Arthur Doctor

Text (OCR of the scan at left; may contain errors)

IN THE MATTER ARTHUR DOCTOR ET AL. TRADING AS ARTHUR DOCTOR & CO.

CONSENT SETTLEMENT IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FED- ERAT, TRADE COMJ\lission ACT AND THE wool Products LABELING ACT Docket 6120. Complaint, Aug. 25, 1953-Decision, Oct. , 1953 Where three partners engaged in the manufacture and interstate sale and distribution of certain wool products as defined in the Wool Products Labeling Act- (a) Misbranded certain ladies' or misses ' coats in that they were not stamped tagged, or labeled as required by said Aet and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder;

(b) Misbranded certain coats in that they were tagged as containing "100% Cashmere" and "100% Imported Cashmere," whereas they did not contain any of the hair of the cashmere goat but were made from fabrics composed of a mixture of sheep s wool, silk fibers and rabbit hair; (c) Misbranded certain of such coats in that they were labeled or tagged as containing "100% Cashmere" when they were manufactured from fabries composed of a blend of cashmere combined with the wool of the sheep; (d) :Misbranded certain of such coats in that they were labeled or tagged as containing "100% Virgin Wool," and, separately, as "Imported Cashmere whereas they were manufactured from fabrics composed of a blend of wool of the sheep, silk fibers and rabbit hair; and (e) Misbranded certain of said products in that the percentages or amounts of the constituent fibers, cashmere and sheep wool, were not separately set forth on stamps, tags, etc., as required by the Rules and Regulations promulgated pursuant to said Act:

Held, That such acts and practices, under the circumstances set forth, were in violation of the Wool Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder and constituted unfair and deceptive acts and practices in co=erce.

Mr. George E. Steinmetz far the Commission. CONSENT SETTLEMENT 1 Pursuant to the provisions af the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Wool Products Labeling Act af 1939 , the Federal Trade Cammission, an August 25, 1953, issued and subsequently served its camplaint up an the respanc1ents named in the caption hereof, charging 1 The Commission s "Notice" announcing and prpmulgating the consent settlement as published herewith, follows:

r.' he consent settlement tendered by the parties in this proceeding, a copy of which is served herewith, was accepted by the Commission on October I, 1953, and ordered entered of record as the Commission s findings as to the facts, conclusion, and order in disposition of this proceeding.

The time for fiing report of compliance pursuant to the aforesaid order runs from the date of service hereof.

ARTHUR DOCTOR & CO. 343 3+2 Findings them with the use of unfair and deceptive acts and practices in vialatian af the pravisians of said Acts. proceeding be disposed af The respondents, desiring that this the consent settlement procedure provided in Rule V of the Commissolely for the purposes af this proceeding, anysian s Rules af Practice, af the order consented to, andreview thereaf, and the enforcement s acceptance af the consent settle-conditianed up an the Commission answer to. said camplaintment hereinafter set forth, and in lieu of hereby:

1. Admit all the jurisdictional allegations set forth in the complaint. 2. Consent that the Cammissian may enter the matters hereinafter to. ceaseset forth as its findings as to. the facts, canclusian, and order and desist. It is understood that the respondents, in cansenting to the to. the facts, conclusion, andCammission s entry of said findings as admitting ar deny- order to. cease and desist, specifically refrain from ing that they have engaged in any af the acts or practices stated therein to be in vialatian of law.

3. Agree that this can sent settlement may be set aside in whale ar part under the canditions and in the manner provided in Paragraph (f) of Rule V af the Commission s Rules af Practice. The admitted jurisdictional facts, the statement af the acts and pnlictices which the Commission had reason to. believe were unlawful the conclusion based therean, and the order to. cease and desist, all af which the respondents consent may be entered herein in final dispasition of this proceeding, are as follows :

FINDINGS AS TO. THE FACTS PARAGRAPH 1. Respondents Arthur Doctar, Theodare Dactar and Celestine Dactar are individuals and copartners trading and doing business under the name and style af Arthur Doctar & Ca. with their affces and principal place of business located at 250 West 39th Street New Yark, New York.

PAR. 2. Subsequent to. the effective date of said Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939, and more especially since 1951, respondents have manufactured far intraductian, intraduced, sold, distributed far sale, in commerce, as cam-delivered for shipment, and offered merce" is defined in the VV 0.01 Products Labeling Act, waal products as "waal products" are defined therein.

