Columbia Container Corporation

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

IN THE MATTER OF COLUMBIA CONTAINER CORPORATION ET AL.

ORDER , ETC. , IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OFTlil FEDERAL TRADF; CO:rBfISSION ACT Docket 7105. Complaint, ArJr. S, 1958-Decision, July 20, 1960 Order requiring a Baltimore manufacturer to cease misrepresenting the quality of its corrugated fiorcboard boxes through imprinting the certificate of the box maker-required by Rule 41 , Uniform Freight Classification, established by American railroads as authorized by the Interstate Commerce Act-on boxes which did not conform to the standards set out in the rule in that the combined weight of the facings and the bursting strength of a substantial number of the boxes tested \were less than the required minimum.

Before JJJr. TViZlianl L. Pack henrinlf eXHrnin(:r. Mr. Charles W. O' Connell for t.he Commission. hipley, Akerman Pickett of "\Vashington, D. , for respondents. FINDINGS AS TO THE FACTS , CONCLUSION:r" A;oW ORDER The Federal Trade Commission issued its complaint against t.he above-named respondents on April 3 , 1958, chaTging them with violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act by imprinting on the corrugated fibre board boxes they manufacture and sell, false and misleading representations a.s to the bursting strength and weight of the fibreboarc1 facings of said boxes. In response to a motion of Commission counsel, the complaint was amended by order of the hearing examiner issued June 18 , 1958. In their ans,yer, respondents denied the charges. Hearings were held before the hearing examiner and test.imony and other evidence in support of and in opposition to the allegations of the complaint were received into the record. In an initial decision filed September 24 , 1958, the hearing examiner found that the charges had not been sustained by the evidence and ordered that the complaint be dismissed. Upon appeal by counsel snpporting t.he complaint, the Commission issued its order on l\farch 27, 1959 , vacating the initial decision and remanding the case to the hearing examiner for the purpose of receiving certain additional evidence. Pursuant to such remand the case was reopened and additional evidence, both in support of and in opposition to the complaint was received and considered and the case was argncd orally before the hearing examiner. On February 24, 1960, an initial decision 'vas filed wherein the 1waring examiner again orc1erecl dismissal of the complaint. for failure of proof.

Findings 57 F.

Counsel supporting the complaint tied an appeal from said initial decision and the Commission, after considering said appeal and the entire record, has determined that the appeal should be granted and that the initial decision should be vacated and set aside. The Commission further finds that the proceeding is in the public interest and now makes its findings as to the facts, conclusions drawn therefrom and order to cease and desist, which, together with the accompanying opinion, shall be in lieu of the findings, conclusion and order contained in the initial decision. FINDINGS AS TO THE FACTS 1. Respondent, Columbia Contajner Corporation, is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Maryland, with its offce and principal place of business located at 2240 AnnapoJis A venue, Baltimore, Md. Respondent, James Glose, is an individual and president-treasurer of said corporate respondent. 1\11'. Glose formulates, directs and controls the acts, practices and policies of the corporate respondent. Respondent, Harvey Jones, is vice president of the re.spondent corporation.

2. In the course and conduct of their business, respondents are now and have been engaged in the manufacture of corrugated fibreboard boxes and in the sale and distribution of said boxes in commerce, as commerce is defined in t.he Federal Trade Commission Act. :1. Respondents are now and at all times mentioned herein have been in substantial competition in commerce with other corporations firms and individuals in the sale of corrugated fibreboard boxes. 4. American railroads, through their Offcial Classification Committee, have established a Uniform Freight Classification containing ratings, rules and regulations governing the transportation of goods. Rule 41 of said classification preseribes certain minimum standards for fibreboarc1 boxes llsed in interstate shipments. Included therein are requirements as to the bursting strength of such boxes and the minimum combined weight of the paper facings used in the manufacture of those boxes. These. standards do not allow for tolerances.

Hule 41 requires that boxes Hlade to conform to the standards set forth therein must bear a certi ficat.e of the box maker giving, among other things, the bursting strength in pounds per square inch of the I-breboarcl in the bo:x and stating that the box conforms to all construction requirements of Uniform Freight Cla.ssification. Shippers who tender a.articles for interest.ate shipment in fibreboard boxes which do not comply with the requirements of the standards COLUMBIA CONTAINER CORPORATION ET AL. 269 267 Findings in Rule 41 are required to increase their freight payments to the railroads by 20% on less than earload shipments and 10% on carload shipments.

D. In the course of their business, respondents have imprinted the certificate required by Rule 41 on certain of their corrugated fibreboard boxes, thereby representing that the boxes bearing such certificate conform to a1l of the standards set out therein. 6. A number of respondents' boxes were obtained by the Commission s investigating attorney from four of respondents' customers located in the 'Washington, D. , area in July, 1957. Tests were conducted on thirteen of these boxes by Container Laboratories Inc., Kew York, N. , in December, 1957. Two of these boxes appeared to have been used by the purchasers prior to the time they were turned over to the investigating attorney. The results of the tests conducted OIl these two boxes arc not being cons:idered. the c1even unused boxes, four did not meet the bursting strength test and nine failed to meet the requirements for the combined weight of the facings. One of the t,\,O boxes which met the weight requirement for the combined facings did not pass the bursting strength test. Thus, ten of the eleven unused boxes did not con- 1'orm j a al1 of the construction requirements of Rule 4l. Duplicates of the thirteen boxes, with one exception, were obtained by the investigating attorney at the same time as Ole originals "ere obtained. Tests \were conducted on these boxes by Eastern Box Co. , a competitor of respondents, in August, 1957. Seven of the nine unused bo:xes tested by Eastern Box Co. , had facings whose combined \yeight flliled to meet the standards set up by Rule 41. The test procedure employed by Eastern Box Co. in testing respondents' boxes for the combined weight of the facings is the same as that used by Eastern in testing its own boxes and any other boxes receivc(l in its plant for testing purposes. 7. At the time of testing by Container Laboratories, Inc., nine of the eleven 11T1J5ed bOXC5 ,,' ere npproximately six months old. One of the two othc,' boxes wns approximately nine months old, while the remaining box WfiS about one year oJd. The age of the dup1icate of each of these boxes when tested by Eastern Box Co. was about four months less, respectively. From the time the boxes left respondents' plant until tests were performed by each of the two testing concerns, tile boxes were stored under proper conditions. 8. 1 he age of the boxes tested did not affect their bursting stre.ngth or U1c combjned "eight of the facings of said boxes. At the time tests were performed by Container Laboratories, Inc' and Eastern Box Co., the boxe.s were in sl1bstantia11y the same condition as when they left respondents' plant. Order 57 F.

