New York, NY – May 29, 2007 – The Electronic Retailing Self-Regulation Program (ERSP) has referred advertising by Suarez Corporation Industries, marketer of the EdenPURE Air Purif ier (EdenPURE),  to  the  Federal  Trade  Commission  (FTC),  following  the  marketer’s  failure  to comply with a previous ERSP decision.

The compliance proceeding stemmed from a 2006 inquiry during which ERSP requested substantiation for several performance and comparative  advertising claims included in print and Website advertising for the EdenPURE Air Purifier.

ERSP,  the  electronic  direct-response  industry’s  self-regulatory  forum,  is  administered  by  the Council of Better Business Bureaus (CBBB) with policy oversight by the National Advertising Review Council (NARC).

Claims at issue in the initial inquiry included:

• “Eliminates  noticeable pollution in just 15 minutes; Eliminates the most difficult pollution in 24 hours.”
• “…not only eliminates pollution from the air, but also eliminates pollution embedded  in walls, ceilings,  floors, carpets, furniture,  clothing,  and on countertops and other surfaces.”
• “eliminates  many  types  of  air  pollutants,  such  as  dust,  smoke,  pollen, germs, mold, carbon monoxide, pet dander, viruses, dust mites, odors and much more.”
• “the best and most advanced air purifier on the market.”
• “…and it can eliminate most indoor air pollutants in an area up to 1,000 square feet in size in less than 1 hour.”

At the time, the marketer  advised  ERSP  that  it had discontinued  the  print  advertisement  but nevertheless agreed “to accept the recommendation in its entirety.”

Subsequently,  a consumer  brought  an almost  identical  print advertisement  to the  attention  of ERSP and asserted that the marketer had not complied with ERSP’s decision.

ERSP reviewed   the  current  print  advertising,  as  well  as  testing submitted  by the  marketer. Following its review, ERSP determined that the claims at issue in the initial inquiry had not been modified. ERSP  further determined that the  new evidence  submitted by the advertiser did not provide a reasonable basis for those claims.

As  a  result,  ERSP  determined  that  by  continuing  to  disseminate  advertising  that  is  almost identical to the advertising at issue in the original inquiry and in light of the marketer’s failure to produce reliable evidence  supporting the claims being made, the marketer  has failed to make a bona fide effort to abide by  the  ERSP  recommendation  stated  in  the 2006  decision.  As such, ERSP has referred the matter to the Federal Trade Commission for possible enforcement action pursuant to Section 4.1 (B) of the ERSP Policy and procedures.