Xlear Sues FTC for Unlawful Scientific Censorship
SALT LAKE CITY--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Today, Xlear, a consumer hygiene products company, filed a ' Loper lawsuit' in Utah Federal District Court against the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The lawsuit seeks declarative relief holding that the FTC cannot require entities to have substantiation for marketing claims under the FTC Act.
Rob Housman, Xlear's lead lawyer explained:
'Under the Supreme Court's decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024) a Federal agency applying a statute is limited to what the specific language of the law says on its face. And, Loper goes on to require that if the agency is interpreting the statute, its interpretation must be the 'best' reading of law. The FTC Act says nothing about requiring substantiation. And, for a host of reasons—most importantly violations of the First Amendment and Due Process Clause—the FTC's interpretation of the FTC Act is far from the 'best'. As such, we are petitioning the Utah District Court to invalidate the FTC's substantiation requirement.'
In 2021, the FTC sued Xlear alleging that the company lacked sufficient substantiation for statements the company made its Xlear Nasal Spray was an effective added layer of protection against the COVID-19 virus. Throughout the lawsuit, Xlear maintained that the science supported Xlear's COVID claims. On March 10, 2025, the Department of Justice, acting on behalf of the FTC, asked the court to drop the lawsuit with prejudice (Xlear joined in the motion).
About this new lawsuit, Nate Jones, Xlear's CEO, said:
'We agreed with the Government to drop the prior lawsuit because we wanted to get back to the business of helping Americans get and stay healthy through great oral and nasal hygiene products. However, we very much wanted our day in court. We wanted to stop the FTC's illegal misuse of the FTC Act to censor science. The effect of this is to stifle health innovation—which benefits Big Pharma over cutting-edge smaller companies with new approaches. We wanted to protect the right of all Americans to have access to science-based health information. By filing this lawsuit, we are pushing ahead with combating the Government's censorship of science.'
Jones added, 'Ironically, while the FTC demands substantiation from companies, they really don't care about science. Before the FTC sued us for substantiation, we sent them scores of studies that backed our claims. During the lawsuit the FTC admitted that not one single doctor or medical researcher had looked at the data we provided before they filed the suit.'
Xlear manufactures a suite of hygiene products ranging from Xlear nasal sprays to Spry toothpaste, which are sold at leading retailers across the country and online through Amazon.com. The company's is based in American Fork, Utah. More information about Xlear and its products, as well as the complaint can be found at Xlear.com.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
19 minutes ago
- USA Today
Does it really pay to fund a 401(k) the year before you're retiring?
Does it really pay to fund a 401(k) the year before you're retiring? Show Caption Hide Caption Understanding a 401k: How it works and why it's important What is a 401k plan? Key benefits and how to maximize your savings. If you start contributing money to a 401(k) plan as soon as you start working full-time, there's a good chance you'll end up with a nice balance as retirement nears provided you keep funding that account year to year. Granted, you might switch jobs a number of times throughout your career. And each time you do, you might have to roll your 401(k) balance into your new employer's account. But if you keep doing that, and you keep contributing out of your paychecks, you may find that you have a generous 401(k) to tap once you're no longer working. In a 2024 report, Vanguard put the average 401(k) balance among Americans ages 65 and over at $272,588. But with proper planning and consistency, you can potentially do a lot better. Imagine you start contributing $325 a month to your 401(k) plan at age 25 and do so until 65. If your portfolio gives you a yearly 8% return, which is a bit below the stock market's historical average, you're looking at a balance of $1 million. But while it clearly makes sense to fund a 401(k) throughout your career, does the same hold true when you're on the verge of retiring? At that point, couldn't you just give yourself a break? You may be inclined to stop funding your 401(k) the year before you retire. But before you halt contributions, look at the big picture. There's limited upside at that point in time We just saw that contributing $325 a month over 40 years could result in a 401(k) worth $1 million. But you'll notice that you're getting to $1 million at a cost of just $156,000 in out-of-pocket contributions ($3,900 per year x 40 years). The reason you're able to end up with so much money in this situation is that you're enjoying many years of compounded returns in your 401(k). But money you invest the year before retirement might have limited growth. So you may be inclined to stop funding your 401(k) that year if you're happy with your balance. Is that a good idea? Maybe. But you'll want to ask yourself two things: Am I giving up a large employer match? Will the money I don't contribute do something meaningful for me this year? Say you normally put $3,900 a year into your 401(k), but your employer matches all of that. If you don't contribute, you lose out on that free money. On the other hand, let's say you want to take a trip