PAR. 3. Certain of said wool products were misbranded in that they were not stamped, tagged, or labeled as required under the provisians af Section 4 (a) (2) of the Wool Products Labeling Act 1939, and in the manner and form prescribed by the Rules and Hegulatians promulgated thereunder.

Conclusion 50 F. T. C.

PAR. 4. Certain af said wool products were misbranded within the intent and meaning af Section 4 (a) (1) af the Wool Products Labeling Act af 1939 , and af the Rules and Hegulations promulgated thereunder in that they were falsely and deceptively labeled tagged with respect to the character and amount af the constituent fibers contained therein. Among such misbranded waal products were ladies ar misses' coats labeled or tagged by respondents as containing "100% Cashmere" and "100% Imparted Cashmere whereas in truth and in fact, said wool products did not contain any af the hair ar fiber af the Cashmere goat but were manufactured fram fabrics campased of a blend or mixture of "\vool of the genus sheep, together with silk fibers and rabbit hair. Further, among such misbranded wool products were ladies misses' caats labeled or tagged by respondents as containing " 100% Cashmere; whereas in truth and in fact, said wool products did nat cansist of 100% Cashmere, the hair ar fiber of the Cashmere gaat, but were manufactured from fabrics campased af a blend of said cashmere cambined with the wool af the genus sheep. PAR. 5. Certain af said wool products were misbranded within the intent and meaning of Scctian 4 (a) (1) of the .Wool Products Labeling Act af 1939 and of the Hules and Hegulations promulgated thereunder in that they were falsely and deceptively labeled ar tagged with respect to. the character and amount of the constituent fibers contained therein. Among such misbranded waal products were ladies ar misses' coats labeled or tagged by respondents as containing "100% Virgin IV" 0.0.1 together with a separate and additional label ar tag setting forth the cantents thereof as "Imparted Cashmere; whereas in truth and in fact, said wool products were nat campased of 100% virgin wool nor imported cashmere but were manufactured fram fabrics camposed af a blend of waal of the genus sheep, combined with silk fibers and rabbit hair. PAR. 6. Certain of said wool products were further misbranded in tlmt the percentages or amounts of the constituent fibers af cashmere and sheep s waal were not separately set forth on stamps, tags labels or other means af identification, in the manner, form, and extent required by Rule 19 of the Rules and Regulations promulgated pursuant to said "tV 0.0.1 Products Labeling Ac.t. CONCLUSION The acts and practices of respondents as herein found were and are in vialatian of the said "tV 0.01 Products Labeling Act of 1939 and af the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder; and canstitute unfair and deceptive acts and practices in commerce within the intent and meaning af the Federal Trade Commission Act. ARTHUR DOCTOR & CO. 345 342 Order ORDER TO CEASE AND DESIST It is ordered That the respondents, Arthur Dador, Theadarc Dactor and Celestine Dactar individually and trading and doing business under the firm name o.f Arthur Doctor & Ca. 0.1' under any other name or names, and their respective representatives, agents and employees, directly or thro.ugh any corporate ar other device, in connection with the introduction 0.1' manufacture far introduction into. commerce, or the offering for sale, sale, transpartatian ar distribution in commerce, as "commerce" is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act and the IV 00.1 Products Labeling Act af 1939 ladies ar misses ' co.ats ar other "wool products" as such products are defined in and subject to. the Wool Products Labeling Act af 1939 which products contain, purpart to. contain ar in any way are represented as containing "waal reprocessed wool" or "reused wool " as those terms are defined in said Act, do. forthwith cease and desist from misbranding such products by:

1. Falsely 0.1' deceptively stamping, tagging, labeling ar otherwise identifying such products as to. the character or amount af the constituent fibers included therein;

2. Failing to. securely affx to. or place an each such product a stamp, tag, label ar other means of identification showing in a clear and consplcuaus manner;

(a) The precentage of the total fibcr weight of such wool product exclusive of ornamentation nat execeeding five percentum af said total fiber weight af (1) wool, (2) reprocessed waal, (3) reused wool, (4) each fiber other than 1'00.1 where said percentage by weight af such fiber is five per centum ar more, and (5) the aggregate af all other fibers;

(b) The maximum percentage of the total weight of such waal product af any nonfibraus loading, fillng, ar adulterating matter; (c) The name ar the registered identification number af the manufacturer af such wool product or af ane ar mare persons engaged in introducing such 1'00.1 product into. commerce ar in the offering far sale, sale, transpartatian, distribution, or delivery far shipment thereaf in commerce, as "commerce" is defined in the Wool Products Labeling Act af 1939.

