Associated Dry Goods Corporation

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

IN THE MATTER OF ASSOCIATED DHY GOODS CORI'ORATIOK CONSENT ORDER, ETC., I:r REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF TEE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND THE FUR PRODUCTS Labeling ACTS Docket 7260. Complaint, Se7Jt. , 1.98 Decision, MU1 . 20, 1959 Consent order requiring' furriers in New Yark City to cease violating the Fur Products Labeling Act by failing to comply with labeling and invoicing requirements, and by advertising in newspapers which failed to disclose that certain fur products contained artiflciaIly colored fur and which used comparative prices and purportedly reduced prices without maintaining adequate records as a basis for such pricing claims. Ga1"and 8. F81' yuson Esq., for the Commission. Wilco,,' Fanallen by Archibald M. LfLidlnlc Esq. , of Buffalo, K. , for respondent.

INITIAL DECISION BY ROBERT L. PIPER, HEARING EXAMINER The Federal Trade Commission i sued ihi complaint on September 17, 1958, as amended February 2 , 1959 , against the abovenamed respondent charging it with having violated the Fur Products Labeling Act, the rules and regulations issued therellnrler and the Federal Trade Commission Act, by misbranding and falsely advertising and invoicing its fur products. Respondent appeared by counsel and entered into an agreement, dated J anuary 21 , 1959, containing a consent order to cease and desist disposing of all the issues in this proceeding vvithout further hearings, \which agreement has been duly approved by the Director of the Bureau of Litigation. Said agreement has been submitted to the undersigned, heretofore duly designated to act as hearing examiner herein, for his consideration in accordance with 93.25 of the Hules of Practice of the Commission. Hesponclent, pursuant to the aforesaid agreement, has admitted all of the jurisdictional allegations of the complaint and agreed that the record may be taken as if findings of jurisdictional facts had been made duly in accordance with such allegations. Said agreement further provides that respondent waives all further pi"ocedural steps before the hearing examiner Of the Commission, including the making of findings of fact or conclusions 1 AmemJed Feb. 2 , 1059 , by substituting " A5suciated Dry Goods CorpuratiOJ1 " 1\5 l€SPOm:!""t inst ud of "J. N. Adam & Company ASSOCIATED DRY GOODS CORP. 1463 1462 Order of ,aw and the right to challenge or contest the validity of the order to cease and desist entered in accorrlance with such agreement. It has also been agreed that the record herein shah consist solely of the complaint and said agreement, that the agreement shah not become a part of the offcial record unless and until it becomes a part of the decision of the Commission, that said agreement is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by respondent that it has violated the Jaw as aHegec1 in the complaint, that said order to cease and desist shah have the same force and effect as if entered after fuH hearing and may be altered, modified, or set aside in the manner provided for other orders, and that. the complaint may be used in construing the terms of the order. This proceeding- having now come on for final consideration on the complaint and the aforesaid agreement containing the consent order, and it appearing that the order and agreement cover al1 of the allegations of the complaint and provide for appropriate disposition of this proceeding, the agreement is hereby accepted and ordered filed upon this decision and said agreement becoming part of the Commission s decision pursuant to S93. an(1 3. 25 of the Rules of Practice, and the hearing examiner ac.cordingly makes the foJJovl" ing findings, for jurisdictional purposes, and oreler :

1. Hcsponflent Associated Dry Goods Corporation is a corporation incorporated under the law, of the COllmonwea1th of Virginia, with its offce nld principal p12.ce of business located at 261 ladison Avenue, New York, N.

The acts and practices alleged in the complaint as being violative of law were engaged in by J. . Adam & Company of Buffalo, N. , located at 389 Main Street, a division of said Associated Dry Goods Corporation.

2. The Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction of the sub. ject matter of this proceeding and of the respondent hereinabove named. The complaint states a cause of action ag2.inst said respondent under the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Federal Trade Commission Act, and this proceeding is in the interest of the public.

