I've got a secret, and you can't have it.
I am a sucker for secrets.
When I see advertising copy with the word "secret" in it, long before the logical part of my brain deduces that most secrets are worthless -which also should not be a secret- the part of the atavistic brain hardwired for the click her and buy now has rushed to judgment.
Google's Adsense only makes the temptation to click away on "secrets" links that much easier.
So when the Texas Attorney General announced the resolution of their BioPerformance lawsuit, I was most intrigued to read the press announcement at the BioPerformance website.
At the corporate website, we read "Recently completed testing of BioPerformance Fuel by an independent laboratory using the Federal Test Procedure (FTP) and Highway Fuel Economy Test (HFET) protocols of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in a group of vehicles established a reasonable degree of confidence that the product gives a real improvement in fuel economy and reduction in harmful emissions." (my emphasis)
But further down the page, Wallace Labs who performed this test, state, in effect, our test methods are secrets and you can't have it. Ah, so much for scientific testing - our results which produce a miracle are not reproducible, because they are a secret. So there.
Some other interesting points about the judgment:
Paragraph 2 b) requires BioPerformance to refrain from making any statements about fuel economy or efficiency unless they are in possession of scientific testing showing the specific amount or percent of increased fuel economy or efficiency.
Compare this to the language from Wallace Labs: "Reasonable confidence that ... causing real improvement in fuel economy."
Paragraph 2 h) requires BioPerformance to disclose on their website that the product contains napthelene. Which has not been done as of January 26th, 2007.
Paragraph 2 0) is going to have the real bite, if enforced. It prohibits BioPerformance from making misleading representations about income levels obtainable as a BioPerformance distributor, including by not limited to: displaying bonus cheques or commissions. Reasonable earnings claims can be made as long as the earnings claim is: a) for a certain geographic region, b) states how many distributors were in the region, c) what the average distributor income, and d) how many distributors achieved this average income.
The order would have been better if it had incorporated by reference the proposed new deceptive marketing practices in the FTC's Business Opportunity Rule.
But all in all this is a very good win for the consumers.