and could use an extra $4,000 or so to pull it off. If the trip is one you don't want to wait on, that means there's an immediate benefit to using your money for travel instead of saving it in your 401(k). So that could be a good reason to not contribute. A decision to consider carefully Skipping a year of 401(k) contributions is generally a bigger deal early on in your career than at the tail end of it. If you miss a year of 401(k) contributions at 30 and retire at 65, you're giving up 35 years of growth on whatever sum you would've funded your account with. But do remember that with your 401(k), you're not withdrawing the entire sum the moment you retire (or at least not ideally). So it's not totally accurate to tell yourself that you won't be missing out on too many gains from whatever funds you might put in the year before you retire. All told, this is one of those situations where you could go either way. A last-minute 401(k) contribution could be helpful to your retirement, but you may not necessarily be doomed without it. But it's a decision to think through carefully, even though it might seem like the consequences will be fairly minimal either way. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. The Motley Fool is a USA TODAY content partner offering financial news, analysis and commentary designed to help people take control of their financial lives. Its content is produced independently of USA TODAY. The $23,760 Social Security bonus most retirees completely overlook Offer from the Motley Fool: If you're like most Americans, you're a few years (or more) behind on your retirement savings. But a handful of little-known "Social Security secrets"could help ensure a boost in your retirement income. One easy trick could pay you as much as $23,760 more... each year! Once you learn how to maximize your Social Security benefits, we think you could retire confidently with the peace of mind we're all after. JoinStock Advisorto learn more about these strategies. View the "Social Security secrets" »
Business Insider
21 minutes ago
- Business Insider
The new American dream? Buying and renting out vacation homes in Italy.
Americans are buying Italian properties for rental income and vacation use. The picturesque country's cheap real estate is enticing Americans to spend money there instead of the US. On top of the passive income, rentals mean having a place to stay when vacationing. Every time Laurie DeRiu visited her father-in-law in Sardinia, she left enamored by the Italian island's beauty and relaxed atmosphere. "It's a totally different quality of life there," DeRiu, 60, told Business Insider. "It's not at all the hustle and bustle that happens, especially in the northeast." Though she fantasized about someday moving to Sardinia with her husband, DeRiu wasn't quite ready to leave western Connecticut. As a regional director for a health services company, she frequently travels around the US for work. Plus, her children and grandchildren are stateside. Yet she still thought about how nice it would be to live there. So when when her husband asked her if she'd ever thought about them living in Italy part-time, she jumped at the opportunity to make it work. The DeRius sold their rental property in North Carolina with the plan of buying a property in Italy they could rent out part of the year and enjoy themselves the rest of the time. In July 2024, they closed on a three-bedroom apartment in Alghero, Sardinia, for €405,000, which was about $440,883 at the time. So far, business has been booming. "It's renting out very quickly," DeRiu said, estimating that they had about 70% of the property's availabilty booked within five days. Now, the DeRius are making their Italian dreams a reality, at least for part of the year. And they're making money doing it. Managing property outside of your primary residence is quickly becoming a key part of making the American dream work. But some Americans like the DeRius are finding it easier to realize that dream in Italy — with the added bonus of getting guaranteed lodging on their next vacation. Some Americans want to personally enjoy their investments while reaping the monetary benefits DeRiu said she tries to split her time between Connecticut and Alghero, ideally staying in Italy from November through May while her guests enjoy the high season during the summer. She employed Italian Real Estate Lawyers, an Italian firm that helps Americans with Italian citizenship and also offers real estate services, to help facilitate the purchase. Attorney for Italian Real Estate Lawyers Marco Permunian said he's seen an uptick in Americans like DeRiu buying property in Italy. "Over the past 12 years, we have seen a steady increase every year with some spikes that we have seen in connection with concerns regarding politics and social events," he told BI, citing a 15% increase in Americans using his services in 2024 compared to 2023. Though he doesn't ask his clients why they're considering Italy, he noted that the price of homes has to be a large factor. "We have clients, for example, from the state of California, or New York, or Pennsylvania, and to buy a house there, it costs several hundreds of thousands of dollars," Permunian said. "In Italy, especially in central and southern Italy, the cost of a property is a fraction of that. So that also helps Americans make the decision to buy." Some towns in Italy offer homes for as little as €1 — though renovations are likely necessary. And small towns like Ollolai, a small municipality in Sardinia, are specifically targeting Americans to buy homes. Melina Manasse and her husband closed