B. Lowenstein & Brothers, Inc.

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

IN THE Marrer Or B. LOWENSTEIN & BROTHERS, INC., ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER, EVC.. IN REGARD TO 'THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND THE FUR PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket 7981. Complaint, June 24, 1960—Decision, Nov. 24, 1960 Consent erder reaniring furriers in Memphis, Tenn., to cease violating the Fur Products Labeling Act by advertising in newspapers which failed to disclose the nuues of animals producing the fur in certain fur products or that some fur products contained artificially colored fur, represented falsely that fur preducts offered for sale amounted to a “AJagnificent $250,000 collection of Fine Furs”, and failed in other respects to coniply with requirements of the Act: and by failing to keep adequate records as a basis for pricing and value claims for fur products. Charges dismissed on June 8, 1961, as to respondent Philip de Journo. Complaint Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Fur Products Labeling Act, and by virtue of the authority vested in it by said Acts, the Federal Trade Commission, having reason to believe that B. Lowenstein & Brothers, Inc., a corporation, and Stanley Fried and Philip De Jorno, individually and as officers of said corporation, hereinafter referred to as respondents, have violated the provisions of the said Acts and the Rwes and Reeulations promulgated under the Fur Products Labeling 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: Paracrarn 1. B. Lowenstein & Brothers, Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Delaware, with its office and principal place of business located at 35 South Main Street, Memphis, Tennessee. B. LOWENSTEIN & BROTHERS, INC., ET AL. 11838 1182 Complaint Respondent Stanley Fried is president of the said corporate respondent and respondent Philip De Jorno is vice president and general merchandising manager of the said corporate respondent. These individuals control, direct and formulate the acts, practices and policies of the said corporate respondent. Their address is the same as that of the said corporate respondent. Par. 2. Subsequent to the effective date of the Fur Products Labeling Act on August 9, 1952, respondents have been and are now engaged in the introduction into commerce and in the sale, advertising, and offering for sale, in commerce, and in the transportation and distribution, in of fur products, and have sold, advertised, offered for sale, transported and distributed fur products which have been made in whole or in part of fur which had been shipped and received in commerce, as the terms “commerce,” “fur” and “fur product” are defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act. Par. 8. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively advertised in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act in that respondents caused the dissemination in commerce, as “commerce” is defined in said Act, of certain newspaper advertisements, concerning said products, which were not in accordance with the provisions of Section 5(a) of the said Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder; and which advertisements were intended to aid, promote and assist, directly or indirectly, in the sale and offering for sale of said fur products.

Par, 4. Among and included in the advertisements as aforesaid, but not limited thereto, were advertisements of respondents which appeared in issues of the Commercial Appeal, a newspaper published in the City of Memphis, State of Tennessee, and having a wide circulation in said State and various other States of the United States.

By means of said advertisements and others of similar import and meaning, not specifically referred to herein, respondents falsely and deceptively advertised fur products in that said advertisements: (a) Failed to disclose the name or names of the animal or animals that produced the fur contained in the fur product as set forth in the Fur Products Name Guide, in violation of Section 5(a) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

(b) Failed: to disclose that fur products contained or were composed of bleached, dyed or otherwise artificially colored fur, when such was the fact, in violation of Section 5(a) (3) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

(c) Represented that the fur products offered for sale amounted to a “Magnificent $250,000 collection of Fine Furs” when such was Decision 57 ETC.

not the fact in violation of Section 5(a) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

(d) Contained information required under Section 5(a) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder which was not set forth in type of equal size and conspicuousness and in close proximity with each other, in violation of Rule 38(a) of said Rules and Regulations. Par. 5. In advertising fur products for sale as aforesaid respondents made claims and representations respecting the prices and values of fur products. Respondents in making such claims and representations failed to maintain full and adequate records disclosing the facts upon which such claims and representations were based in violation of Rule 44(e) of said Rules and Regulations. Par. 6. The aforesaid acts and practices of respondents, as herein alleged, are in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder and constitute unfair and deceptive acts and practices in commerce under the Federal] Trade Commission Act.

Before Mr. Harry Le. Hinkes, hearing examiner. Mr. Charles 8. Cow for the Commission.

Mr, Abe D. Waldauer, of Memphis, Tenn., for respondents. Inrrian Decision as To ALL RESPONDENTS EXCEPT PuILir Dr Jorxo The complaint in this matter charges the respondents with violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act. and the Fur Procuets Labeling Act in connection with the sale, advertising, offering for sale and distribution in commerce of fur products. On September 27, 1960 there was submitted to the undersigned hearing examiner an agreement between certain respondents, their counsel and counsel supporting the complaint, providing for the entry of a consent order.

Under the foregoing agreement, B. Lowenstein & Brothers, Inc., a corporation, and Stanley Fried individually and as an officer of said corporation admitted all of the jurisdictional allegations in the complaint. The agreement provides that the record on which the initial decision and the decision of the Commission shall be based shall consist. solely of the complaint. and agreement; that the inclusion of findings of fact and conclusicns of Jaw in the decision disposing of this matter is waived, together with any further procedural steps before the hearing examiner and the Commission ; that the order hereinafter set forth may be entered in disposition of the proceeding, such order to have the same force and effect as if entered after a full hearing, the signatory respondents specifically B. LOWENSTEIN & BROTHERS, INC., ET AL. 1185 1182 Order waiving any and all rights to challenge or contest the validity of such order; that the order may be altered or set aside in the manner provided for other orders of the Commission; that the complaint may be used in construing the terms of the order; and that the agreement is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by such respondents that they have violated the law as alleged in the complaint.

The hearing examiner having considered the agreement and proposed order and being of the opinion that they provide an adequate: basis for an appropriate disposition of the proceeding as to the signatory respondents, the agreement is hereby accepted, the following jurisdictional findings made and the following order issued: 1. Respondent B. Lowenstein & Brothers, Inc., is a corporation existing and doing business under and by virtue of the Jaws of the State of Delaware, with its office and principal place of business located at. 85 South Main Street, in the City of Memphis, State of Tennessee.

Respondent Stanley Fried is an officer of said corporation. His address is the same as that of the corporate respondent. 2. The agreement. does not dispose of this proceeding as to Philip De Jorno, who is subject to further proceedings. 8. 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 ordered, That vespondents B. Lowenstein & Brothers, Inc., a corporation, and its officers, and Stanley Fried, individually and as an officer of said corporation, and respondents’ representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the introduction into commerce, or the sale, advertising, offering for sale, transportation or distribution, in commerce, of fur products; or in connection with the sale, advertising, offering for sale, transportation or distribution of fur products which are 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 forthwith cease and desist from :

1. Falsely or deceptively advertising fur products through the use of any advertisement, representation, public announcement or notice which is intended to aid, promote or assist, directly or indirectly, in the sale, or offering for sale of fur products, and which: A. Fails to disclose:

640968S—-63 76 Syllabus 57 F.T.C.

(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 Guide and as prescribed under the Rules and Regulations.

(2) That the fur product contains or is composed of bleached, dyed or otherwise artificially colored fur, when such is the fact. B. Fails to set forth the information required under section 5(a) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in type of equal size and conspicuousness and in close proximity with each other.

C. Represents, directly or by implication, that the quantity or amount of fur products offered for sale is greater than is the fact. 2, Making price claims and representations respecting prices and values of fur products unless respondents maintain full 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, the initial decision of the hearing examiner shall, on the 24th day of November 1960, become the decision of the Commission; and, accordingly :

It is ordered, That B. Lowenstein & Brothers, Inc., a corporation, and Stanley Fried, individually and as an officer of said corporation, 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.