LipoTron, Lipo-Ex Weight Loss Machine Marketed Illegally: Report

Ricky Allen

Add Your Comments

A machine heralded for literally melting body fat away appears to have been marketed illegal in the United States, leading to calls for the FDA to take immediate action to end the distribution, sale and promotion of the unapproved medical device. 

Known as the LipoTron 3000, or Lipo-Ex, the machine targets fat with radiofrequency waves. While spas across the country have promoted the device as “revolutionary” and  “innovative,” there is one problem: it has not been approved by the FDA, which makes it illegal under federal law to sell or promote it for weight loss.

According to an investigation by the nonprofit publication FairWarning, the FDA has known about the product for months, but has not taken action. 

Learn More About

Whistleblower Lawsuits

Learn More
SEE IF YOU QUALIFY FOR COMPENSATION
|
|

Learn More About

Whistleblower Lawsuits

Learn More
SEE IF YOU QUALIFY FOR COMPENSATION

The manufacturer of the device, RevecoMED, reportedly first sought a green light from the FDA to market the device in 2007. It chose the FDA’s market clearance procedure, which is less demanding than the formal approval process, but failed due to a lack of information provided. 

In 2011, the company classified the device as a massager, which can be sold without FDA approval. However, promotional materials suggest that the device is a medical device and the company appears to have sold the LipTron3000 in the United States since 2007.

RevecoMED’s website describes the LipoTron3000 as being able to  increase the body’s core temperature to a point of dissolving fat cells, without causing damage to other internal organs. The company also claims that the device causes the disruption of fat cell membranes, causing the fatty content to leak out into the interstial tissue. The fat is then absorbed by the lymphatic system and eventually eliminated naturally via the urine and feces. RevecoMED also states on its website that it’s the first technology to melt the unhealthy and dangerous fat linked to heart disease and diabetes.

Public Citizen, a prominent consumer advocacy group, sent a letter (PDF) to the FDA July 18, encouraging the agency to “[e]xpeditiously complete its criminal investigation of the distribution, sale, and promotion of the LipoTron device and take appropriate legal action against those individuals, companies, and user facilities that are found by the agency to have engaged in any illegal marketing or promotion of this device.”

At least two whistleblowers have reportedly come forward about the product, providing sales records and other documents to an FDA criminal investigator, but the federal regulatory agency has not taken steps to stop the sale and promotion of the LipTron or Lipo-Ex machines.

Tags: Medical Device

More Whistleblower Lawsuit Stories

3 Comments

Mary J.
Asked in several online sites but received no clear answer.. Some sources say that it is FDA approved for medical use ( http://www.lipoadvisor.com/lipo-ex/ ) ! what is this supposed to mean? Does FDA provide different approvals for Medical use, Weight loss effect etc?
Belinda
Department of Justice press release regarding off-label promotion, dated Tuesday October 2, 2012, that may help clarify some of the issues in these postings: http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2012/October/12-civ-1195.html FDA contacts tell me that the rules are the same for devices as for drugs. I’ve been corrected by these FDA/OCI/DOJ contacts about the following important distinctions: 1. FDA registration refers to a company, not a device. Once a device is exempted, cleared, or approved, it is listed under its registered company and there are annual fees and requirements associated with a registration. 2. Exempted devices do not have a “label”, only an “intended use”. 3. Only “cleared” (by successful 510(k) process) and “approved” (by successful PMA process) devices have a “label”. 3. If an exempted device is promoted outside its narrowly defined “intended use”, its manufacturer must go through either the 510(k) or PMA process so the device may be properly and adequately classified and appropriately “labeled”. 4. There is no “off-label” promotion nor use allowed for “exempted” devices because, by definition, they do not have a “label”. An exempted device can be promoted and used only for its “intended use” as specifically defined in its exemption. 5. If you are marketing, selling, and training end-users on an exempted device outside its narrowly defined “intended use” it is “misbranding” and illegal to do so. As I’ve encouraged many times, don’t take my word, or anyone else’s. Do your own reading and research. All that is at stake is your business, livelihood, medical license, and reputation.
JillD
Actually, there are dozens of peer-reviewed medical articles showing the technology is safe and effective (go to PubMed and do a little research for yourself). There’s a range of results, of course, so some people are inevitably at the low end, but overall satisfaction is good. As for the machine, it is registered with the FDA and complaints on the web originated with a disgruntled ex-distributor who is the one who produced most of the off-label marketing that she complains about. The new distributor was perhaps too slow in revising the marketing, but has done so. The machine itself has been in use for years and is very similar to other devices in use that work the same way. Complications have been been few and minor and comparable to other such non-invasive treatments. Doctors who use the machine for body contouring are using it off-label but, unlike manufacturers, physicians are totally free to do so (up to half of all medical care is off-label; it’s legal and ethical). Basically, a bitter ex-rep combined with an attention seeking “advocacy” group that appears to many to be using hyperbolic fear-mongering to grow its contribution base are creating a lot of noise over very little.

Share Your Comments

This field is hidden when viewing the form
I authorize the above comments be posted on this page
Post Comment
Weekly Digest Opt-In

Want your comments reviewed by a lawyer?

To have an attorney review your comments and contact you about a potential case, provide your contact information below. This will not be published.

NOTE: Providing information for review by an attorney does not form an attorney-client relationship.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

MORE TOP STORIES

Bard PowerPort Infection Lawsuit Chosen for First Bellwether Trial in Feb. 2026
A federal judge has selected a Bard PowerPort infection lawsuit to serve as the first in a series of bellwether trials over claims the port catheters were defectively designed.
Status of Hair Dye Bladder Cancer Lawsuits Outlined for Court
One hair dye bladder cancer lawsuit out of at least 15 filed to date has been chosen as the lead case against several cosmetics manufacturers.
MORE ABOUT: HAIR DYE LAWSUIT
Social Media Addiction Lawsuit Set for Trial in California State Court in November
A series of social media addiction lawsuit trials will begin this November in California state court, as federal bellwether cases are prepared for likely 2026 trial dates.