9. Through the use of the certificate imprinted on their boxes and the statements contained therein, respondents have represented that their boxes conform to a11 of the construction requirements of Rule , Uniform Freight Classification. The evidence of record establishes that respondents' use of the certificate and the statements therein was false and misleading in that the bursting strength and the combined weight of the fibreboard faeings, of a substantial number of said boxes, were less than the minimum required under said Rule 41.

10. The practice of the. respondents, as hereinabove fOllnd, has had and now has the tendency and capacity to mislead and deceive purchasers of their boxes with respect to the construction of said boxes and thereby induce the purchase of substantia! quantities thereof. As a result, substantial trade in commerce may be unfairly diverted to respondents from their competitors and substantial injury has been and is being done to competition in commerce. CONCLUSIONS The Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this proceeding and of the respondents. The aforesaid acts and practices of respondents, as herein found, were all to the prejudice and injury of the public and of respondents' competitors and constituted unfair and deceptive acts and practices and unfair methods of competition in commerce, within the intent and meaning of the Federal Trade Commission Act.

The evidence 01 record fails to establish that the respondent Harvey Jones, as an individual, formulates, directs or controls the policies, acts and practices of the corporate respondent- In light thereof nd in Lhe absence of a showing of any circumstances in the record pointing to the necessity of llirecting an order against this respondent individually, the complaint will be dismissed as to respondent IIarvey .Jones in his individual capacity. ORDER It is ordel. That the respondents, Columbia Container Corporation, and its ofIcen:: , and .James Gl05e, individually and as an offcer of said corporation, and respondents' agents, representatives and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the offering for sale, sale or distribution of corrugated fibreboard boxes in commerce as "commerce" is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act, do forthwith cease and desist from:

COLUMBIA CONTAINER CORPORATION ET AL. 271 2G7 Opinion Using on such boxes a certificate of box maker required by Rule , Uniform Freight Classification, when such boxes do not conform to all of the construction requirements of said Rule; or misrepresenting in any other maIlner the quality or \\eight of constituent parts, construction, bursting strength, or any other characteristics of their boxes.

I t is further ordered That the complaint herein be, and the same hereby is, dismissed as to Harvey Jones in his individual capacity. 1 t is further ordered That respondents, Columbia Container Corporation, a corporation, and James G lose, inc1ividual1y and as an oflcer of soid corporation, shall, within sixty (GO) days after service upon them of this order, file with the Commission a report, in writ ing, setting forth in detail the manner and form in which they have complied with the order to cease and desist. OPINION OF THE co nfIRSION By TAIT Gomm1.s8ioner:

The complaint in this matter charges respondents with misrepresenting the combined weight of the fibreboard facings and the bursting strength of their corrugated fibreboard boxes in violation of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act. The ease was remanded to the hearing examiner by Commission order issued March 27, 1959, and is now before us upon appeal of counsel supporting the complaint from the hearing examiner s initial decision after remand wherein he held that. the allegations are not sustained by the evidence and ordered rlismissaJ of the complaint. Corrugated fibre board consists of a corrugated paper center with paper facings glued to each side. A double wall corrugated fibre board has an additional corrugating medium and an additional facing. The combined weight of the bcings of a corrugated fibreboard box relates to the ability of the box to stand end shocks and to be piled without collapsing. Bursting strength pertains to the ability of the box to hold its contents without bursting. This case involves alleged misrepresentation ,with respect to respondents' conformance to the standards set forth in Rule 41 , Uniform Freight Classification, established by American railroads through their Offcial Classification Committee. Said rule prescribes a minimum combined weight of the facings used in corrugated fibreboard boxes, in pounds per 1 000 square fect, and a minimum bursting strength of the corrugated fibreboard in such boxes in pounds per square inch, based on boxes which come within specified sizes and gross ,,,eight Emits. The railroads have estab. Opinion 57 F.

lished these standards to avoid damage to shipments of goods because of inadequately constructed fibreboard boxes. Section 9(a) of Rule 41 requires that each box made to conform to this rule must bear a certificate of the box maker which gives certain specifications including bursting strength, and contain a statement that the box conforms to all construction requirements of Uniform Freight Classification.

The rule provides that when goods are tendered for shipment in boxes which do not conform to the requirements and specifications of the Tule, freight charges will be increased 20% on less than car- Joad shipments and 10% on carload shipments. The Interstate Commerce Act authorizes the establishment of the classification of which Rule 41 is a part. The classification is filed with the Interstate Commerce Commission which decides on the reasonablencss of the terms thereof. Respondents conte,nd that since Rule 41 is a tariff, enforcement is so1cly within the purview of the I ntcrstate Commerce Commission and the Federal Trade Commission is without jurisdiction in this matter. The obvious answer to t.his argument is that this proceeding does not involve enforcement of Rule 41. The tariff provisions are imposed on shipped.rs \Tho transport goods in boxes in commerce. Hesponclents herein flrc not charged with violating Rule ,11 but are charged with Inisrepresenting that the boxes which they manufacture comply \"ith sjancbrds which are of imporUmce to others for tariff purposes. Hesponclents contention in this respect must. be rejected. The complaint alleges that respondents imprinted the certificate of the box maker required by Hule 4,1 on boxes ,,-which did not con form to the standards set out in the rule. In particular, it is alleged that the combined wejght of the facings nnd the bnl'sting strength of a substantin-1 number of said boxes \yen less thrm the required minimum. ,Vhen this matter \'as previously before the hearing examiner, the resuHs of certain tests performed on boxes obtained from respondents' customers -were entered in evidence by counsel supporting the complaint. The hearing examiner in ordering dismissal at that time, based his decision in part llpor: hi finding that there was no evidence in the record as to the time the boxes leJt respondents' plant and that there was no evidence indicating that the boxes were in substantially the same c.ol1clition at th( time of testing as when they were purchased froln respondents. Upon revic\Y1 we concluded that the public interest required that the issues be disposed of on the merit . The case was remanded to the hearing examiner for the purpose of receiving the evidence which had been found to be lacking.

