# Source: United States v. Nu Skin International — FTC Consent Decree (1997)

**Type:** source
**Status:** Draft
**Confidence:** High
**Source Type:** government-record
**URL:** https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/cases/1997/08/nuskincs.pdf
**Publisher:** U.S. Federal Trade Commission
**Retrieved:** 2026-08-12
**Raw:** raw/ftc-nu-skin-consent-decree-1997/2026-08-11-26c89cd29d81.txt
**Published:** 1997-08-06
**Updated:** 2026-08-11

## Summary

The consent decree settling *United States v. Nu Skin International, Inc.* in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Utah: a **$1,500,000 civil penalty** paid to the Treasury, plus a permanent
injunction against further violations of a 1994 FTC cease-and-desist order (Docket No. C-3489).

The underlying allegation is set out in the notification letter the decree required Nu Skin to send its
U.S. distributors, attached as Exhibit B — specifically those who received a commission check or ordered
from the company in the year before entry of the decree, plus current and future distributors thereafter.
The FTC alleged that Nu Skin lacked the competent and reliable scientific evidence the 1994 order
required to substantiate claims — made by the company and its distributors — that **chromium picolinate
and L-carnitine reduce body fat or promote muscle development**, in advertising for Metabotrim,
OverDrive, Glycobar, Appeal Lite and Breakbars. Nu Skin withdrew and destroyed the materials, and the
letter tells distributors "We suggest that you do the same" — a suggestion, not a directive.

This is a civil-penalty action for violating an existing order, not a first offense — which is what
makes it the load-bearing document in the Utah direct-selling cluster's compliance record. It is also
the structural pattern the [2020 FTC warning letters](ftc-mlm-covid-warning-letters-2020.md) repeat
23 years later: claims travel through a distributor network, and the FTC holds the company to them.

## Useful Claims

- Nu Skin International, Inc. agreed to pay a civil penalty of $1,500,000 to the U.S. Treasury within
  ten days of entry, under Section 5(l) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(l).
- The penalty was for violating the Commission's own prior order — FTC Docket No. C-3489 (1994) — not
  for a standalone deceptive-advertising count.
- The decree permanently enjoins Nu Skin, its successors, officers, agents and employees from ever
  violating any provision of that 1994 order.
- The FTC alleged the company lacked required substantiation for claims that chromium picolinate and
  L-carnitine reduce body fat or promote muscle development, in materials for Metabotrim, OverDrive,
  Glycobar, Appeal Lite and Breakbars.
- Nu Skin had to send a court-specified notification letter to every U.S. distributor who received a
  commission check or placed an order in the preceding year, within 30 days, and to each new
  distributor within three days of signing for five years.
- Nu Skin had to keep compliance records available to the Commission on 30 days' notice for five
  years, with the court retaining jurisdiction to enforce.
- The settlement carries no admission: it was entered "without adjudication of any issue of fact or
  law and without defendant admitting liability."
- The case was brought in the District of Utah, Central Division, by DOJ's Office of Consumer
  Litigation for the FTC — the company's home district.

## Verbatim

> "the parties have agreed to settlement of this action upon the following terms and conditions,
> without adjudication of any issue of fact or law and without defendant admitting liability for any
> of the matters alleged in the Complaint"
> — Preamble

> "Pursuant to Section 5(l) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(l), defendant Nu Skin
> International, Inc., its successors and assigns, shall pay to plaintiff a civil penalty of One
> Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,500,000)."
> — Paragraph 4, Civil Penalty

> "are hereby enjoined from ever violating, directly or through any corporation, subsidiary, division,
> or other device, any provision of the Commission's Order."
> — Paragraph 5, Injunction Against Order Violations

> "The FTC now alleges that NSI did not have competent and reliable scientific evidence, as required
> by the Order, to substantiate certain claims made by NSI and its distributors that chromium
> picolinate and L-carnitine reduce body fat and/or promote muscle development. These claims have
> appeared in advertising and promotional materials for Metabotrim, OverDrive, Glycobar, Appeal Lite,
> and Breakbars."
> — Exhibit B, required notification letter to U.S. distributors

> "Accordingly, NSI has withdrawn and destroyed all prior materials containing the contested claims.
> We suggest that you do the same."
> — Exhibit B

## Reliability Notes

**The captured copy is unexecuted.** The FTC's posted PDF is the consent decree as submitted: the
signature lines are blank and the date reads "Dated this ________ day of _______________, 1997."
So the document proves the agreed terms, not the date of entry. A page that needs the exact entry date
should cite the court docket instead.

**The `Published:` day is the weakest field on this page.** The FTC's case-file path (`/cases/1997/08/`)
gives a month, not a day, and the document is undated. `1997-08-06` should therefore be read as a
month-precision date carrying a placeholder day until the docket is pulled.

**Nu Skin International, Inc. is not Nu Skin Enterprises, Inc.** The defendant is the operating company
as it was structured in 1997 — the decree gives no address for it, so this page does not place it in a
city; the only geographic trace in the document is an `(801)` phone fragment in Exhibit B. The SEC
registrant that files today is Nu Skin Enterprises, Inc.
(see [FY2025 Form 10-K](nu-skin-10k-fy2025.md)). The corporate history between them is not in this
document, so do not attribute the penalty to the present-day registrant without a source that traces
the succession — though note the decree binds "successors and assigns."

**No admission, and a specific violation.** The decree explicitly disclaims any finding of liability.
What it does establish is unusual and should not be softened: the government sought civil penalties
because the company had *already* been under an FTC order, and the injunction now runs forever.

**Consumer redress is absent.** The $1.5 million went to the Treasury as a penalty. Nothing here
compensates purchasers of the named products, and the decree says nothing about how much was sold.

**A 1997 record, cited for pattern rather than status.** This says nothing about Nu Skin's current
compliance posture. Its value is that the Utah industry's substantiation problem is documented across
three decades, from this decree to the 2020 warning letters.

## Related Pages

- [Utah's Direct-Selling Industry](utah-direct-selling-industry.md)
- [Nu Skin Enterprises FY2025 Form 10-K](nu-skin-10k-fy2025.md)
- [FTC Announcement of Warning Letters to Ten Multi-Level Marketers (2020)](ftc-mlm-covid-warning-letters-2020.md)