Einbender's Inc.

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

IN THE l\IA TTER OF EINBEKDEIVS INC., ET AL.

COXSEXT ORDER, ETC. , IK REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VJOLATIDK OF THE FEDERAL TRADE C03IlIISSIQN AXD THE l""C PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket 8192. Complaint, Nov. 28, 1960-Decision, May, 1961 Consent order requiring furriers in St. Joseph, Mo., to cease violating the Fur Products Labeling Act by affxing to fur products labels bearing fictitious prices, represented thereby as the regular retail sellng prices; by advertising in newspapers which failed to disclose that certain fur products were composed of fianks, and, by use of such terms as "Values to, represented falsely that the following excessive figure was their usual retail price, and failed in other respects to comply with advertising requirements; and by failng to keep adequate records as a basis for pricing and value claims. COMPI..AINT Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Fur Products Labcling Act, and by virtue of the authority vested in it by said Acts, the Federal Trade Commission, having reason to beEeve that Einbender s Inc., a corporation, and Sylvia B. Einbender, Lester L. Einbender and Edwin I. Einbender, individually and as offcers of said corporation, hereinafter referred to as respondents, have violated the provisions of said Acts and the Rules and Rcgulations 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 pubhc interest, hereby issues its complaint stating its charges in that respect as follows: PARAGRAPH 1. Einbender s Inc. is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State , Complaint ;is F. of Missouri with its offce and principal place of business located at 502 Felix Street, St. Joseph, Missouri. Individual respondents Sylvia B. Einbender, Lester L. Einbender and Edwin 1. Einbeneler are offcers of said corporate respondent and control, formulate and direct the acts, practices and policies of the said corporate respondent. Their ollce and principal place of business is the same as that of the said corporate respondent. PAR. 2. Subsequcnt 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 oiIering for sale, in commerce, and in the transportation and distribution, in commerce, of fur products; and have sold, advertised, offered for sale, transported, and distributed fur products \which have been made in whole or in paxt of fur ,-rhich had been shipped and received in commerce, as the terms "commerce fur and "fur product" arc defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act. PAR. 3. Certain of said fur products were misbranded in that labels affxed thereto contained fictitious prices and misrepresented the regular retail selling prices of such fur products in that the prices represented on such labels as the regular prices of the fur products were in e,xcess of the retail prices at ' which the respondents usually and regularly sold such fur products in the recent regular course of their business, in violation of Section 4 (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

PAR. 4. 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 clefinrcl in said Act., of certain advertisements, concerning said prodllct2 , which were not in aecorda,nce with the provisions of Section ;'(a) of the said Ad and the Rules a.nd Regulations promul gated 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. 5. Among and included in the advertisements as aforesaid but not limited thereto, were advertisements of respondents which appeared in issues of St. Joseph, 1\iissouri X ews Press, a newspaper published in the City of St. Joseph, State of Missouri, 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: ,, EINBE:\DER' S INC. , ET AL. 789 787 Complaint (a) COllt:-linecl information required under Section 5(a) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and H.ules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in abbreviated form in violation of Rule 4 of said Rules and Regulations.

(b) Failed to disclose that fur products were composed in whole or in substantial part of flanks when such is the fact in violation of Rule 20 of said Rules and Regulations.

(c) Failed to set forth the information required under Section 5(a) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulat.ions promulgated thereunder in type of equal size and conspicuousness and in close proximity with each other in violation of Rule ;38 (n) or sflicl Rules and Regulations.

PAR. 6. In advertising fur products for sale as aforesaid respondents falsely and deceptive.Iy advert.ised said fur products in violation of Section 5(a) (5) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and Hulc 44(a) of thc said Hules and Hegulations, by representing, directly or by implication, through such statements as " 0th Anniversary Sale-Mink Stoles $99.40-Values to 8195.00", that respondents had reduced their price of mink stoles to the advertised lower sale price; that. the higher price designated by the term Values td' was responclents regular and usual price for the mink stole thus advertised; nncl tllat r. purc.hase at. the advertised lower sale price would result in a saving to the purchaser of the difference between the advertised lower sale price nncl the advertised higher price designs.ted by the term "Values to In tn1th and in fa.ct, the advertised higher price designated by the term "Values to': was not respondents ' regular or usual price for the mink stoles thus adve.rtised but was in exc.ess of the regular or usual price charged by respondents for such mink stoles; therefore, a purchase of a mink stole at the advertised lower sale price ould not result in a saving to t.he purchaser of the difference between the advertised lower sale price and the advertised higher price designated by the term "Values to PAR, 7. Re,spondents in advertising fur products for sale as aforesaid 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 disdosing the facts upon which such claims and representations were based in violation of Hule 44(e) of the said Rules and Regulations. PAIL 8. The a.foresaic1 Rets and pract.ices of respondents, as herein alleged, are in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules a.nd R.egulations promulgated thereunder and constitute unfair &, Decision 58 F.

