作者: gogogo (虛無境界空) 看板: Oil
標題: 【轉錄】auto華人汽車商情網 part 2
時間: 東吳機研站 Fri Jan 3 16:40:52 2003
triton 職稱：課長 發文量：7977次 於 2003-01-02 10:15:17 回應本文
這篇翻得比較順.............
====== 路人 表示 ======
不通或謬誤之處，煩請不吝指正。
FTC: Federal Trade Commission
美國聯邦交易委員會
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2000/03/motor.htm
For Release: March 29, 2000
公佈日期：2000年3月29日
Dura Lube, Motor Up Settle FTC Charges
Dura Lube, Motor UP接受FTC多項指控
Settlements Will Bar Deceptive and Unsubstantiated Performance Claims; Dura Lube to Pay $2 Million in Consumer Redress
多項判決將禁止、終止無事實根據或未經證實的效能訴求；Dura Lube公司並應支付2百萬美金為消費者賠償
Additive marketers Dura Lube and Motor Up, and their principals, have agreed to settle Federal Trade
Commission charges that performance claims for their engine treatments were deceptive and unsubstantiated in violation of federal law.
添加劑銷售商Dura Lube及Motor
Up公司,以及他們的負責人,已經同意接受美國聯邦交易委員會對他們的指控，他們所宣稱的引擎添加劑功效是騙人﹑無事實根據的，因而違反聯邦法律。
The two proposed settlements will bar false and unsubstantiated claims about the performance, benefits,
efficacy, or attributes of these products. In addition, Dura Lube will pay $2 million in consumer redress to be distributed by the FTC. The FTC has
previously halted allegedly deceptive ads for Prolong Engine Treatment, Valvoline Engine Treatment, Slick 50 Engine Treatment and STP Engine Treatment.
此二案例將可禁絕謬誤而無事實根據的產品訴求，包括效能、好處、功效，或將這些優點歸類為這些產品所特有。此外，Dura Lube
公司將支付兩百萬美金由FTC分配給求償之消費者。聯邦交易委員會並已經禁止Porlong、Valvoline、Slick 50及STP引擎處理劑刊登或播放不實廣告。
"Consumers deserve advertising that is truthful and performance claims that are substantiated," said Jodie Bernstein, Director of the FTC`s Bureau of
Consumer Protection. "The FTC intends to make sure they get it."
“消費者有權看到產品效能訴求是經過證明且有根據的、誠實的廣告,”聯邦交易委員會消費者保護署署長Jodie
Bernstein說.”聯邦交易委員會將要確保消費者能確實地擁有這項權益”
In FTC complaints issued against Motor Up on April 8, 1999 and Dura Lube on April 29, 1999, the agency alleged that the companies used false and
unsubstantiated claims to promote their engine treatments. One administrative trial proceeded against Motor Up Corporation, its subsidiary Motor Up America,
and their principal, Kyle Burns. Another went forward against Herman S. Howard, Scott Howard and six Dura Lube corporations they control. The proposed
settlements announced today resolve those complaints and end the trial process.
依據消費者保護署的質疑，這些公司使用假造且未經證實的功能訴求以宣傳推銷他們的引擎保護劑，聯邦貿易委員會分於1999年4月8日、29日控告Motor Up及Dura
Lube公司，對Motor Up公司、子公司Motor Up America及他們的負責人Kyle Burns；Herman S. Howard、Scott Howard及他們控管的六家Dura
Lube公司關係企業提起行政事務訴訟，此項訴訟於今日協議同意書定案公佈後停止。
The FTC alleged that both Dura Lube and Motor Up used labeling, packaging, infomercials, and other ads that represented, among other things, that compared
to motor oil alone, their products reduce engine wear; extend engine life; and help prevent engine breakdowns or reduce the risk of serious engine damage
when oil pressure is lost.
聯邦交易委員會質疑認為Dura Lube及Motor
Up兩家公司都只是利用標貼﹑包裝﹑名人促銷及其他多種廣告噱頭，與一般的機油做比較，以凸顯他們的產品能降低引擎磨損﹑延長引擎壽命﹑當油壓喪失時並能幫助防止引擎故障
損壞或降低引擎重大損傷之風險。
The ads for both products also represented that they protect engines for up to 50,000 miles, according to the complaints. Motor Up ads also allegedly
claimed that their product prevents engine corrosion, will not drain out from the engine even when the oil is changed, and protects against engine wear even
without motor oil. Dura Lube ads allegedly claimed that their product reduces emissions and improves gas mileage by up to 35%. The FTC alleges that the
companies did not possess or rely on competent and reliable evidence to substantiate any of their performance claims, and therefore the claims were
deceptive.
根據控訴內容，這兩家公司亦在其產品廣告宣稱可保護引擎五萬英里以上。Motor
Up的廣告也宣稱他們的產品可防止引擎生銹﹑甚至連更換機油也不會流失﹑甚至沒有機油也能保護引擎免於磨損。Dura
Lube廣告宣稱他們的產品可減少爆震並增加行駛里程35%以上。聯邦貿易委員會質疑這些公司並未具有足夠的﹑可信賴的證明或證據可以證實他們任何一項功能訴求有根據，因此這�
驕朁庤D求都是騙人的。
Both Dura Lube and Motor Up ads showed tests and product demonstrations that they claimed "proved" the efficacy and superiority of their products. The FTC
alleged that the tests did not prove the claims, and therefore the companies` assertions that they did were false.
Dura Lube及Motor
Up兩家公司都以測試及產品現場測試廣告來宣稱”已證明”他們產品的功效及優越。聯邦貿易委員會質疑這些測試並未證明他們的所宣稱的功效，因此這些公司聲稱他們這樣做已證
明其功效的說法是不正確的。
Dura Lube ads featured a former NASA astronaut endorsing the product, allegedly representing that he had expertise in the evaluation of automobile engine
lubrication and that he had endorsed Dura Lube on the basis of independent, objective and valid testing. The FTC alleged that the astronaut did not have
that expertise and had not endorsed Dura Lube based on independent, objective or valid testing. In addition, the complaint contends Dura Lube falsely
claimed that its product did not contain any chlorinated compound and that it had been tested by the Environmental Protection Agency.
Dura
Lube的廣告以”前美國太空總署太空人背書產品”為號召，以抽象表現手法宣稱該太空人具有評估汽車引擎潤滑的專業知識，並宣稱以獨立自主、客觀及有根據的測試為基礎來為Du
ra Lube背書。FTC質疑該太空人並未具有專業知識，而且該背書並未基於獨立、客觀或合法有效的測試。除此之外，本控訴強調Dura
Lube宣稱它的產品不含任何氯化物質並經環保署檢測的說法是騙人的。
The proposed settlements would bar Dura Lube and Motor Up and their principals from making any claims about the performance, benefits, efficacy, attributes
or use of any automotive engine oil additive unless they possess competent and reliable evidence to support the claims. Both settlements also would bar
misrepresentations about tests and the use of misleading or false demonstrations in connection with the marketing of any product for use in a motor vehicle.
--
※From: 東吳機研 scumotor.com.tw gogogo From 61-224-153-202.HINET-IP.� ...
一個玩車人的天地/各車系專屬區/GP SBK TIS賽事討論區/進口車討論區/