Joseph Luria trading as Luria

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

IN THE Jll\TTER OF JOSEPH LURIA TRADI:'G AS Ll:RIA' COXSEXT ORDER ETC. , IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF 'rhe FEDERAL TRADE CO)1l\IISSION AND THE FUR PRODUCTS LAB:JLING ACTS Docket 801.8. Complaint, July 1960-Decision, Feb. 9, 1961 Consent order requiring Philadelphia furriers to cease violating the Fur Products Labeling Act by affxing to fur products labels containing fictitious prices, represented falsely thereby as the regular retail sellng price, and by failng to comply in other respects with advertising, invoicing, and labeling requirements.

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 bv said Acts. the Federal Trade Commission, having reason to belie e that J08e1;h Luria, an indivic111u,1 tl'fLding as Luria hereinafter referred to as respondent, has violated the provisions of sflicl Acts and the Hules and Regulations promulgated under the Fur Product; ,Labeling Act. and it appearing to the Commission that LURIA' 145 144 Complaint a proceeding by it in respect thereof would be in the public inte hereby issues its complaint stating its charges in that respect as follows:

PARAGRAPH 1. .Joseph 1.uria is an individual trading as 1.uria with his offce and principal place of business located at 5724 North Broad Street, in the City of Philadelphia, State of Pennsylvania. PAR. 2. Subsequent to the effective date of the Fur Products 1.labeling Act on August 9, 1952, respondent has been, and is now engaged, in the introduction into commerce and in the sale, adver- , in commerce, and in the transportationtising, and offering for sale and distribution, in comlnerce, of fur products; and has 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 incomlIlcrce, as the terms "commerce fur" and "fur product" are defined in the Fur Products 1.labeling Act. PAR. 3. Certain of said fur products were misbranded in that labels affxed thereto contained fictitious prices and misrepresented the regular retail sellng prices of such fur products in that the prices represented on such labels as the regular prices of the fur products ,were' in excess of the retail prices at which the respondent usually and regularly sold such fur products in the recent regular course of its business, in violation of Sectjon 4(1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

Pall 4. Certain of said fur products were misbranded in that they were not labeled as required under the provisions of Section 4(2) of the Fur Products 1.labeling Act and in the manner and form prescribed by the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder. P AH. 5. Certain of said fur products were misbranded in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act in that they were not labeled in accordance with the R.ules and R.egulations promulgated thereunder in that information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder was . not set forth in the required sequence in violation of Rulc 30 of said Rules and Regulations. PAR. 6. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced by respondent in that they were not invoiced as required by Section 5(b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act, and in the manner and form prescribed by the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder.

PAn. 7. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced in violation of the Fur Products 1.labeling Act in that they were not invoiced in accordance with the Rules and Hegulations 681-237-63-- Decision 58 F.'r.

promulgated thereunder in that information required under Section 5(b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promnlgated thereunder was set forth in abbreviated form in violation of Rule 4 of said Rules and Regulations. PAR. 8. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively advertised in that respondent on lahels affxed to fur products made representations and gave notices concerning said fur products which representations and notices were not in accordance with the provisions of Section 5 (a) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the nles and Regulations promulgated thereunder; and which representations flnd notice,s were intended to aiel, promote and assist. directly or indirectly in the sale and offering for sale of said fur products.

By means of said representations and notices contained on the labels affxed to fur products, and others of similar import and meaning not specifically referred to herein, respondent falsely and deceptively advertised fur products in that respondent thereby made representations as to the prices of fur products ,which prices were in fact, fictitious, in violation of Section 5 (a) (5) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and Rule 44 (a) of said Rules and Regulations. PAR. 9. Respondent, in making priclug claims and representations, respecting fur products failed to mainta.in full and adequate records disclosing the facts upon 'iYhieh such claims and represent.ations were based, in violation of Rule 44 (e) of the said Rules and Regulations.

PAR. 10. The aforesaid acts and practices of respondent., as herein alleged, are in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Hllles and Hegulations promulgated thereunder and constitute unfair and deccptiF8 acts nnd practices in commerce under' the Federal Trade Commission Act.

Garland S. Ferguson, B'sq. supporting the complaint. Bw,ton Oaine, Esq. of Wolf, Block, Schm'!' and Solis- Oohen Philadelphia, for respondent.