ORDER It is ordered That respondent Associated Dry Goods Corporation, a corporation, and its oilcers, and representatives, agents, and employees trading as ,). N. Adam & Company, directly or Order 55 F.

through any corporate or other device, in connection with the introduction into comrperce, or the sale, advertising, or ott'ering for sale in commerce, or the transportation or distribution in comn1crce, of fur products, or in connection ,,,ith the sale, advertising, offering for sale, transportation, or distribution of fur products which have been made in whole or in part of fur which has been shipped and received in commerce, as "commerce fur " and "fur product" are defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act, do forth\with cease and desist from: 1. Tvlisbranding fur products by:

A. Failing to ffx labels to fur products showing: (1) The name or names of the animal or animals producing the fur or furs contained in the fur product as set forth in the Fur Products Name Guicle and as prescribed under the rules and regulations;

(2) That the fur product contains or is composed of usee! fur when such is the fact;

(3) That the fur product contains or is composed of bleached dyed, or otherwise artificially colored fur, when such is the fact; (4) That the fur product is composed in whole or in substantial part of paws, tau" , belles, or waste fur, when such is the fact;

(5) The name, or other identification issued and registered by the Commission, of one or more persons who manufactured such fur product Jar introduction into commerce, introduced it into commerce, sold it in commerce, advertised or offered it for sale in commerce, or transJlortec1 or distributed it in commerce; (6) The name of the country of origin of any imported furs contained in a fur product;

(7) The item number or n1ark assigned to a fur product. B. Setting forth on labels affxed to fur products: (1) Jnformation reljuired1ll11er Section 4 (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder in abbreviated form;

(2) Information reljlliredllnder SecticJ1 4 (2) of the Fur Products Lab€ling Act and the rnles and regulations thereunder, mingled with nonrequired information;

(3) information rCljllircc111nder Section 4 (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the rules and regulations p :omulgated thereunder in handwriting.

C. Failing to set forth the information required under Sec- ASSOCIATED DRY GOODS CORP. 1465 1462 Order tion 4 (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder in proper sequence. D. Failing to set forth separately on labels attached to fur products composed of two or more sections containing different animal furs the information required under Section 4 (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder with respect to the fur comprising each section.

2. Falsely or deceptively invoicing fur products by: A. Failing- to furnish invoices to purchasers of fur products showing:

(1) The name or names of the animal or animals producing the fur or furs contained in the fur products as set forth in the Fur Products Name Guide and as prescribed under the rules and regulations;

(2) That the fur product contains or is composed of used fur, when such is the fact;

(3) That the fur product contains or is composed of bleached, dyed, or othenvisc artificially culored fur, ,vhen such is the fact; (4) That the fur product is composed in whole or in a substantial part of pav,'s, tails, bellies, or waste fur, when such is the fact;

(5) The name ancl address of the person issuing such invoicing;

(6) The name of the country 01' origin of any imported furs contained in a fur product;

(7) The item number or mark assigned to a fur product. B. Settng forth information required under Section 5 (b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling- Act and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder in abbrcviatecl form. C. Failing- to set forth the tej' m "Persian Lamb" in the manner required.

D. Failing to sct forth the term "Dyed Mouton Processed Lamb" in the manner required.

3. Falsely or deceptively advertising fur products through the use of any advertisement, representation, public announcement or notice which is intended to aiel, promote, or assist, directly or indirectly, in the sale, or offering for sale of fur products, ancl which:

A. Fails to disclose:

That the fur product contains or is composed of bleached, dyed or otherwise artificially colorec1 fur, when such is the fact. 1466 FEDERAL TRADE GOMMISSION DECISIONS Decision 55 F.

4. Making price claims and representations respecting prices or reduced prices unless respondent maintains fuH and adequate records disclosing the facts upon which such claims and representations are based.

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION AND ORDER TO FILE REPORT OF COMPLIANCE Pursuant to Section 3.21 of the Commission s Rules of Practice , on the 20ththe initial decision of the hearing examiner shah day of March 1959, become the decision of the Commission; and, accordingly;

It is ordered That respondent Associated Dry Goods Corporation, a corporation, and its offcers, and representatives, agents and employees trading as J. N. Adam & Company shah within sixty.y (GO) days after service upon it of this order, file with the Commission a report in writing settinl( forth in detail the manner and form in which it has complied with the ordcr to cease and desist.