3. Falsely or deceptively stampiug, tagging, labeling, or otherwise identifying such products as containing hair ar fleece af the Cashmere gaat;

4. Stamping, tagging, labeling, ar otherwise identifying such products as containing hair or fleece af the Cashmere goat without setting aut in a clear and canspicuolls manner on each such stamp, tag, label ar other identification the percentage of such Cashmere therein; Order 50 F.

Provided That the foregaing provisions canccrning misbranding shall not be construed to. prohibit acts permitted by paragraphs (a) and (b) af Section 3 af the Wool Products Labeling Act af 1939: and provided further That nothing contained in this order shall be construed as limiting any applicable pravisians of said Act or the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder.

It is furtker or-dered That the respondents herein shall within sixty (60) days after service upon them of this order, file with the Commission a report in writing setting forth in detail the manner and farm in which they have complied with the order to cease and desist.

Is:! Arthur Doctar Is:! Theadare Dactar 18/ Celestine Doc tar each individually, and as copartners trading as Arthur Dactar & Co.

Date: Sept. 18 , 1953.

The foregaing consent settlement is hereby accepted by the Federal Trade Cammissian and ardered entered af record on this 1st day October A. D. 1953.

PURITY BAKERIES CORP. ET AL. 347 Dismissal IN THE Matter aF PURITY BAKERIES CORP., AMERICAN BAKERIES CO.

INC., LEWIS A. CUSHMAN AND GEORGE L. BURR , Aug. 7, 195;2-order, Oct. , 1953 Docket 60;25. Compl-aint Charge: Interlocking directorates in violation of Section 8 of the Clayton Act; in connection with the manufacture and sale of bakery products. Befare Mr. Abner E. Lipscomb hearing examiner. Mr. Paul R. Dixon far the Commission. far Purity Schenck IX Soons, af New Yark City, Davies, Hardy, Bakeries Carp. Lewis A. Cushman and George L. Burr. Spalding, Sibley, Troutm.n IX Kelley, af Atlanta, Ga., for American Bakeries Co., Inc.

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT This matter is befare the Camrnission up an respondents' appeal fram the initial decision af the hearing examiner, briefs and oral argument af counsel in support af and in oppositian to said appeal and upon memorandum af counsel supporting the complaint fied subsequent to the presentatian af arguments on the appeal. The complaint charges a violation af Section 8 af the Clayton Act. It alleges, among other things, that the individual respondents have served simultaneausly, and that the corporate respondents have permitted the individual respondents to. be elected and to. serve simultaneously, as directors in both af the corporate respondents. The material facts were stipulated. The hearing examiner filed his initial decision in which he found that the acts and practices af the respondin vioJatian af Section 8 af the Clay tanents have been, and are naw, Act, and ardered the practices discontinued. Within the time permitted by the Commission s Rules of Practice, respondents filed an appeal fram said initial decision. Oral argument an the appeal was heard by the Cammissian an June 4 1953. Counsel sup parting the complaint, by memarandum filed an August , 1953, advised that, as af June 15, 1953, respondent American Bakeries Company, Inc., was merged with Purity Bakeries Corparatian and that the name af the surviving carparatian was changed to Cammissian is af the apinianAmerican Bakeries Company. The as a result af the merger af the two. carparate respondents no.that, further praceedings in this matter are warranted and that the complaint should be dismissed. Such dispasitian af this case renders it Dismissal 50 F.

appeal.unnecessary to rule up an each of the points raised by the said The Cammissian having duly considered the matter and being naw fully advised in the premises:

dis- It is ordered That the complaint herein be, and it hereby is, missed.

far the reason that Cammissioner Gwynne nat participating ' appeal from the initial decision af the oral argument an respondents hearing examiner was heard prior to. his appointment to. the Commis- Slon.

FLORIDA PLANTERS, INC.

Decision IN 'lhe MATTER OF FLORIDA PLANTERS, INC.

