New York, NY – August 25, 2005 – The Electronic Retailing Self-Regulation Program (“ERSP”) announced that DermaRadiant Beverly Hills (“DermaRadiant”), marketers of DermaRadiant Ageless Eyes (“Ageless Eyes”) and DermaRadiant Anti-Wrinkle Complex (“Anti- Wrinkle Complex”), have supported general performance claims and agree to modify ingredient, comparative and testimonial claims. The marketer’s advertising for both products was reviewed pursuant to an anonymous competitive challenge.

ERSP, the electronic direct-response industry’s self-regulatory forum supervised by the National Advertising Review Council (“NARC”), asked DermaRadiant to provide substantiation for core claims in the advertising for Ageless Eyes, including:

“The product smoothes the contours of the eyes: 62% satisfaction”;
The product has a decongestant effect: 52% satisfaction; The product moisturizes the skin: 86% satisfaction” and
“Within a few minutes of applying Ageless Eyes, I clearly saw a reduction in the puffiness and wrinkles around my eyes.”

And its Anti-Wrinkle Complex, including:

“In Clinical Trials Lasting 56 days, Volunteers Observed: 44% to 98% decrease in deep wrinkles; 350% increase in collagen synthesis; 15% improvement in skin tone;
14-16% decrease in skin roughness”; “…smooth wrinkles from 45-98%”and “The DermaRadiant Anti-Aging Solution Will Change Your Skin and Your Life Forever! No Risky Injections. No Costly Doctor Visits and Prescriptions. No Painful Surgery.”

Evidence presented by the company provided a reasonable basis to support product-performance claims for Ageless Eyes, ERSP said. ERSP asked that the consumer testimonials more accurately reflect the typical product performance and recommended the company discontinue claims
related to the immediate effect of the product.

ERSP determined that DermaRadiant has provided a reasonable basis for the general performance claims made about the Anti-Wrinkle Complex, but cautioned against using any claim referring to
a restoration of the skin. Further, ERSP found that the company’s evidence did not support the “clinically proven” claim. Finally, in the absence of comparative testing, ERSP recommended that all permanency claims or comparative claims be discontinued.

DermaRadiant, in response to the ERSP decision, represented to ERSP that it has already and continues to make changes to its website and announced it is “very pleased to have gone through this process ….”