():

COLUMBIA CONTAINER CORPORATION ET AL. 273 267 Opinion The boxes upon which tests were conducted were obtained in July, 1957, in the course of the investigation of this matter. Theirteen boxes were obtained from four of respondents' customers located in the 1Vashington, D. , area ' (Commission Exhibits 2-12 14 and 15). 1With one exception, for each box obtained a dnplieate box was also obtained from the same customer (Commission Exhibits 17-28).

The original group of thirteen boxes was tested in December 1957, by Container Laboratories, Inc., New York City, stipulated by counsel as being a repntRble and qnaJjfied testing laboratory. appears from the evidence of record that two of these thirteen boxes had been used by the purehasers thereof prior to being obtained by the Commission s investigator. The hearing examiner was of the opinion that no used boxes should have been employed for testing purposes. Counsel supporting the complaint contends that on the basis of certain opinion testimony and the fact that in the test rcport (Commission Exhibit 16), no reference is made to the use of the boxes as adversely affecting the test results, the hearing examiner should have considered the results of the tests performed on the used boxes. Ilowever, viewing the entire record, we do not find it necessary to rule on this question in reaching our decision. The report of the tests as to the unused boxes discloses that four of these eleven boxes did not meet the bursting strength test and nine failed to meet the requirements for the combined weight of the facings. One of the two boxes which was satisfactory as to the combined weight of the facings failed to pass the bnrsting strength test. Thus, the tests showed that ten 0111. of eleven of the unused boxes did not meet the requirements of Rule 41 in one respect or another.

The dupJieate set of boxes was tested by Eastern Box Co. Baltimore, Maryland, a competitor of respondents, in August, 1957. Of the twelve boxes tested, three showed evidence of use.. Seven of the nine unused boxes had facing sheets whose combined weight failed to rnest the standards set up in Rule 41. Although Eastern also conducted bursting strength tests, the results thereof were not placed in evidence. It was conceded by c011nsel snpporting the complaint that the bursting st.rength tests ,were not conducted in the manner prescribed in Rule 4l.

The hearing examiner did not consider the results of the tests conducted by respondents' competitor in Inaking his decision. Counsel supporting the complaint contemls that East.ern s test results do have probative value. The eyidenCf ,with rcspeet to the method Ilployed by Eastern in test.ing respondents' boxes discloses a vari- Of1S- lf) Opinion 57 F.T .

ance from the method employed by Container Laboratories, Inc. Samples, after a baking out period, were allowed to condition UDder controlled temperat ure and humidity for 24 hours before testing by Container Laboratories, Inc. , whereas Eastern allowed only 1 hour for conditioning. However, respondents' contention that this shows bias is refuted by the testimony of the competitor s technieal director that the method employed in testing respondents' boxes was the same as that employed by Eastern in testjng its own boxes and any other boxes sent into its plant for that purpose. 'Vhile we think that the same conclusion \vould be reached in this case without considering Eastern s tests, we think the hearing examiner was in error in holding that they are completely devoid of evidentiary value. The mere faci that the tests were performed by a competitor is not sufi1cient grounds for refusing to consider them. Subsequent to the remand, evidence was introduced as to the age of respondents: boxes at the time they were tested and the conditions under which they wen stored from the time oJ purchase until testing. This evidence included the testimony of the four customers of respondents from whom the boxes were obtained. An four testified as to their procedure in ordering boxes from respondents, the time period bebyeen placing onlel's and delivery by respondents, the length of time a supply of boxes generally lasted, and they specifidly rc1at.ed most. of the boxes to invoices which were received into the record. In addition, the respondent .J ames Glose testified that in most. cases, boxes were made up as orders were received. On the basis of this evidence, the hearing examiner found that wit.h two exceptions, the thirteen boxes tested by Container Laboratories in December, 1957, were about six months old when tested. One of the remaining boxes was found to have been about nine months old and the other about one year 01(1 at the time of testing. Although noting an exception as to the t.wo used boxes, the hearing examiner found that when tested in December, 1057 , the thirteen boxes were in substantially the same condition as -when t.hey left respondents plant. 'Ve agree That the evidence relied on by the hearing examiner fully supports these findings. :l\01'80Ver, there is aduitional evidence which apparently ,yas not considered by the hearing examiner. TIYO expert.s who have conducted numerous tests on fibreboard boxes to determine compliance lyith Hulc 41 were called as witnesses by counsel supporting the complaint. Both testified, in substance. tlult age alone "ould not. nffe('t the, eight of the facings or the bursting strength, 01 fibrcbofl I'd boxes for a period of at least three years.

1n addition to the above evidence, counsel supporting the complnint introduced results of tests conducted on the same boxes by COLUMBIA CONTAINER CORPORATION ET AL. 275 267 Opinion Container Laboratories, Inc., in June, 1959. Counsel had these ad. ditional tests made for the purpose of ascertaining whether there had been any significant change in the condition of the boxes between the original test and the retest, a period of about eighteen months. If the retest showed no significant change, it would, in counsel's view, create an inference that no change occurred in the condition of the boxes in the six month period from the date the boxes left respondents' plant until they were first tested. The hearing examiner, upon consideration of the results of the retests, found that there was no sl1bstant,ial change in the condition of the thirteen boxes between tests. He also found that there was no significant difference between the results of the first and second tests insofar as the weight of the facings was concerned. No comparison was made as to bursting strength as the second series of tests were incomplete in that respect (h18 to the fact suffcient material was not availablc for adequate testing.

Hespondents strenuously objected 10 the action of counsel supporting the complaint in having the exhibits retested without requesting approval by the hearing examiner or the Comm)ssion and wit.hout notice to respondents. On the basis of this action by counsel snpporting the complaint, respondents moved to have these exhibits stricken from the record. This motion was denied by the hearing examiner. V\'hile we believe the better course would have been for counsel supporing the complaint to have notified respondents of his proposed action, we do not find it necessary to pass on the hearing examiner s ruling as we do not rely on the results of the retests in reaching our decision.