DECISION IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF SEC. 2 (C) OF Tile CLAYTON ACT AS AMENDED 17, 1953-Decision, Oct. 6, 1953 Doclcet 6104. Complaint, June Where a cooperative corporation, engaged in the sale of potatoes and other vegetables produced by its grower members through four methods, namely, (1) by utilzing intermediaries or brokers to whom, as compensation for services rendered in effecting sales to buyers, including numerous customers , it paid brokerage fees ranging from 51/ to 101/ who purchase in smaller volume per cwt. ; (2) by making sales to a broker for his own account for resale, on which sales it paid or allowed substantially the same commission or brokerage fee as that first above described; (3) by making sales to certain favored buyers, who usually purchase in larger volume, for resale, in connection with which said buyers deducted from the amount invoiced to them at the regular market price a brokerage commission, remitting the difference, accepted as full payment; and (4) by sellng to certain other buyers, including chain store organizations, or direct buyers, who usually purchase in larger volumes for their own account for resale, and to whom it allowed a lower price in lieu of brokerage or commissions which were substantially the same as that allowed in other transactions above described: Held that in the making of such payments or commission or brokerage fees and in the charging of lower prices in lieu thereof, as above set forth, to such buying agents and direct buyers, it violated Sec. 2 (c) of the Clayton Act as amended.

Before Mr. James A. Purcell hearing examiner. Mr. O. O. Miles and llfr. Peter J. Dias for the Cammissian. af Pal atka, Fla., for respondent. Mr. Julian O. Oalhoun, DECISION aF THE Commission Pursuant to. Decision af the Cammissian and Order to. File Report of Campliance " dated October 6, 1953, which, following the Cammission s review of the initial decision in the instant matter and its cansideration af the entire record, set forth its opinion that said decisian was " adequate and appropriate to. dispose af the proceeding, said initial decision of hearing examiner James A. Purcell, as set aut as follows, became an that date the decision of the Cammissian. INITIAL DECISION BY JAJlES A. PURCELL, HEARING EXAJllINER Pursuant to the provisions af the Act of Congress entitled " Act to. supplement existing laws against unlawful restraints and manopolies, and far other purposes " approved October 15, 1914 -" MJJJRAL TRADE COMMISSION DECISIONS Findings 50 F. T. C.

ap-(the Clayton Act), as amended by the Rabinsan-Patman Act, praved June 19 , 1936 (15 U. S. C. Sec. 13), the Federal Trade Cammission on June 17, 1953, issued and subsequently served its complaint in this proceding upon Florida Planters, Inc., a carparatian, charging it with vialatian af subsection (c) af Section 2 af said Act as amended. On July 14, 1953, respondent filed its answer, in which answer it admitted all of the material allegations af facts set forth in said complaint and elected not to. cantest the same. Thereafter the proceding regularly came an far final cansideratian by the above-named Hearing Examiner theretafore duly designated by the Cammissian upon said complaint and the admssian answer thereto proposed findings and canclusians nat having been submitted by counsel, and oral arguent nat having been requested. The Hearing Examiner, having duly considered the record herein, makes the fallawing findings as to. the facts, canclusians drawn therefrom, and order:

FINDINGS AS TO TIIE FACYS PARAGRAPH 1. Florida Planters, Inc., hereinafter sometimes referred to. as the respondent, is a cooperative carparatian organized existing and doing business under and by virtue af the laws af the State af Florida with its principal affce and place af business located at Hastings, Florida.

PAR. 2. The respondent is now and cantinuausly far seven or eight years last past has been engaged in the business of selling patato and other vegetables, hereinafter sometimes referred to. as food products, produced in the State af Florida by its grawer-members. It sells and distributes these food products by four separate and distinct methods described as follows:

and principal method is by utilizing intermediaries (a) The first s agents in negatiating the salebrokers who act as respondent' respondent' s food products, at respondent's prices and an respondent' intermediaries ar brokers usually transmit purchaseterms. Such arders far such foo products to. the respondent, who. thereaftr infoo products to. the customers. The respandentvoices and ships the pays such intermediaries ar brokers for their services in negotiating s account a cammissian ar brak- md making such sales for respondent' \rage fee. A large number af the customers said through this method re sometimes referred to. as small buyers who purchas in smaller alume. This method af respondent' s business was nat challenged y the complaint and is here adverte to. solely far illustrative pur- )ses as hereinafter appears.

