Roberts Record Distributing Company, Inc.

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

In ree Marrer or ROBERTS RECORD DISTRIBUTING COMPANY, INC., ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT Docket 7800. Complaint, Mar. 2, 1960—Decision, June 16, 1960 Consent order requiring a St. Louis, Mo., distributor of phonograph records to cease paying concealed “payola” to television and radio disc jockeys as. inducement to have its records broadcast frequently in order to increase. Sales.

Mr. John T. Walker and Mr. James H. Kelley for the Commission. frassieur, Long & Yawitz, by Mr. Milton Yawitz, of St. Louis, Mo., for respondents.

Initiat Decision py Loren H. Lavenuin, Hearinc Examiner The Federal Trade Commission (sometimes also hereinafter referred to as the Commission) on March 2, 1960, issued its complaint herein, charging the above-named respondents, who are engaged in the offering for sale, sale and distribution of phonograph records. as an independent distributor for several record manufacturers to: retail outlets and jukebox operators in various states of the United States, with violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act, in that respondents, alone or with certain unnamed record manufacturers, have negotiated for and disbursed “payola,” i.e., the payment of money or other valuable consideration to disk jockeys of musical programs on radio and television stations, to induce, stimulate or motivate the disk jockeys to select, broadcast, “expose” and promote certain records, in which respondents are financially interested, on the express or implied understanding that the disk jockeys will conceal, withhold or camouflage the fact of such payment. from the listening public. Respondents were duly served with process. On May 9, 1960, there was submitted to the undersigned hearing: examiner of the Commission for his consideration and approval an “Agreement Containing Consent Order To Cease And Desist,” which had been entered into by respondents, their counsel and counsel supporting the complaint, under date of May 2, 1960, subject to the approval of the Bureau of Litigation of the Commis-. sion, which had subsequently duly approved the same. On due consideration of such agreement, the hearing examiner: finds that said agreement, both in form and in content, is in accord with §3.25 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice for Adjudicative: Decision 56 F.T.C.

Proceedings, and that by said agreement the parties have specifically agreed to the following matters:

1. Respondent Roberts Record Distributing Company, Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Missouri, with its principal office and place of business located at 1906 Washington Avenue, in the City of St. Louis, State of Missouri. Respondents Robert L. Hausfater and Sam Rosenblatt are president and vice-president, respectively, of the corporate respondent, and formulate, direct and control the acts and practices of said corporate respondent. The address of the individual respondents is the same as that of said corporate respondent.

2. Respondents admit all the jurisdictional facts alleged in the complaint and agree that the record may be taken as if findings of jurisdictional facts had been duly made in accordance with such allegations.

3. This agreement disposes of all of this proceeding as to all parties. , 4. Respondents waive:

(a) Any further procedural steps before the hearing examiner and the Commission ;

(b) The making of findings of fact or conclusions of law; and (c) All of the rights they may have to challenge or contest the validity of the order to cease and desist entered in accordance with this agreement.

5. The record on which the initial decision and the decision of the Commission shall be based shall consist solely of the complaint and this agreement.

6. This agreement shall not become a part of the official record unless and until it becomes a part of the decision of the Commission. 7. This agreement is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by respondents that they have violated the law as alleged in the complaint.

8. The following order to cease and desist may be entered j in this proceeding by the ‘Commission without further notice to respondents. When so entered it shall have the same force and effect as if entered after a full hearing. It may be altered, modified or set aside in the manner provided for other orders. The complaint may be used in construing the terms of the order. Upon due consideration of the complaint filed herein and the said “Agreement Containing Consent Order To Cease And Desist,” the latter is hereby approved, accepted and ordered filed. The hearing examiner finds from the complaint and the said “Agreement Containing Consent Order To Cease And Desist” that the Commission ROBERTS RECORD DISTRIBUTING €0., INC. ET AL. 1539) 1537 Decision has jurisdiction of the subject-matter of this proceeding and of the respondents herein; that the complaint states a legal cause for: complaint under the Federal Trade Commission Act against the respondents, both generally and in each of the particulars alleged. therein; that this proceeding is in the interest of the public; that the following order as proposed in said agreement is appropriate for the just disposition of all of the issues in this proceeding as to all of the parties hereto; and that said order therefore should be, and hereby is, entered as follows:

Jt is ordered, That respondents Roberts Record Distributing Company, Inc., a corporation, and its officers, and Robert. L. Hausfater and Sam Rosenblatt, individually and as officers of said corporation, and respondents’ agents, representatives and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with phonograph records which have been distributed, in commerce, or which are used by radio or television stations in broadcasting programs. in commerce, as “commerce” is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act, do forthwith cease and desist from: (1) Giving or offering to give, without requiring public disclosure, any sum of money or other material consideration, to any person, directly or indirectly, to induce that person to select, or participate in the selection of, and the broadcasting of, any such records in which respondents, or any of them, have a financial interest of any nature;

(2) Giving or offering to give, without requiring public disclosure, any sum of money, or other material consideration, to any person, directly or indirectly, as an inducement to influence any employee of a radio or television broadcasting station, or any other person, in any manner, to select, or participate in the selection of, and the broadcasting of, any such records in which respondents, or any of them, have a financial interest of any nature. There shall be “public disclosure” within the meaning of this order, by any employee of a radio or television broadcasting station, or any other person, who selects or participates in the selection and broadcasting of a record when he shall disclose, or cause to have disclosed, to the listening public at the time the record is played, that. his selection and broadcasting of such record ‘are in consideration for compensation of some nature, directly or indirectly, received by him or his employer.

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION AND ORDER TO FILE REPORT OF COMPLIANCE Pursuant to Section 3.21 of the Commission's Rules of Practice, the initial decision of the hearing examiner did, on the 16th day Decision 56 F.T.C.

of June, 1960, become the decision of the Commission; and, accordingly :

It is ordered, That the above-named respondents 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 order to cease and desist.