In ordering dismissal on the grounds of failure of proof, the hcarjng examiner minimized the differences between the requirements of Rule -1-1 for the weight of the facings and the results of the tests performed all six of respondents ' boxes. The combined weight of the facings of five of those six boxes is required to be 84.0 pounds (per thousand square feet) and the sixth box is required to have combined facjngs "eighing 120.0 pounds. On the sis of the Contninel' Laboratories' tests conducted 1n December 1857, the boxes listed by the hearing examinrr fr11 short of thp. required \i-eight by '1.5 pounds 3." pounds, :1.8 ponnus, 5.:1 p01mds 0 pounds and 5.t) pounds. ,Ve agree T\1th c01115el supporting the complaint. that. the c variances cannot be minimjzea. In the first place, R.ule 41 sets up absolute stancbrcls nncl does not prm-jde for tolerances. VUTchasers of the hoxps are entitled to rely on the manufacturer's certificate that these standards have been adherC'n to. )'Jorcover, the significance of these amounts becomes apparent when considered in light of the evidence of record that the basic stand. 276 FEDERAL TRADE CO :IMISSION DECISIONS Opinion 57 F.

ard weights of paper facings purchased from paper mills and used in combination in manufa.cturing corrugated fibreboard containers are 26 p.ounds, 33 pounds, 38 pounds, 42 pounds, 47 pounds, 69 pounds and 90 pounds. The weight shortage in four of the five boxes required to have combined facings "".cighing 84 pounds is more than the difference between the use of a 38 pound Iacjng and a 42 pound facing in combination. Of the remaining boxes not listed by the hearing examiner, two met the requirements for the weight of the facings while the other four showed shortages in amounts of 20.9 pounds, 8.5 pounds, 7.9 pounds and 9.0 pounds. The hearing examiner found that facing paper used in the manufacture of boxes may vary in weight as much as 4 or 5 percent within a given roll, and different rods, although marked as being of the same weight, also vary materially. There is testimony that this 4 or 5 percent variation relates to the total spread between the minimum and the maximum weight of the roll. For example, the paper in a roll marked 42 pounds, allowing a 5-percent variance (2.1 pounds), would vary in weight between 40.95 pounds and 43. pounds. I-Iowcver, respondents' production manager testified that the variance win be two pounds either way in a 42-pound roll. Giving full weight to his testimony, no box required to have facings weighing 84 pounds would have facings weighing less than 80 pounds. Seven of thc eight unused boxes tested which were required to weigh 8-1 pounds failed to meet this SO-pound minimum even assuming that all of them had facings with the maximum variance in weight at the lmyest level. Jloreover, there is testimony that some paper producers manufacture their paper overweight so as to allow for variations.

The undisputed evidence in this record discloses that ten out of eleven boxes selected at random from respondents' customers failed to meet the requirements of Rule 41 in tests performed by an independent testing laboratory stipulated by counsel as being fully qualified to perform such tests. In addition, there' is evidence that seven out of Dim other boxes tested by a competitor were helmy the standards set forth in the rule. The evidence establishes that these boxes were in substantially the same condition when tested as whpIl they left respondents' plant with a certificate imprinh,d thereon which represented that they coniormcd to a11 construction requirements of Ihrle 41 In ani' view, thi evidence affords a reasonable basis for a conclusion that a snl):;jantial llmnLeT of boxes sold by respondents ,,-ere misrepresented. In light of this evidence., certa, other testimony of record with respect to respondents' manufacturing procec111res and customer satisfaction, and t.he absence of evidence that respondents' boxes have been Iound to be defective in NATIONAL BUSI ESS ASSOCIATES , INC. ) ET AL. 277 267 Complaint actual use, an of wl1ich was given weight by the hearing examiner is deemed immaterial1.

",Ve observe from our review of the record that the respondent l-larvey Jones is charged in the complaint in his individual capacity as well as in his c pacity as an offcer of the corporation. The answer, while ac1mitbng that Jones is an offcer of the corporation denies that he has l ver participated to any extent whatsoever in the formulation, direction or control of the poEcies, acts or practices of the corporate respondent. The president and sole stockholder of responuent corporation, James Glose, admitted in his testimony that he is individually responsible but denied that Jones has anything to do with the policies of the corporation. .Jones did not testify and there is a cOlnplete absence in this record of any evidence or showing of circumstances to support a conclusion that individual liability should attnch as to him. Under the circumstfU1ces, the complaint win be dismissed as to llarvey Jones in his individual capacity. In view of the foregoing, the appeal of counsel supporting the complaint JS granted. The initial decision is set aside, and we are entering our own findings as to the facts, conclusions and order to cease fllc1 dpsist In conformity with this opinion. Ix THE l\IATI'EH or NATIONAL BUSINESS ASSOCIATES, INC., ET AL. COXSE?;T ORDER, ETC. : I T RECURD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE E'EDERAL TRADE COllHnSSIOX ACT !Jaeket 7626. Complaint, Oct. 1959-Decision, July 20, 1960 Com:.ent order requiring a Chicago company to cease using deception in the .sale of real estflte afh-pl'ti.sing, including such claims as that it had prospective bl1yel' interestell in a particular property, that the asking price was too low ami should be raised and that it would make the sale at the increased price in fl short time, that it fjnanced the purchase of the listed !)operty, and that the listiug fee would be returned if the property was not sold promptly.

COMPLAINT Pllrsmllt to the IH'oyisioIls of the Federal Trade Commission Act and by virtue of the authority vested in it by said Act, the Federal Trade Commission h;lyjng reason to believe that National Business Associates, Inc. , a corpoI'ftLioTI ; and Lft\vrence J. Gordon and Tudith Gordon, individually and as officers of said corporation, hereinafter referred to as respondents, have violated the provisions of said Act and it appearing to the Commission that a proceeding by it i.n re- Complaint 57 F.

spect thereof would be in the public interest, hereby ISSUes its complaint, stating its charges in that respect as follows: ARAGIh\Pli 1. Respondent National Business Associates, Inc. , is a corporation organized, existjng and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of illinois. Its offce and principal place of business is 7014 South Crandon Avenne, Chicago 49 , Ill. Respondents Lawrence J. Gordon and Judith Gordon are individuals and offcers of corporate respondent l\Tational Business Associates, Inc., and formulate, direct, and cont.rol the practices of said corporate respondent. Their offce and principal place of business is that of the corporate respondent, 7014 South Crandon Avenue, Chicago 49 I1l.