FLORIDA PLANTERS , INC. ui).1 349 Findings (b) A secand method is where respondent makes certain sales to. far resale (hereinafter a broker far his, the broker, awn account Bametimes referred to. as a buying broker), an which sales the respondent pays ar allaws the same ar substantially the same, cammissian or brokerage fee that it allaws a broker far effecting sales as described under method (a) above.

Illustrative of such are cited certain sales af patataes which taok place during April and May of 1951, between respondent and ane of its intermediaries or brokers, located in Philadelphia, Pa. In these transactions the respondent invoiced such intermediary ar broker, and such intermediary ar broker paid for the potatoes, at prices which were the same ar substantially the same, as those charged other buyers purchasing at or about the same time; but in connection with such sales to. such intermediary ar broker for his own account, respondent paid him brokerage in the same manner, and in the same amounts, as it paid him brokerage in cannedian with sales of potatoes to buyers , intermediary ar broker.effected through him as its, the respondent' (c) A third method employed by respondent is sales to. certain favored buyers for resale who usually buy in larger valume. The respan dent invaices these favored buyers at the regular market price but in making payment therefar these buyers deduct a brokerage commission fram the face of the invoiced am aunt and remit the difference, which different am aunt is accepted by respondent as full payment. Upon receipt thereof a pencil natation is made an the invaice designating the difference as brokerage.

Illustrative af such sales are those whj' h took place during April and May, 1951 , between respondent and two. af its favored buyers, one located in Newark, New Jersey, and the other located in Detroit. Michigan. In these transactions the respondent in va iced such favored buyers for the potatoes at prices which were the same or substantially the same as those charged other buyers purchasing at ar about the same time; but in making payment therefor the respondent all awed these favored buyers to. deduct brokerage ill the same ar substantially the same am aunt as it paid ar allawed its broker far effecting sales far , as described in paragraph 2 (a) above, and to. remit the difference which difference was accepted as full payment for the invoiced amount. (d) A faurth method employed by respondent is sales to. other buyers, including chaiIl stare organizatians, hereinafter sometimes referred to. as direct buyers, who. usually purchase in larger volumes far their awn account for resale. To. these direct buyers the respondent allaws a lower price in lieu of brokerage ar commission which is sub. stantially the same as the brokerage allowed in other transactions described herein.

;-b FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION DECISIONS Order 50 F. T. C.

Illustrative af such sales are those which taak place during April May, and June, 1951, between respondent and several direct buyers including chain store arganizatians and faad pracessars. In these transactions respondent invoiced such buyers at, and such buyers paid prices which varied fram time to. time; but in all ar substantially an instances such prices were lower by amounts ranging fram appraximately five to ten cents per hundredweight than those at which other buyers purchasing at ar about the same time were invoiced and paid. The brokerage fees, cammissions or campensatian, or allowances in lieu thereaf, paid by respondent in all four methods described above range fram to 10 per hundredweight. PAR. 3. In the course and can duct af its business, the respondent herein sold and transported, or caused such faad products to. be transported, from its place af business ar fram elsewhere in the State Florida, to the places of business of such buyers, some of whom were located in Florida, but mast af whom were located elsewhere in the United States other than the State af Florida. Such sales and transportation to these buyers occurred during the three or four years last past.

PAR. 4. In making payments of cammissions ar brokerage fees as found in Paragraphs Two. (b) and (c), and in charging lower prices in lieu af brokerage as found in Paragraph Two (d), the respondent in the course and conduct of its business in commerce, as "commerce is defined in the aforesaid Clay tan Act, paid, granted ar all awed something af value as a commission, brokerage or other campensatian ar allowance ar discount in lieu thereof, in cannectian with the sale of its food products to other parties to. such transactions ar to their agents, representatives or other intermediaries therein who were, in fact, acting for or in behalf of, or subject to. the direct or indirect cantral af such other parties. CONCLUSION The acts and practices of the respondent as above found violate subsection (c) af :2 af Section the Clayton Act as amended by the Rabinsan-Patman Act (U. S. C. Title 15, Section 13). ORDER It is ordered That the respondent, Florida Planters, Inc., a corporation, and its offcers, directors, agents ar employees, directly through any corporate or other device, in canneetian with the sale of potatoes, or any other vegetable, in interstate commerce, do. forthwith cease and desist from:

FLORIDA PLANTERS, INC. vO') 349 Order 1. Ma,king payments to brokers an purchases for their awn accaunts in amounts which are the same as the amounts af brokerage fees paid to. brokers effecting sales, as. agents, to other purchasers, 0.1' in any other amounts which are also. paid as brokerage, whether such payments are made upon being billed therefar or otherwise; 2. Selling to. any purchaser at prices which are lower than the prices at which sales are made to other purchasers in amounts which are the same or substantially the same as the amounts af brokerage fees paid to. brake1's effecting sales, as a,gents, to such other purchasers or in any other amounts which also. are in lieu af brakerages whether such lower prices are charged by invaicing at a lower price or by permitting the purchaser to make a deductian from the regular invoice price in remitting payment ar by any other device. 3. Paying 0.1' granting anything af value as a, cammissian, brokerage ar other compensation or allawance or discount in lieu thereof to. the other parties to. such transactions, or to. their agents, representatives ar other intermediaries therein who. in fact act far or in behalf are subject to. the direct ar indirect cantraJ af such other parties. order '10 FILE Report OF OOJ\IPLIANCE It is further ordered That the respondent, Florida Planters, Inc. shall, within sixty (60) days after service upon it af this order, file with the Cammissian a report in writing setting forth in detail the manner and form in which it has complied with the order to. cease and desist (as required by said decision and arde1' af October 6 1953). 403443--57-- Syllabus 50 F. T. C. IN THE MATTER OF CHARLES SA1\1EL BERNSTEIN D. B. A. AMERICAN LABOR DIGEST DECISION IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION aF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION Acr Docleet 6105. Complaint, June 3D, 1953-Decision, Oct. , 1953 Where an individual with principal offce and place of business in Baltimore and with mailng address in Washington, D. C., engaged in the publication and dissemination of a magazine entitled "American Labor Digest" and in the sale of advertising space therein to numerous individuals and concerns in various States; through statements in said magazines and through oral statements of solicitors empioyed by him to solicit the purchase of advertising space, directly and by implication (a) Represented that said American Labor Digest was published and distributed regularly every month to members of the reading public, and was supported by subscriptions and advertising therein, that single copies were available for 50 , and that annual subseriptions were available for $5.00; and that it was widely circulated and distributed throughout the United States; The facts being that it was not a magazine in the sense in which said designation is generally understood; while it carried the volume and number designation, it was not published monthly nor regularly, and said designations did not indicate the actual volumes or numbers published, which were in fact substantially less than indicated; and it was not available on newsstands nor at any place or store where magazines are offered for sale to the general purchasing public; had no subscriptions, and was mailed only to advertisers therein; and, while mailed to such persons and concerns located throughout the United States, was not distributed or available to members of the general reading public; and (b) Falsely represented or stated that it represented and was p"blished in the interest and support of labor and harmonious labor management and that it maintained an offce in Washington, D. C. When in fact it did not represent labor generally, was not supported by it or any labor organization, and maintained no Washington offce, but was merely a subscriber to a mailng address service located in said city; and .(c) Hepresented through certain form letters mailed to individuals and concerns throughout the United States that the respondents had authorized or approved the insertion of an advertisement in a prior edition of American Labor Digest and that a renewal of said advertisement was ,being. solicited; and on many occasions mailed statements of account to persons and concerns located iu many states, which purported to be charges for advertisements authorized by the recipients;

'Vhen in fact many of such recipients had never authorized such insertion and the sending of said form letters constituted a part of a scheme calculated to cause the recipients to contract for the publication of advertisements in the mistaken belief that in doing so they were renewing advertisements for which payment had been previously made; many of the AMERICAN LABOR DIGEST 355 354 Findings recipients of said statements of account had never authorized the insertion of advertisements in respondents' publication nor agreed to pay therefor and had in fact no knowledge that such insertion had been made; and those who did authorize such insertion and agreed to pay therefor would not have done so had they been informed of the true facts with respect to the nature and purpose of said American Labor Digest: Held, That such acts and practices, under the circumstances set forth, were aU to the prejudice and injury of the public and constituted unfair and deceptive acts and practices in commerce.