on a one-bedroom home in October 2024 in Lecce, a historic city in the heel of Italy's boot. Manasse, 46, paid $278,000 for her property. Since it was already renovated, she was able to list it by March 2025. Bookings have already started, and she's expecting to make over $3,000 a month. For Manasse, the Italian home is part of a larger plan to prioritize enjoyment when choosing her investments. She owns property in Antigua and England and envisions eventually being able to bounce from country to country without paying for lodging. "This was a strategic decision to invest in Antigua, which is really popular in the winter months, and then have Lecce, which is really popular in the summer months, and then to have a long-term rental in England, which is 30 minutes by train from London," she said. "We will probably spend two to three months in one, bounce, bounce, bounce, and then you're living net zero," she added. "So they're all paying for themselves." "We will probably spend two to three months in one, bounce, bounce, bounce, and then you're living net zero," she added. "So they're all paying for themselves." A down payment on property in a US city can get you an entire home in Italy Kelly Beigle and Boris Krstevski started their journey to becoming foreign property managers at the end of 2024 after buying a 1,350-square-foot apartment for €78,000 in the province of Brescia, about an hour from Milan. They're in the renovation process — which includes adding an entire kitchen — and expect to pay around €25,000 once they're done. Beigle, 38, and Krstevski, 39, who live in Washington, DC, said their all-in costs of about €103,000 would barely cover a down payment in the city. (According to the median price for a condo in Washington, DC, was $480,000 as of May 2025). "We could buy a condo in DC for $500,000 and put a $200,000 down payment, and then for 30 years we have to pay $4,000 a month," Beigle told Business Insider. Investing in rental property in Italy "just made sense." They paid in cash, so there's no mortgage involved, and while the property isn't ready for guests yet, they've already mapped out their expected revenue. They've found that in their region, by Lake Iseo, units rent for €100 per night on average, and they're hoping for 50% occupancy throughout the year. They'd been looking to buy a condo in DC for a while, but Beigle couldn't wrap her head around the prices she was seeing. Italy offered an invigorating alternative. "My advice is: think outside the box a little bit," she said. "The traditional save up your money, put a down payment in and have a 30-year mortgage, and just continue the rat race is outdated in my opinion." The journey of buying and renovating a home overseas hasn't been easy, but Beigle said it was the right choice for her. "I couldn't be happier," she said. "And I feel really motivated to spread that message, too."
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
FTC reminds car dealers to protect customer data
This story was originally published on Cybersecurity Dive. To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily Cybersecurity Dive newsletter. Dive Brief: The Federal Trade Commission on Monday warned auto dealers that recently updated regulations require them to protect customer data. The FTC modernized the Safeguards Rule twice in the past five years, and now it wants car dealers to understand their responsibilities. The guidance reflects the commission's continued interest in protecting driver privacy, despite the change in political leadership following President Donald Trump's election in 2024. Dive Insight: The Safeguards Rule, mandated in a 1999 law, is one of the FTC's core cybersecurity regulations. The commission updated the regulation in 2021 to require more specific security precautions from covered companies, and in 2023, it broadened those requirements to include notifications within 30 days of data breaches affecting at least 500 people. Among the covered industries: car dealers that offer financing to customers. In a Frequently Asked Questions document, the commission explained how car dealers should comply with the rule's requirements to 'develop, implement, and maintain a comprehensive written information security program that is sufficient to protect customer information.' The document describes 10 elements of a compliant program, including written risk assessments, regular evaluations of protective measures, employee training, third-party vendor oversight and incident-response plans. The document explains the difference between compliance with the Safeguards Rule and the Privacy Rule, answers questions about potential dealership practices and describes how dealers must ensure that their third-party service providers comply with the law. The security and privacy of car customers' data — especially the reams of sensitive information collected by cars themselves — has become a pressing issue as vehicles incorporate more internet-connected technology. Tesla's car privacy issues have garnered significant attention, but other carmakers have also faced scrutiny, including General Motors, whose customers sued it in August 2024 for selling their driving data without notice. The FTC has pursued cybersecurity and privacy cases more vigorously under Democratic leadership, but Republicans have grown increasingly willing to hold companies accountable for mishandling data. The Texas attorney general's office has been scrutinizing car companies' sale of driving data to third parties, including insurance companies. In January, the office sued the insurer Allstate as part of that investigation.