\R. 2. Respondents are now, and for more than one year last past have been, engaged in the business of soliciting the list.ing for sale and advertising of real est.nte and other property. In connection with this business, respondents arc and hn"ve been engaged in the operation, in commerce, of a business which offers for sale advertising in ncyvspapers and other advertising media and other services and facilities in connection with the offering for sale, seIJing, buying and exchanging of business and other propert.ies. In connection therewith, the respondents have been and now are transmitting and receiving, through the United Statrs mail, achel'tising lnatter, pamphlets. circulars, lettpr:: , contracts, chpcks money orders anel other writt.en instruments ,\"iich are sent and received between respondents place of business in the State of Illinois and persons, firms, and cor porations located in "ariol1s States of the United Stat.es, and thereby have engaged in extensive c011Jnercial intercourse in commerce, as commerce" is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act. The volume of the aforesaid business c.ondllctcd by respondents has been and is substantial.

\R. 3. In the course and conduct of their business, respondents through the use of newspaper arlyertising, post cards, circulars and other written instruments circulated in various States, and through oral statements made by their solicitors or representatives, all for the purpose of obtaining listings of property for sale and collecting substantial sums of money as fees for tbe listing and sale of property, have represented, directly and by implicat.ion, to persons who had property for sale: (1) that they have available prospective buyers who are interested in the purchase of their specific propertiesj (2) that their property would be sold within a short period of time as a result 01 respondents' efforts; (3) that the property is underpriced and the asking price should be raised, and that they could and would sell the property at the increased price; (4) that respondents were and arc able to finance or assist in financing the purchase of NATIONAL BUSINESS ASSOCIATES , INC. , ET AL. 279 277 Decision the Jisted properties; (5) that the Jisting fee is an advance on the selling commission and will be refunded to the property owner if the property is not sold within a short period of time. PAR. 4. The aforesaid representations were. and are false, misleading, and deceptive. In truth and in fact: (1) Respondents have never had prospective buyers interested in and available to purchase the specific property Jisted; (2) property is seldom, if ever, sold as a result of respondents' efforts; (a) the purpose of increasing the owner s asking price for the property is not that it was underpriced but, on the contrary, to increase the fee collectible in advance and to increase the property owner s interest in respondents' services; (4) Respondents do not and have not financed the purchase of Jisted property; (5) the listing fee is not an advance on the selling commission but is a fee charged for listing the property and in most cases is not refunded.

PAR. 5. The use by respondents of the aforesaid acts and practices in connection with the conduct of their aforesaid business has had and now has, the capacity and tendency to mislead and deceive a substant.ial pOl'bon of the public and to induce many owners of property, because of s dd false, deceptive, Hnd misleading representations, to enter into contracts respecting the listing and advertising of their properties and to pay over substantial sums of money to respondents in connection therewith.

PAR. 6. The acts anel practices of respondents as herein alleged were and are all to the prejudice and injury of the public and constituted, and nmy const.itute, unfair and deceptive acts and practices in commerce, within the intent and meaning of the Federa.l Trade Commission Act.

iJlr. lV?:lliam A. Somers for the Commission. ncspondents JJTO se.

INITIAL DECJSIOX BY WALTER R. ,JOHNSON, IIEAHING EXAMINER In the complaint dated October 23 , 1959, the respondents are charged wit.h violating the provisions of t.hc Federal Trade Commission Ad.

On :May 4 , 1960, n spondents NatioDfLl Business Associates, Inc. a corpor ition: and Lawrence .J. Gordon, individufLlly and as an offcer of said corporation, entered into an agreement with counsel In support of the complaint for a consent order. Under the foregoing agreement, the respondents admit the jurisdictional facts flJlegcd in the complaint. The parties agree, among other things, that the cease and desist order there set forth may be entered without further notice and have the same force and effect 280 FEDERAL 'TRADE COMMSSION DECISIONS Order 57 li .'T.

as if entered after a full hearing and the document includes a waiver by the respondents of all rights to challenge or contest the validity of the order issuing in accordance therewith. The agreement further recites that it is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by the respondents that they have violated the law as alleged in tlle complaint.

The hearing examiner finds that the content of the agreement meets al1 of the requirements of section 3.25(b) of the Rules of the Commission.

The agreement provides that the complaint insofar as concerns the individual respondent Jmlith Gordon should be dismissed for the reasons set forth in an affdavit atta.ched thereto that said respondent was never a,dive in the business of the corporate respondent and that she at no time contributed any monies, time and/or work on behalf of the business of the corporatc respondent, nor did she serve 101' or on behalf of the business complained of in the complaint. Said Judith Gordon was only an offcer in name for the corporate respondent to enable affant to qualify under the incorporating laws of the State 01 illinois.

The hearing examiner being of the opinion that the agreement and the proposed order provide a,n appropriate basis for disposition of this proceeding as to all of the parties, the agreement is hereby accepted and it is ordered that the agreement shall not hecome part of the offcial record of the proceeding unless and until it becomes lL part of the decision of the Commission. The follo\ying jnris(lictional findings are nwde and the follo"wing order issucll. 1. Respondent Rational Business Associates, Inc" is a corporation and respondent Lawrence .J. Gordon is an individual and offce-r of the corporate respondent with their offce and principal place of business located at 7014 Sout.h Crandon Avenue, Chicago 49, Ill. 2. The Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this proceeding and of the respondents, and the proceeding is in the pubjjc interest..

ORDER 1 t is ordered That respondents ationa,l Business Associates Inc. a, corporation, and its officers, and Lrnvrence J. Gordo11 1 individwllly and as an offcer of saiel corporation, and respondents' representatives, agents, and employees directly or through any corporate or other c1evice in connection with the offering for sale, or sale of advertising in any advertising meelia, or of other services and facilities in connection with the ofiering for sale, selling, buying, or exchanging of business or a,ny kind of property, in commerce, as "commerce QUEEN ANNE COUNTY CLAM ASSOCIATION ET AL. 281 277 Syllabus is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act, do forthwith cease and desist from representing, directly or by implication, that: 1. Respondents have available prospective buyers who are interested in the purchase of specific property. 2. Property listed with respondents win be sold as a result of their efforts.

3. Property sought to be listed is underpriced or that the asking price should be increased, or that respondents can or win seJl the property at the inc!,cascd price.

4. Respondents finance or assist in financing the purchase of listed property.

5. The listing fee is an advance on the selling commission or will be refunded to the property owner.

It i8 JUTther ordered That the complaint be, and it is hereby, dismissed as to respondent Judith Gordon.