TTIAL DECISlO?- BY LEO!\T GROSS, IIEARING EXAMINER On July 18 , 1960, the Federal Trade Commission issued a eomphlint against the above-named respondent, in ,which he was charged with violating the Federal Trade Commission Act, a.nd the Fur Products Labeling Act and t.he Rules and .Regulations promulgated thereunder by, a.among other things, misbranding by failing to label in accordance with t.he Fur Products Labeling Act and the R.ules and R.egnlations promulgated therellnde.r falsely a.nd deceptively invoic- LURIA' 147 144 Decision ing, and falsely and deceptively advertising fur products sold by respondent in interstate commerce. A true and correct copy of the complaint was served upon the respondent, as required by law. Thereafter respondent appeared by counsel and agreed to dispose of this proceeding without a formal hearing pursuant to the terms of an agreement dated December 5, 1960, containing consent order to cease and desist. The agreement was submitted to the undersigned hearing examiner on December 20, 1960 , in accordance with 25 of the Commission s Rules of Practice for Adjudicative Proceedings. The agreement purports to dispose of this proceeding as to all parties and contains the form of a consent cease-and-desist order which the parties have represented is dispositive of the issues involved in this proceeding. The agreement has been signed by the respondent, the attorneys for both parties, and has been approved by the Assistant Director, Associate Director Rnd Director of the Bureau of Litigation of the Federal Trade Commission. In said agreement respondent admits all of the jurisdictional facts alleged in the complaint and agrees t.hat the record may be taken as if findings of jurisdictional facts had been made in accordance with such allegations. In the agreement the respondent vmives: (a) any further procedural steps be:fore the hearing examiner and the Commission; (b) the making of findings of fact or conclusions of law; and (c) all rights respondent may have to challenge or contest the validity of the order to cease and desist entered in accordance with the agreement. The part.ies further agree, in said agreement, that the record on which the initial decision and the decision of the Commission shall be based shall consist solely of the complaint and the agreement; that the agreement shall not become a part of the offcial record unless Rnd until it beeomes a part of the decision of the Federal Trade Commission; that the order to cea.se and desist entered in this proceeding by the Commission may be entered without further notice to the respondent, and ,,,hen so entered such order will have the same force and effect as if entered after a full hearing. Said order 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. The parties have covenante,d that the sn.id agreement is for settlement purposes only mlel does not constitute an admission by respondent tlult he has violated the law as alleged in the complaint. This proceeding having 1l0\Y C011e onior final consiclcrationon the complaint and the aforesaid agreement of December 5, 1960, containing consent order, and it appearing that the order ,which is approved in and by said agreement disposes of all the issues presented by the , 148 FEDERAL TRADE CO:yMISSION DECISIONS Findings 58 F.

complaint as to all of the parties involved, said agreement of December 5 , 1960, is hereby accepted and approved as complying with 21 and 3.25 of the Commisssion s Rules of Practice for Adjudicative Proceedings. The lplc1cl'signed hearing examiner, having considered the agreement and proposed order and being of the opinion that the acceptance thereof wil be in the public interest, makes the following findings and issues the following order: FINDINGS 1. The Federal Trade Comn1-ission has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this proceeding; 2. Respondent Joseph Lurja is an individual trading and doing business as Luria, with his oilce and principal place of business located at 5724, orth Broad Street, City of Philadelphia, State of Pennsylvania;

3. Respondent is engaged in commerce as "commerce" is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Fur Products Labeling Act;

4,. The complaint filed herein states a cause of action against the respondent under the Federal Trade Connnission Act and under the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations jssued pursuant thereto; and this proceeding is in the public interest. K mv therefore It is ordered That Joseph Luria, an individual trading as Luria or any other trade name, and respondent's representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device in connection with the introduction into commerce, or the sale, advertising, or offering for sale in commerce, or the 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 C01111nerce, as "commerce fur" and "fur product" are defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act, do forthwith cease and desist from:

1. Misbranding fur products by:

A. Falsely or deceptively labeling or otherwise falsely or deceptively identifying any such product as to respondent's regular price thereof by any representation that respondent's regular or usual price of any such product is any amount in excess of the price at which respondent has usually and customarily sold such product in the recent regular course of business;

LURIA' 149 144 Decisioll B. Failing to affx label to fur products showing in words and figures plainly legible all of the information required to be disclosed by each of the subsections of Section 4 (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act;

C. Failing to set forth the information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in the required sequence. 2. Falsely or deceptively invoicing fur products by: A. Failing to furnish to purchasers of fur products invoices showing all the information required to be disclosed by each of the subsections of Section 5 (b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act; B. Setting forth information required under Section 5 (b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in abbreviated Form. 3. Falsely or deceptively advertising fur products, through the use of any advertisement, representation, public announcement or not.ice which is intended to aiel, promote or assist, directly or indirectly, in the sale or offering for sale of Iur products, and which:

Represents directly or by implication that respondent's regular or usual price of any fur product is any amount which is in excess of the price at which respondent has usually and customarily sold such product in the recent regular course of business. 4. Making claims and representations respecting prices and values of fur products unless respondent maintains fu 11 and adequate records disclosing the facts upon which such claims and representations a re based.

DECISION OF THE nfISSION A ORDER TO FILE REPORT OF CO:MPLIANCE Pursuant to Section 3.21 of the Commission s Rules of Practice the initial decision of the hearing examiner shall, on the 9th day of February 1961, become the decision of the Commission; and accordingly:

It i8 ordered That respondent Joseph Luria, an individual trading as Luria, shall, within sixty (60) days after service upon him of this order, file with the Commission a. report in writing, setting forth in detail the manner and form in which he has complied with the order to cease and desist.

150 FEDERAL 'TRADE COMMISSIO DECISIONS Complaint 58 F.