Before Mr. James A. Purcell hearing examiner. Mr. William L. Penclce far the Commission. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION Pursuant to "Decision of the Commission and Order to File Report of Compliance " dated October 6, 1953, which, following the Commission s review af the initial decision in the instant matter and its consideration of the entire record, set forth its opinian that said decision was "adequate and approprate to dispose of the proceeding," said initial decision af hearing examiner ,J ames A. Purcell, as set out as folJaws, became on that date the decision of the Commission. INI1TAL DECISION BY JAJlIES A. PURCELL, HEARING EXAJllINER Pursuant to the pravisians of the Federal Trade Cammissian Act the Federal Trade Commission on June ::0 , 1953, issued and subsequently served its complaint in this proceeding upon the respondent Charles Samuel Bernstein, an individual, doing business as American Labor Digest, charging him with the use af unfair and deceptive acts and practices in commerce in violation af the provisions af said Act. On August 5, 1953, respondent filed his answer to the complaint wherein he admitted all af the material allegations of fact set forth in said complaint and specifically waived alj intervening procedure and further hearing as to said facts. Thereafter, the proceeding regularly came an far final consideration by the above-named Hearing Examiner, thereto fare duly designated by the Commission, upon said complaint and the answer thereto, and said Hearing Examiner, having duly considered the record herein, finds that this proceeding is in the interest of the public and makes the faJJawing findings as to. the facts canclusians drawn therefrom, and order:

FINDINGS AS TO THE FACTS PARAGRAPH 1. Respondent Charles Samuel Bernstein is an individual, trading and doing business under the firm name and style of American Labar Digest. His principal affce and place af business Findings 50 F. '1'. C.

is located at 508 Snow Building, Baltimare, Maryland. Respondent also. maintains a mailing address at Roam 422, Washington Building, Washington, D. C.

PAR. 2. For mare than ane year last past, respondent has been and is naw engaged in the publication and disseminatian of a magazine entitled American Labar Digest and, in cannectian therewith, in the sale af advertising space in said magazine to. numeraus individuals , and corporatians located in various States af the Unitedbusiness firms States.

PAR. 3. In the course and conduct af said business, respondent causes said magazine to be transported fram his place af business in the State af Maryland to. purchasers of said advertising space located in other States.

PAR. 4. Said magazine, American Labar Digest, contains, among others, the following statements:

A Non-Partisan Labor l\Iagazine of Modern America This magazine * * * is supported by subscription and advertising revenue; * 'I * and:

The American Labor Digest, published monthly; . . * Address an communications to 422 Washington Building, Washington 5, D. C. Single copycents, Annual Subscription, by mail $5.00. S. B. Charles, Editor. Don Carlos, Editor.

PAH. 5. In the course and conduct af said business, as aforesaid respondent employs salicitors who call upon prospects for the purpase af saliciting the purchase af advertising space and in cannectian therewith represent to such prospective purchasers that said American Labar Digest is a regularly published monthly magazine; that it represents or is supported ar recognized by American labor ar labar organizations; and that it has a wide distribution and circulation thraughaut the United States.

af farm letters which are mailed PAR. 6. Respondent also. makes use to. individuals, firms, and carparations thraughout the United States af which the following is representative:

AMERICAN LABOR AND MANAGEMENT TEAMWORK AMERICAN LABOR DIGEST A Non-Partisan :Wree Enterprise Labor Magazine of Modern America 422 Washington Building, Washington 5, D. C. GEXTLEMEN:

'" e are writing to yon relative to advertising in the annual Easter Edition of the American Labor Digest.

May we count on the same support of a $ representation that we have had from you in the past? We can assure you that it wil be greatly appreciated. AMERICAN LABOR DIGEST 357 354 Findings Thanking you for your kind consideration and pledging mutual cooperation in Labor Management Teamwork, we are Cordia11y yours DON CARLOS Business Manager.

Dedicated to the American Way of Life and Harmonious Labor-Management Relationship.

On many occasions, respondent also. mails statements af account to. individuals, firms, and corparations located in many States af the United States which purport to. be charges far advertisements authorized by the recipients thereof.