DECISION OF THE COl\DIISSIOX AND ORDER TO FILE REPORT OF COMPIJIANCE Pnfsuant to Section 3.21 of the Commission s Rules of Practice the initial decision of the hearing examiner shah, on the 20th day of truly 1960, become the decision of the Commission; and, accord. ingly:

It is ordered That respondent National Business Associates, Inc. a, corporation, and Lawrence tJ. Gordon, individually and as an offcer of said corporation, shall, within sixty (60) days a,Her 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 havo complied with t.he order to cease and desist. Ix THE l\L TTER OF Q,UEEK ANNE Comity CLAM ASSOCIATION ET AL. COXSEXT ORDER: ETC. , 1K REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDEIL\L TRADE co:nJ::ISS10K ACT Docket ''/5'' /8. COlnp/(l1 , Sept. .1959-JJecis1 , July 1960 Con."ent nnler re(JnjrilJ two j\L:.ryll'lDc1 clam clig-ger associations and their respon ible otlens, to cease conspiring to snfJpl'ess competition in the purchase or sale of soft shell ClVIlS har,ested in tlw Chesapeake Bay region in pursuance of which they engaged in such illegal practices as establishing and maintaining uniform prices and terms, boycotting- dealers who purchased or sol1ght to pnrclwse at less t.han their fixed prices, and using threats of reprisals, intimidation, and physical violence and other means to enforce adherence to their prices.

282 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION DECISIQ?\T Complaint G7 F.

CO:.lplaint Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act (38 Stat. 717; 15 U. , Section 41 et seq.) and by virtue of the authority vested in it by said Act, the Federal Trade Commission, having reason to believe that the parties named in the caption hereof, and hereinafter more particularly described and designated as respondents, have violated and are violating the provisions of said Act, and it appearing to the Commission that a proceeding by it in respect thereof would be in the public interest, hereby issues its complaint, stating its charges in that respect as follows: P AHAGRAPH 1. The Queen Anne County Clam Association is a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Maryland. S,dd corporation s principal ofliec and place of business is located in Grasonville id. The control, direction, and management of said corporate respondent are vested in its offcers and members. Said offcers are elected annually to crve a term of one year. The offcers of this corporate respondent include a president! a vice president, and a secretary t.reasurer. During 1958 and 195D the offcers of said corporation were Charles Ford, Grasohville 'Id. , President.; Elwood Thompson, Grasonvil1e., :Mcl. , Vice Preside,nt; and Oscar Schultz, Gra80nvil1e, 1\ld., Secretary and Treasurer. The aforenamed offcials of the Queen Anne County Cbm Association, the-iI" predecessors: and sue-COS.sors have dirpcted or controlled the policies, acts, and practicps of said Assoeiation, including one or more of the policies, acts, a.nd practices which are complained against herein.

Sflid oflcials in their individual capacities as members of the have performed, authorizedQueen Anne County Clam Association, , acts, and practices which or adopted one or more of the policies are complained against herein.

PAR. 2. Respondents Hiram Ruth Wiliam Hoxter, John Thomas, Willard Jones, Benjamin Austin, Sr. , and George Darrell, al1 of whom reside at. Grasonville Mc1., are members of respondent Queen Annc County Clam Association.

The activities of these individual members and of the aforenamed offcers in authorizing, performing, or adoptin one or more of the policies: acts, and practices as hereinafter alleged are repre,sentative of the activities of al1 the members of the Queen Anne County Clam Association during J 958 and 1959.

The membership of said Quee,n Annc County Clam Association is composed of a number of pe.rsons and partnerships engaged in the business of harvesting and selling soit shell clams. The number of , QUEEN A E COUNTY CLAM ASSOCIATION ET AL. 283 281 Complaint members fluctuates but usual11y exceeds fifty, with the membership comprised mostly of parties harvesting and se.lling clams in Queen Anne County, l\'fd. Because of the large and fluctuating membership of saiel Queen Anne County Clam Association, it is imp raeticable to specifically name each member as a party respondent herein. Furthc.rrnore, the membership of said association, as a class is adequately represented and can be defended in this procecding by the aforenamcd members; therefore, said members are not only named individually as respondents but also as representatives of the entire membership of respondent association as a class, so that the members not named specifically are made par6es respondent as though they had been named individually herein. PAR. 3. l\respondent Anne Arundel County Clam Association is an unincorporated association with its principal offce and place of business located jn Shady Side, Md. l\respondents Gordon IIa11ock John M. Nieman W oodrow Blythc, and Charles Cant1er, aU of whose addresses are Shady Side fd. , arc, and have been, President., Vice. President, Secretary! and Treasurer, respectively, of said Arundel County Clam A sociation. The aforenamed offcials of respondent Anne Arundel County Clam Association, toget11BT with the members thereof, have directed or eontro11ed the policies, acts and practices of saiel association.

The aforenamed offcials, in their individual capacities as members of said association, have performed, authorized or adopted one or more of the policies, acts, and practices complained against herein. In this respect, the activities of said offcials in their individual capncities are representabve of the activitips of aJl the members of the Anne Arnndcl County Clam Association. The membership of the Anne Arundel County Clam Association is composed of a number of persons and partnerships engaged in the business oj: harvesting and selling soft shell dams. The number fluctuates, but usually it exceeds t ent:y-five. Because of the large and fluctuating membership of said Anne Arundel County Clam Association, it is impracticable to specifically name each member as a party respondent herein. Furthermore, t.he membership of said Anne Arundel County Clam Association, as a. class, is adequately represented and can be defended in this proceeding by the aforenanwd offcials of the Association. Therefore, the respondent oifcirds of re.'3pondrnt. Anne Arundel County Chm Association are named respondents in their respectiye offcial posit.ions inclividuaIly, as members of the Anne Arundel County Clam Association and also as representatives of the entire membership of respondent association, as a class, so that the members not named specifically COffIJlnint 57 F.

are parties respondent as though they had been named individually herein.

PAR. 4. Respondent Shadyside Seafood Cooperative, is an unincorporated association with its principal offces located in Shady Side, Md. Its members are engaged in t.he business of harvesting and selling soft shell clams. Respondent John M. Nieman, who also resides at Shady Side, Md. , is president of said respondent Shadyside Seafood Cooperative, and as such, together with the members of said Cooperative has directed or controlled the policies acts\ and practices of said eooperativc and also has, expressly or impliedly, authorized, performed, or adopted, one or mors of the policies acts, or practices herein alleged to have been performed by or through said cooperative. Said policies, acts, and practices were performed by or through the medium of said respondent cooperative or by or through respondent .J ohn 1\1: Nieman, with the approval and on behalf of its individual members, and were int.ended to, and did: bind said members in the same manner and ,,,ith the same effect as though they had engaged in same.

