Air Purifiers Discussion Group - Berriman.com

[ Contents | Search | Post | Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]

Re: Alpine Industries and their XL-15

From: Josef Serf
Date: 19 Jun 2004
Time: 23:31:14
Remote Name: pool-151-202-56-247.ny325.east.verizon.net

Comments

According to ‘preacher’: “Alot of negative things were a direct result of a 20/20 show about a year ago after which time the owners of alpine went to court to prove that their machine did exactly what it claimed which they did. They won in litigation and proved the xl-15 did exactly what they said.” In point of fact, Alpine LOST in litigation. They lost precisely because they could NOT prove that the XL-15 did what they claimed. In 1991, in a civil action, a Minnesota state court had found Alpine Air Products and its president had improperly claimed that ozone (a) was safe and necessary indoors, (b) had positive health benefits, and (c) had posed no risk to people with respiratory problems, and (d) that Alpine air cleaners emitted only low and harmless levels of ozone. It is also no coincidence that the Minnesota Department of Health has stated: “Do not use ozone generators that are sold as indoor air cleaners.” On September 15, 1992, the Minnesota Court of Appeals in Humphrey v. Alpine Air Products, Inc. ruled that the company, Alpine Air Products and its president, William Converse, "violated Minnesota common fraud laws by falsely representing the health benefits of its product." The appeals court also upheld a lower court decision that Alpine must refund money to purchasers who ask for it. It further ordered Alpine Air Products and Converse to pay $70,000 in civil penalties and $104,105 in attorney’s fees. The appeals court ruling upheld the lower court finding that Alpine Air Products had engaged in “false, deceptive and misleading claims about its products” and that it had engaged in vertical price-fixing. A request for a new trial was turned down. Because of the 1992 ruling against them and bad publicity from Consumers Union and others, Alpine Air Products was dissolved and the technology of their products was sold to Alpine Industries. Alpine moved to Greeneville, Tennessee. It had as its new president - William Converse After repeatedly making false claims for their devices, the Federal Trade Commission took action against Alpine. In June 1995, the FTC announced a law-enforcement action against Alpine; the Living Air Corporation, and Converse, an officer of both firms. In the case, the FTC challenged claims that the Living Air Model XL15, which sold for about $600, cleans the air of various indoor air pollutants and prevents or relieves allergies, asthma and other conditions. The FTC charged that Alpine and Living Air made unsubstantiated representations. The two companies and Converse avoided trial by settling the FTC charges and agreeing to be bound by a consent agreement (See FTC release of June 9, 1995) in which the companies and their president, William J. Converse, agreed not to make unsubstantiated claims. In effect, Alpine reached an agreement with the FTC in which they agreed to clean up their act. Violations of FTC consent agreements can trigger penalties of up to $11,000 per day per violation. (In 1995, it was $10,000 per day.) In spite of the fact that Alpine’s model XL15 had been exposed by Consumer Reports and others, Alpine continued to make false claims. These false claims brought further action from the Federal Trade Commission. Through these and other statements, the FTC asserted, Alpine and Converse represented that their air cleaning products effectively eliminate or clean pollutants from indoor air, that the use of ozone is more effective in cleaning or purifying indoor air than other cleaning methods, and that their air cleaning products prevent or provide relief from medical or health-related conditions. The defendants did not have competent and reliable evidence to back up these claims, the FTC charged. Incredibly, Alpine had the chutzpah to file suit in a Tennessee federal district court challenging the FTC’s investigation and asked the court to declare that the company was in compliance with the 1995 order! On November 10, 1997, the Commission filed a motion asking the court to dismiss Alpine's lawsuit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. (Alpine’s lawsuit was subsequently dismissed on November 20, 1998), In December 1997, at the FTC's request, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a federal court suit charging that Alpine had continued to make claims for which it lacked competent scientific evidence. The complaint was filed on December 30, 1997, in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, in Greeneville. On January 5, 1998, the FTC announced that “The Federal Trade Commission has filed suit in federal district court alleging that Alpine Industries, Inc., a company based in Tennessee and Minnesota, has violated a 1995 Commission order by continuing to claim, without adequate substantiation, that its ozone-generating indoor "air cleaner" devices remove numerous pollutants, do so better than other methods, and prevent or relieve medical or health related conditions. The FTC is seeking a court order against the firm and its president, William J. Converse, and civil penalties up to $11,000 per order violation. Alpine and Mr. Converse are bound by the 1995 order, which requires competent and reliable scientific evidence to back up such claims.” The case was tried in 1999. The trial jury concluded that Alpine Industries and William Converse: “made a significant number of representations for which they did not have competent and scientific evidence in violation of the administrative consent order.”

Last changed: October 22, 2007