A. Neustadter & Son, Inc.

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

Ix THE l\IATTER OF A. NEUSTADTER & SON, INC., ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC. , IX REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRE COMMISSION AND THE FUR PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket 8237. Complaint, Dec. 1960 Decision, Apr. , 1961 Consent order requiring New York City furriers to cease violating the Fur Products Labeling Act by setting out on invoices of fur products certain prices which were fictitious, and b y failng in other respects to comply with labeling and invoicing 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 by said Acts, the Federal Trade Commission, having reason to believe that A. N eustadter & Son, Inc., a corporation, and Adolph Neustadter and Edward eustadter, individually and as offcers of said corporation, hereinafter referred to as respondents have violated the provisions of said Acts and the Rules and Regulations 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: PARAGRAPH 1. A. Neustadtcr & Son, Inc. is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York with its offce and principal place of business located at 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, New York. Adolph N eustadter and Edward N eustadter are offcers of the corporate respondent. They control, formulate and direct the acts, practices and policies of the corporate respondent. Their offce and principal place of business is the same as that of the 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 conuerce, and in the manufacture for introduction into commerce, and in the sale, advertising, and offering for sale, transportation and distribution, in commerce, of fur products, and have manufactured for sale, sold, advertjsed, 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. 646 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION DECISIO: Decision 5S F.

PAR. 3. 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 Labeling Act and in the manner and form prescribed by the Rules and Regulations promnlgated thereunder. PAR. 4. 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 Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in the following respects:

(a) Information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder was not completely set out on one side of labels, in ,'violation of Rule 29(a) of said Rules and Regulations. (b) Information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and thc Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder was not set forth separately on labels with respect to each section of fur products composed of two or more sections containing different animal furs, in violation of Rule 36 of said Rules and Regulations. PAR. 5. Certain of said fur products were falsely and dcceptively invoiced by respondents 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 thc Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder.

PAR. 6. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced in that the respondents set out on invoices certain prices of fur products which were in fact fictitious in violation of Section 5 (b) (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. PAR. 7. The aforesaid acts and practices of respondents, as herein alleged, are in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rnles and Regulations promulgated thereunder and constitute unfair and deceptive acts and practices in commerce under the Federal Trade Commission Act.

Charles W. O'Connell, Esq. for the Commission. Charles Goldberg, Esq. of New York, N. Y., for respondents. INITIAL DECISIO BY ROBERT L. PIPER, HEAIUNG EXAlIUXER The Federal Trade Commission issued its complaint against the above-named respondents on December 28, 1960, charging them with having violated the Fur Products Labeling Act, the rules and regulations issued thereunder, and the Federal Trade Commission Act by misbranding and falsely invoicing their fur products. Hpspondents appeared by counsel and entered into an agreement, dated February 18, 1961, containing a consent order to cease and desist, dispos A. XEUSTADTER & SON, I1\C. , ET AL. 647 645 Decision ing of all the issues in this proceeding without further hearings which agreement has been duly approved by the Bureau of Litigation. Said agreement has been submitted to the undersigned, heretorore duly designated to act as hearing examiner herein, for his consideration in accordance with 93.25 of the Rules of Practice of the Commission.

Respondents, pursuant to the aforesaid agreement, have admitted all of the jurisdictional allegations of the complaint and agreed that the record may be taken as if findings of jurisdictional facts had been made duly in accordance with such allegations. Said agrccment further provides that respondents waive all further procedural steps before the hearing examiner or the Commission, including the making of findings of fact or conclusions of law and the right to challenge or contest the validity of the order to cease and desist entered in accordance with such agreement. It has also been agreed that the record herein shall consist solely of the complaint and said agreement, that the agreement shall not become a part of the offcial record unless and until it becomes a part of the decision of the Commission; that said agreement is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by respondents that they have violated the law as alleged in the complaint, that said order to cease and desist shall have' the' EirlJ1€ force illld eflect as if entered after a full heilring and may be altered, modified, or set aside in the manner provided for other orders, and that the complaint may be used in construing the teITS of the order.

This proceeding having now come on for final consideration 011 tile complaint and the aforesaid agreement containing the consent order, and ii, aPlwaring that t.he order and agreement coyer an of the allegations of the complaint flnd pro\ ic1e for appropriate disposition of this proceeding, the agreement is hereby accepted and ordered filed upon this clec.ision and s Licl agreement becoming pa.rt of the C0l1lTlission s decision pursuant to S 21 and 3.25 of the Rules of Practice: and the heal'illg exmniner accordingly makes the following findings, for jurisdictional purposes, and order: 1. Respondent A. N eustadter & Son, Inc., is a corporation existing nnd doing' business under and by virtue of the IfLWS of the State of New York, with its offce and principal place of business located at 333 Seventh Avenue in the City of N ew York, State of K ew York. Adolph N eustadter and Edward N eustadter are offcers of the corporate respondent. They control, formulate and direct thc acts, practices and policies of the corporate respondent. Their address is the same as that of the corporate respondent. , 648 FEDERAL TRADE cO:'nnSSION DECISIONS Decision 58 F.

2. Tho Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this proceeding and of the respondents hereinabove named. The complaint states a cause of action against said respondents under the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Federal Trade Commission Act, and this proceeding is in the interest of the public. It is ordered That A. Neustadter & Son, Inc., a corporation, and its offcers, and Adolph Neustadter and Edward Neustadter, individually and as offcers of said corporation, and respondents' representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the introduction, manufacture for introduction, 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, manufacture for sale, advertising, offering for sale, transportation or distribution of fur products which have been made in whole or in part of fur which has been shipped and received in commerce as "commerce fur" and "fur product" are defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act do forthwith cease and desist from:

A. Misbranding fur products by:

1. Failing to affx labels to fur products showing in words and figures plainly legible all the information required to be disclosed by each of the subsections of Section 4 (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act;

2. Failing to set forth on labels aU the information required to be disclosed under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder on one side of such labels;

3. Failng to set forth separately on labels attached to fur products composed of two or more sections conta,ining different animal furs the information required to be disclosed under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder with respect to the fur comprising each section. B. Falsely or deceptively invoicing fur products by: 1. Failing to furnish to purchasers of fur products invoices showing aU the information required to be disclosed by each of the subsections of Section 5(b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act; 2. Representing directly or by implication on invoices that the former, regular or usual price of any fur product is any amount which is in excess of the price at which respondents have formerly, usually, or customarily sold such products in the recent, regular course of business.

CITY FUR CO:\IP ANY 649 645 Complaint DECISION OF THE COJDIlSSION \:iT OIWER TO PILE RET'ORT OF co),n LL-\XCE Pursuant to Section 3.21 of the Commission s Rules of Practice the initial decision of the hearing examiner shall, on the 27th day of April 1961, become the decision of the Commission; and, accordingly: It ordered That A. Neustadter & Son, Inc., a corporation, and Adolph X eustadter and Edward N eustadter, individually and as offcers of said corporation, shall, within sixty (60) days after service upon them of this order, fie 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.