The number of members or said cooperative fluctuates, \with the exact membership at any particular time not being known, so that it is impracticable to specifically name each member of said cooperaLi ve as a party respondent 1101'8111. Furthermore, the membership of said cooperative, as a class, is adequately represented and can be defended jn this proceeding by the said respondent John M. Nieman, 1\'ho, actjng for, or in Ole name of, the respondent cooperative, markets and determines the prices and terms at which tho respondent members of aid respondent cooperat1V( sell the clams they gather. Therefore, said respondent .T ohn r, Nieman is not only named as respondent individually, as a member and as president of said respondent cooperative, but also as representaas a classtive of the entire membership of responrlent cooperative, 50 that the members of said respondent cooperative are made parties respondent as though they had been named individually herein. PAR. D. All of the individual respondents named herein are engaged in, or connected ,with, the lmsiness of harvest.ing and se.lling for re-eoft shell clams in the Chesapcake Bay and its tributaries sale commercially.

This Imsincss de.veloped in the Chesapeake Ba.y region in 1052 coincidental1y with the development of hydraulic clam dredges and the shortage of soft shell dams in N e;w England. The ;\1aryJand Soft Shell Clam Industry has grown from a rc1atively small volume business in ID52 to its present volume of $l 500 000 to $2 000 000 annun11y. The number of clam boats operating QUEEN ANNE COUNTY CLAM ASSOCIATION ET AL. 285 281 Complaint: in Maryland waters has increased from seven jn 1952 to over a hundred in 1959.

PAR. 6. An the respondents named herein are engaged in doing business in commerce, as "commerce" is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act, in that the individual respondents are clam diggers harvesting clams in commereiany navigable waters, sening and shipping, or causing sllch c1arns to be shipped, to dealers located not only in the State 01 Maryland, but in other States of the United States and in the District of Columbia, and to agents of buyers of such clams located in states other than the State of Maryland. Said dealers buy and sen the clams in one continuous flow of commerce to buyers locilted in States of tbe United States other than the State of Maryland.

RcspoJlc1cIlt, Queen Anne County Clam Association, Anne Arulldel County Clam Association, and Shadyside Seafood Cooperative as wen as the representative respondent offcials of each, also are engaged in such COlnmerce, in that they, on behalf of their representative respondent members, ship, or cause to be shipped, such clams to dealers or other buyers located not only in the State of MilcyJnnc1 , but in other States of the United States and in the District of Columbia, and in that they performed, in commerce, one or more of the acts or practices hereinafter set forth. PAn. 7. In the course and conduct of the aforesaid business of gathering and selling soft shell dams in commerce, as hereinbefore described, the respondents, Queen Anne County Association, together with its respondent offcers and members; respondent members of respondent Anne Arundel County Clnm Association, together with said respondent association and its offcers; and respondent members of respondent Shac1ysic1c Seafood Cooperative together wit.h said respondent cooperative and its president, respondent .John 1. Nieman, have., since approximately 1958, entered into, maintained, and effectuated an undersianding, agreement, combination, and conspiracy to pursue., and they have pursued, a planned common course of action between and among two or more of them or uet;ycen one or more of them and others nol named parties respondent herein, to suppress and hinder competition between and among themselves and also between thernselvc ancl such other parties in the purchase. or ale in lich commerce of said e1arns. PAn. 8. Pursuant to, and in fllrtherance oL said understanding, agreement, combination, conspiracy, and planned ( common course of action, sa.id respondents since 1D58 have adopted, Rcceptcd, or per. formed among others, the following policies and practices, and tho acts committed to effectuate them:

, .

286 FEDERAL 'I'TRADE COML:ISSION DECISIONS Decision 57 F.

1. Attempting to establish, fix, and maintain, and they have established, fixed and maintained, uniform and noncompetitive prices for the purchase or sale of soft shell clams harvested by members of respondents, Queen Anne County Clam Association, Anne Arundel County Clam Association, and Shadyside Seafood Cooperative; 2. ES!llblishing, fixing, and maintaining, and they have established, fixed, and maintained, uniform and noncompetitive terms for the purchase or sale of soft shell clams harvested by said respondent members j 3. Boycotting dealers and purchasers of soft shelJ clams who seek or have sought, to purchase, or have purchased, such clams at prices Jower than those established, fixed, or maintained by respondents; 4. Enforcing adherence to said prices and the terms of purchase or sale by various means and methods, including threats of reprisals intimidation, and physical violence against individual sellers or purchasers who do not comply with, or who refuse to comply with such prices or terms.

PAR. D. The capacity and tendency of the aforesaid understanding, agreement, combination, conspiracy, and planned common course of nction, and the practices, policies, and acts done pursuant thereto as hereinbefore set forth, have been, and are, to unlawfully restrict restrain, hillller, and destroy competition in the harvesting, oiIering for sale, and marketing of soft shell clams in commerce, as ' commerce" is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act, within the intent and meaning of Section 5 of said Act. PAIL 10. The policies, acts, and practices of the respondents, as hereinbefore set forth, are to the prejudice and injury of the public interest and constitute unfair acts and practices and unfair methods of competition within the intent and meaning of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Ad.

Ah-. ,1mnes H. KeUey supporting the complaint. Mr. Vachel A. Downes, Jr. of Centrevi11e, Md. Ah-. Sam"el Scri.verwr Jr. and J1fr. f)wvid S. Scrivener of 1Vashington, D. , for respondents.

INITIAL DECISIO:N BY BnWARD CREEL: I-h:ARIXG EXA IINER The Federal Trade Commission i sl1e(l its complaint against the above-named responde11ts on September 2 1950 charging them with enter.ring into and maintaining an agreement among themselves and rwhn en themselves nnd others to fix and maintain uniform prices terms and conditions of sale of soft slwll clams and enforcing adherence to sneh prices and terms of sale. It was -further charged that respondents agreed to and did boycott dealers who purchased QUEEN ANNE COUNTY CLAM ASSOCIATION ET AL. 287 281 Decision or sought to purchase such dams at prices lower than the prices fixed by respondents.