PAR. 7. By means of the statements appearing in said magazine and others af similar impart, not specifically set aut herein, and the oral statements af his solicitars, respondent has represented, directly and by implication, that said American Labar Digest is published and distributed regularly every month to members of the reading public; that it is supported by subscriptians and advertising revenue; that single capies are available far 50 and that annual subscriptions are available far $5.00; that it represents and is published in the interest and support of labar and harmonious labor management; that respondent maintains an affce in vVashington, D. c., and that said magazine is widely circulated and distributed throughout the United States. By means of said farm letters respondent had represented that the recipients thereaf had authorized or approved the insertion of an advertisement in a pri-r edition af American Labar Digest and a rwewal of said advertisement was being salicited; and by means of said statements of account respondent represented that the recipients thereaf had authorized or approved the insertion af advertisements in said magazine and that said statements represented the cast of such advertisements; that said magazine was supported, approved or recognized by labor arganizations and had its principal oflce in IVashington, D. C. PAR. 8. The aforesaid statements and representations are false, misleading, and deceptive. In truth and in fact said American Labar Digest is nat a magazine in the sense in which said designation is generally understood. while it carries a volume and number designatian, it is not published monthly nar regularly, and said designations do. nat indicate the actual valumes or numbers published, and which are in fact substantially less than indicated. Said Digest is nat available on news stands nor at any other place or store where magazines are offered for sale to the general purchasing public, nor has it a circulatian among subscribers. There are in fact no subscriptians, the magazine being mailed only to those individuals, firms, and carparations whose advertisements appear therein; and while said individuals !!.y Order 50 J;' firms, and carporatians are located thraughaut the United States, said Digest is not distributed ar available to. members af the general reading public.

Said magazine does nat represent labor generally nor is it supported oby labar ar any labar organization. Respondent does nat maintain a D. , but is m- e1ya subscriber ta .pflce in the C af Washington - mail address service located in said city recipients af said farm letters requesting payment had M;my after never authorized the insertion af advertisements; and the sending scheme calculated to. cause the said form letters canstitutes a part of a recipients thereaf to contract far the publication of advertisements in the mistaken belief that in doing so. they were renewing advertisements far which payment had been previausly made; and many af the recipients af said statements af account had never authorized the ins publication nar agreed to. pay sertion af advertisements in respondent' there far and had, in fact, no knowledge that such insertion had been made. Mareover, the individuals, firms, and carporatians who. did authorize the insertian af advertisements in said Digest and agreed to , had they been infarmed af the pay therefor wauld not have done so. true facts with respect to the nature and purpose of said American Labar Digest.

PAR. 9. The use by respondent of the aforesaid false, misleading, and deceptive statements had the tendency and capacity to. lead a substantial partian of the purchasing public into the erraneaus and mistaken belief that said statements and representations are true and to. induce a substantial partian af the purchasing public, because of such af money erraneous and mistaken belief, to. pay substantial amounts far advertising in respondent's said American Lahar Digest. conclusion The aforesaid acts and practices af respondent, as herein found, are all to. the prejudice and injury of the public and constitute unfair and deceptive acts and practices in commerce within the intent and meaning af the Federal Trade Cammissian Act. ORDER It is ordered That the respondent, Charles Samuel Bernstein, an individual, his agents, representatives and employees, in cannectian ar any other with the publication af the American Labar Digest similar publication, and in connection with the offering for sale and sale of advertising space in said American Labar Digest and the dis- AMERICAN LABOR DIGEST 359 354 Order tribution thereaf in commerce, as "commerce" is defined in the Federal desist fram:Trade Cammissian Act, do forthwith cease and 1. Representing, directly ar by implication : (a) That the American Labor Digest is a regular monthly publicatian ar that single capies thereaf may be purchased; (b) That the American Labar Digest has subscribers, is supported by subscriptians, is distributed to. subscribers, or to. the general reading public;

(c) That the American Labar Digest is a publication representing labar ar is sup parted ar recognized by labar or any labar organization ar labar unian ;

(d) That respondent maintains an affce in Washington, D. C., or any other city when such is not the fact;

(e) That any advertisement for which respondent is requesting payment through statements af account ar otherwise has been inserted with the autharization of the advertiser contrary to. the fact; (f) That any advertisement appearing in a prior editian of respondaf theent' s publication has been inserted with the autharizatian ad vertiser ar paid for by him contrary to. the fact; 2. Requiring ar demanding payment far advertisements which have not been authorized or approved.

onder TO FILE nEPoRT OF COMPLIANCE It is jurtker ordered That the respondent, Charles Samuel Bernservice up an him afstein, shall, within sixty (60) days after this order, file with the Commission a report in writing setting forth in detail the manner and form in which he has camp lied with the order decision and arderto. cease and desist Las required by said October 6, 1953).

Decision 50 F. T. C.