L. THALER & CO., INC., ET AI.. 1467 Dccision TN THE MATTER OF L. THALEI1 & CO. , I:'C., ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER. ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLA TION OF FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT lJock(!t 7287. COlJplahd, Oct. 1.f8- Dedsioll, Mar. 20 , 1.9.9 Consent order requiring- distributors in New York City to cease representing falsely- by means of fliers or inserts enclosed in the plastic covers or otherwise-that bed comforters '\which they sold to retailers and to the premium trade were " alJcl'g' y resistant moth resistant " and worth $24. 95.

Jll1' S. F. HCH/se counsel supporting the complaint. G1' eemcald, Kovne)' Goldsmith of New York, for respondents.

INITIAL DECISION BY John E. POINDEXTER, HEARING EXAMINER On October 27 , 1958, the Federal Trade Commission issued a complaint charging that L. Thaler & Co. Inc. , a corporation and Louis Thayer, Charles Weiss, Leo Lcderman and Morris Lederman, individually and as oflicers oi' said corporation, hereinafter referred to as respondents, had violated the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act by making- false, misleading and deceptive statements and representations in advertisements concerning- their products, which they sell and distribute. After issuance and service of the complaint, the respondents their counsel, and counsel supporting the complaint entered into an agreement fol' a consent order. The order disposes of the matters complained about. The agreement has been approved by the assistant director and acting director of the Bureau Litig-ation.

The pertinent provisions of said agreement are as follows: Respondents admit a1l jurisdictional facts; the complaint may be used in construing the terms of the order; the order shall have the same force and eftoct as if entered after a full hearing and the said ag-recmcnt shall not. become a part of the offcial record of the proceeding unless and until it becomes a- part of the decision of tbe Commission; the record herein shall consist solely of the complaint and the ag-reement; respondents waive the requirement that the decision must contain a statement of findings of fact and conclusions of la\v; respondents waive further Order 55 F.

procedural steps before the hearing examiner and the Commission and the order may be altered, modified, or set aside in the manner provided by statute for other orders; respondents waive any right to challenge or contest the validity of the order entered in accordance with the agreement and the signing of said agreement is for settlement purposes only and docs not constitute an admission by respondents that they have violated the law as alleged in the complaint.

The undersigned hearing examiner having considered the agreement and proposed order and being of the opinion that the hereby acceptsacceptance thereof will be in the public interest, such agreement, makes the following jurisdictional findings, and issues the follo\ving order:

JURISDICTIO:\AL FINDINGS 1. Respondent L. Thaler & Co., Inc. , is a corporation existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York, with their offce and principal place of businesslocated at 141 Fifth Avenue, New York, N.Y. Respondents Louis Thaler, Charles Weiss, Leo Lcderman and Morris Lederman arc officers of said corporate respondent. They formulate, direct and control the acts, policies and practices of the corporate respondent. Said individual respondents have their ofnce and principal place of business at the same address as the corporate respondent.

2. The Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this proceeding and of the respondents and the proceeding is in the public interest.

ORDER It is onle?'ed That L. Thaler & Co. , Inc. , a corporation, and , Charles leiss Leo Lederman and its offcers, and Louis Thaler Morris Lederman, individually and as offcers of said corpora- , dI- tion, and respondents' representatives, agents and employees device, in connection rectly or through any corporate or other with the offering for sale, sale or distribution of bed comforters is defined in or any other products in commerce, a.s "commerce" the Federal Trade Commission Act, do forthwith cease and desist from directly or indirectly:

1. Representing that their bed comforters or other products are "allergy resistant, " when such is not the fact; L. THALER & CO., INC., ET AL. 1469 1467 Decision 2. Representing that their bed comforters or other products are "moth resistant," when such is not the fact; 3. Representing in any manner that certain amounts are the regular and usual retail prices of their products, when such amountEi are in excess of the prices at ,,,hieh such products are usually and customarily sold at retail. DECISIO:- OF THE COMMISSION AND ORDER TO FILE REPORT OF CO IPLIANCE Pursuant to Section 3.21 of the Commission s Rules of Practice, the inHial decision of the hearing examiner shall, on the 20th day of March 1959, hecomc the decision of the Commission; and, accordingly;

It is o)'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 form in which they have complied with the oreler to cease and desist.

, , Decision 55 F.