On May 3 1D60 there was submitted to the undersigned hearing examiner two separate agreements between the above-named respondents, their counsel, and counsel supporting the complaint providing for the entry of a consent order.

Under the terms of the agreements, the respondents admit the jurisdictional facts alleged in the complaint. The parties agree among other things, that the cease and desist order there set forth may be entered without further notice and have the same force and effect as if entered after a full hearing and the documents inelude a waiver by the respondents of a11 rights to challenge or contest the validity.y of the order issuing in accordance therewith. The agreements further reeite that they are for settlement purposes only and do not constitute an admission by the respondents that they have violated the law as a11cged in the complaint. The hearing examiner finds that the content of the agreements meet all of the requirements of Section 0.25 (b) of the Rules of the Commission.

The hearing examiner having considered the agreements and pro posed order, and being of the opinion that they provide an appropriate. basis for settlement and disposition of this proceeding, the agreements are hereby accepted, and it is onlercd that said agreements shall not become a part of the offcial record unless and until they become a part of the decision of the Commission. The following jurisllictional findings are made and the following order issued. 1. Respondent Queen Anne County Clam Association is a corporat.ion exist.ing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Maryland, with its offce and principal place of business located at GrasonviIe, Md.

At the time of issuance of the complaint, respondents Charles Ford, Elwood Thompson and Oscar SchuJz (misspe11ed Schultz in the complaint) were respectively president, vice president, secretary and treasurer of the respondent Queen Anne County CJam Association ,,,ith their address the same as said association s address. Charles Ford and Ehyood Thompson nre no longer offcers of the association. Respondent Oscar Schulz is nO\y president 01 the said respondent. a socjation.

2. H,respondent Anne Arundel County Cbm Association is an un. incorporated association organized and existing as an entity under the laws of the State of rary!nnd governing unincorporated flSS0eiations, ,,,ith its principal olIce and place of business located at Shady Sidf" :\I,!.

, Order 57 F.

Respondents Gordon Hal1ock, John M. Nieman, Woodrow Blythe and Charles Caniler are respectively president, vice president, secretary and treasurer of the respondent Anne Arundel County Clam Assoeiation with their address the same as that of Anne Arundel County Clam Association.

By order of November 16, 1959, the complaint herein was dismissed as to respondent Benjamin Austin, Sr. , for the reason that it appeared that he was inadvertently joined as a respondent in this proceeding.

3. Counsel supporting the compiaint and Counsel for Seafood Co- Operative, Inc., (erroneollsly named in the complaint as Shadyside Seafood Cooperative) its offcers, directors and members, and John )1. Nieman, individually, and as president, member and representative of the entire membership of that co-operative have moved that the complaint be dismissed as to these respondents. This motion is hereby granted and the following order dismisses the complaint as to these respondents in the capacities named in the motion. 4. The Feclernl Trade Commission has jurisdiction of the subject maiter of this proceeding and of the respondents and the proceeding is in the. puulie interest.

OHDEH It is urdeTed That the respondents Queen Anne County Clam Association and its offcers, their respective successors and assigns a.gents, repl'C'sentatin=- , employees and members, directly or through any corporate or other device, and Oscar Schulz, acting in any offciaJ capacity for said Association, and that the respondents Anne Arundel County Clam Association and its amcers, their respective successors and assigns, agents, representatives, employees and members, directly or through any corporate or other device, and Gordon Hal1ock, John M. :"lieman W oodrow Blythe and Charles Cantlei' , acting in any offcial capacity for said association, in connection with the purchase or sale or the offering to purchase or to sell jn commerce, as '; eornmcrce" )s defined in the Federrtl Trade Commission Act, of soh shell clams or any other type or form of seafood do fortln\'ith cease ancl desist from entering into, continuing, cooperating in 01' carrying out any planned COIImon course of action understanding, agreement, combination or conspiracy between any of said respondents or bel\yccn Hny one of said respondents and others not parties hereto, to do or IH'rform any of t.he following acts or practices:

QUEEN ANNE COUNTY CLAM ASSOCIATION ET AL. 289 281 Decision 1. Establishing, fixing or maintaining, or attempting to establish fix or maintain, prices or terms for the purchase or sale of any of said seafood products.

2. Engaging in boycotts of dealers or other purchasers in connection with the sale of any of said seafood products. 3. Enforcing adherence, by any means or methods, to prices for the. purchase or sale of any such seafood products. 1 t is fut,her ordered That the complaint be dismissed as to Charles Ford, Elwood Thompson, Oscar Schulz, Hiram Huth, 'Villinm lIoxter, John Thomas, )Vilhtrd Jones and George Dorrell, in their individual capacities and also as representatives of the entire membership of the Queen Anne County Clam Association, and also be dismissed as to Charles Ford and El ood Thompson as offcers of said association.

It is further ordered That the complaint be dismissed as to Gordon j-Jallock, John :II. Nieman Woodrow Blythe and Charles Cantler, in tl1eir individual capncities and also as representatives of tho entire membership of the Anne Arundel County Clam AE:sochttion. It ,is further o'T'dered That, upon joint motion of Counsel Supporting the Complaint and Counsel for Respondent Seafood Co- Operative, Inc. , the complaint be dismissed as to Seafood Co- Operative, Inc. (erroneonsly named jn the complaint as Shadyside Seafood Cooperative), its officers, directors and members; and as to John 1\1. Nieman, individually and as President, member and representative of the entire membership of Seafood Co-Operative, Inc. Provided 110\v8vc1' , that nothing herein shall prevent any association of bona fide clam fishermen acting pursuant to and in accordance with the provisions of the Fishcrmlw s Cooperative l\larketing Act (15 USCA , l'aragraphs 521-522) from performing any of the acts and practices permitted by mid Act. DECISION OF THE cO)nnssIO:: AXD OnnEn TO FILE REPonT OF CO),lPLIANCE I\lr uallt to Section 3.21 of the Commission s Rules of Practice the initial decision of the hearing examiner shall, OIl the 21st day of .July 1960, become the decision of the Commission; and, accoruingly:

It ,is ordered That the respondents ordered to eca e and desist in the initial decision herein shall "within sixty (60) rlnys after service upon them of this order: file with the Commission a report in wri1ing setting forth in detail the maIlner ami form in .which they have complied with the order to cease and desist. lJ40U(jS- G3- 290 :FEDERAL TRADE COMI\IISSION DECISIONS Decision 57 F.