Darque Tan’s Hide Is (Likely) Fried

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott is suing Darque Tan owner Robbie Segler and his affiliates for false marketing claims stating that searing your flesh with carcinogenic light bulbs is actually good for you and can reduce your risks of some cancers. In a follow up to a story that originally broke in May, Darque Tan’s marketing material in both print and online video ads suggests that their tanning beds increase Vitamin D levels in the body, thereby reducing customers’ risks of contracting cancer.

The state is arguing that those claims violate the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, Deceptive Trade Practices Act and the Texas Health and Safety Code which prohibits tanning salons from saying that their beds/tanning devices can be beneficial to your health. The FDA has not approved tanning beds as a way to reduce cancer risks or absorb more Vitamin D. Any advertising claims that state otherwise are considered false and in violation of the law. Unfortunately for Darque Tan, ~~they are screwed~~ tanning beds are only legally approved for cosmetic tanning purposes.

AG Abbott is seeking return payment to Darque Tan customers who believed the hype, as well as injunctions to stop the salon chain’s misleading advertising. Segler could face penalties up to $20,000 per violation of the Deceptive Trade Practices Act, in addition to $25,000 per day for each violation of the Health and Safety Code. As a friendly reminder, Vitamin D does plays a crucial role in the prevention in diseases such as rickets and osteomalacia but the American Academy of Dermatology recommends a healthy diet which includes naturally enriched Vitamin D foods. So, lay off the skin fryers, m'kay?

Contact the author of this article or email tips@austinist.com with further questions, comments or tips.

By austinist_keb in News on November 12, 2008 2:35 PM 0 Comments

Comments [rss]

tanner for health

I have had severe psoriasis for 20 years and used topical steroids to contain it. This left my skin extremely thin and caused me to have the kind of bruises commonly seen on the very elderly. I am fair skinned but tan well due to having Native Americans in my family. When I was 40 I wanted to get a head start on my tan before a family reunion so I used a two week coupon from Darque Tan and tanned daily for 5 minutes. My psoriasis completely disappeared. I saw my dermatologist here in Houston for an follow up visit from four weeks before and he was amazed at how good my skin looked. In all the years he's seen me I have never had even remotely clear skin and was always going in for a shot to ease the itching caused by this autoimmune disease. He even suggested that I continue with care as to how long and how often I tan!

I still see him yearly but simply tanning twice weekly for 10 minutes is all that is needed to keep both these unsightly bruises and my psoriasis under control. I do not assimilate Vitamin D in my body from vitamins or food sources but I do from tanning. I've been tanning at Darque Tan for 11 years now and the color of my skin is the same as it was as a child when I was always swimming in the summer. I don't go for the darkest tan, I just go for relief from this unsightly and itchy disease. I don't buy their products and they stopped offering them after a few months realizing I wasn't doing it for the reason most teenagers and people do it. There are a number of men I've met who also tan for relief from this.

If they make claims that Vitamin D is part of the regimen they are entirely correct because I now have the proper levels of this vitamin in my body and have had for many years.

The FDA is probably correct in a lot of their assumptions but for people suffering from moderate or severe psoriasis this treatment is much cheaper and much more effective than ultralight in a dermatologist office. Because it is an autoimmune disease it will never go away, but it can be controlled by tanning much better than the treatment in the dermatologist office. I know this because I have also had this treatment and it did nothing and was so costly I had to stop many years ago.

seth

Jooley,

I guess I didn't make my point clear as you seem to have missed it. The world we live in is comprised of people who impact the lives of those around them. The 'stupid people' who you say 'deserve' skin cancer are making your trip to the hospital expensive. Those people don't all have their own insurance and then can't pay $100k + medical bills. So that cost is distributed among other patients who are either rich or have insurance.

While it would be great if people who do dumb shit were the only ones who had to suffer the consequences, I don't live in that alternative universe. You don't, either, unless the Austinist comment system can bridge between the two.

Seth

Jooley Ann

*sputter* Bring the insurance companies into it, Seth, and then I'm all for it. Guh.

I'm not pro-business. I just think stupid people deserve what they ask for. Anyone who doesn't know that artificial tanning is bad for you is stupid.

But I'll cry a river for the poor, overburdened insurance companies....

seth

Jooley,

I think your knee-jerk pro-business reaction is off mark here--

This is a perfect example of lawyers run amok

This isn't a class action lawsuit. It's not one of those deals where a bunch of lawyers make millions, then all the consumers get is a check for $5.00 and a coupon to buy another product by the same manufacturer for a small discount.

This is a situation where the state has stepped in to try and mitigate the impact these cancer-causing businesses have on the insurance industry. The insurance companies lobby hard for all kinds of government regulations on things that might reduce the number of claims they have to pay out on. Where regulation is impossible (outright bans on tanning beds or cigarrettes), the insurance companies push to make those behaviors as inconvenient as possible. Since they also foot the bills of uninsured patients through higher hospital costs, it's not a matter of simply refusing coverage to their own customers who engage in these behaviors.

Seth

iamkeb

While writing this post, I researched those same studies. Incident rates of rickets actually have increased slightly over the last few years. However, in attempting to find a medical standard for correct levels of sun exposure there are several assumptions that go into determining the the length of time one should be exposed to sun for medical benefit. Depending on which medical organization's study one references, the range varies from 200 - 1000 IU/day. (Vitamin D toxicity takes place around 2,000 IU/day.) Converting IUs into a useful number is the challenge. For some that is 10 minutes/day, for others it is 15 minutes/week.

Regardless, it is scientific fact that there is zero medical benefit from regular tanning bed use, that they are only legally approved for cosmetic purposes and any claim otherwise would be false.

Jooley Ann

AG Abbott is seeking return payment to Darque Tan customers who believed the hype...

Give me a break. If you believed that crap, you're an idiot and you don't deserve a dime. This is a perfect example of lawyers run amok, with bone-headed consumers who "need protection" lining up for their restitution from an evil corporation who "misled" them into harming themselves.

Let the fools of the world fry in tanning beds. A 20-30 minute daily constitutional and a reasonable diet is the best (and most pleasant) way to get sufficient vitamin D.

mdahmus

There were real, legitimate, studies in the last year or three that showed that a lot of people aren't getting enough D now that some of them have gone whole hog on the dermatologist plan to become cave dwellers, and no, diet doesn't substitute for some sun exposure. I don't think they ever showed that a tanning bed can do the same (good) stuff that a bit of sun exposure can, but it's at least within the realm of reason.