claimed Results
  Claims relating to performance, energy savings, safety, efficacy or results for a product or service should be based on recent and competent testing or other objective data. 

  37. “Made in USA” Claims
  37.1 “Made in USA” and similar terms used to describe the origin of a product must be truthful and substantiated.
  37.2 An advertiser must not express or imply that a product or product line is exclusively “Made in USA” unless all or virtually all of the product is made in the U.S. All significant parts and processing that go into the product must be of U.S. origin. That is, the product should contain no — or negligible — foreign content.
  37.3 Advertisers can refer to products that are manufactured with foreign components as “Assembled in USA,” if the product's principal assembly and last substantial transformation was completed in the U.S.
  37.4 Qualified “Made in USA” claims, for example, “60% U.S. content,” “Made in U.S. of U.S. and imported parts,” are appropriate for products that are manufactured or have been substantially assembled domestically. However, advertisers must avoid making these claims if a significant amount of assembly or material of the product was not completed in the U.S. Qualified “Made in USA” claims, like unqualified claims, must be truthful and substantiated.