and deceptive ads and practices in commerce under the Federal Trade Commission Act.

ilr. Willam A. Somers supporting the complaint. 1111.. Sa,muelli. Abmms ilori, Murphy, Clapp Abmms by Washington, D. , for respondents.

IXITAL DECISION BY JOHN B. POINDEXTER, lIEARlKG EXAllfIXER On November 28 , 1960, the Federal Trade Commission issued a complaint charging the above named respondents 'with misbranding and falsely and deceptively advertising certain of their fur products in violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Fur Products Labeling Act.

After issuance and service of the complaint the respondents, their attorneys, and counsel supporting the complaint entered into an agreement for a consent order. The agreement states, among other things, that Edwin 1. Einbenc1er is an administrative offcer and had notbing to do ,,,ith the acts and practices involved in this proceeding. This fact is set out in an affdavit executed by Edwin I. Einbender, which is attached to and made a part or the agreement. Accordingly, the term "respondents, as hereinafter used, does not include Edwin 1. Einbender in his individual capacity. The pertinent provisions of said agreement are as follows: Respondents admit ajj jurisdictional facts; the complaint may be used in construing the terms of the order; the order shall have the same force and effect as if entered after a full hearing and the said agreement shall not become a part of the offcial record of the proceeding unless and until it becomes a part of the deeision of the Commission; the record herein shall consist solely of the complaint and the agreement; respondents waive the requirement that the decision must contain a statement of findings of fact and conclusions of law; respondents waive further procedural steps before the hearing examiner and the Commission, and the order may be altered, modified or set aside in the manner provided by statute for other orders; respondents \\aive any right to challenge or contest the validity of the order entered in accordance with the agreement and the signing or said agreement is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by re.spondents that the.y have violated the law as alleged in the complaint.

The undersigned hearing examiner, having considered the agreement and proposed order, hereby accept.s such agreement, makes the following jurisdictional findings, and issues the following order: EDmESDER' S IKC. ) ET AL. 791 787 Order J"GIUSDICTIOX AT. l'TNDIXGS 1. Hesponclent Einbender s Inc. is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Missouri with its offce and principal place of business located at 502 Felix Street, St. Joseph, :Missouri. 2. Individual respondents Sylvia B. Einbender, Lester L. Einbender and Edwin 1. Einbenc1cr are olllCers of said corporate respondent. Their notice and principal place of business is the same as that of the said corporate respondent. 3. The Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this proceeding and of the respondent.s hereinabove named and the proceeding is in the public interest. OHDEH it is ordered That Einbender s Inc., a corporation, and its offcers and Sylvia B. Einbender and Lester L. Einbender, individually and as offcers of said corporation, and Edwin 1. Einbender, as an offcer 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, 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, transport.ation, or distribution of any 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. :lIisbranding fur products by falsely or deceptively labeling or otherwise identifying such products as to the regular prices thereof by any representation that the regular or usual prices of such products are any amount in excess of the prices at which respondents have l1sua.ly and customarily sold such products in the recent regular course of business.

2. Falsely or deccptive1y advertising fur products through the use of a,ny advertisement, representation, pubhc announcement, or notice which is intended to aid, promote or assist, directly or indirectly, in the sa)e, or offering for sale of fur products, and which: A. Sets forth information required under Section 5(a) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and (he Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in abbreviated form.

B. Fails t.o disc.ose t.hat fur products arc composed in whole or in substantial part of flanks, when such is the fact. 792 FEDERAL TRADE COM:\fISSION DECISIONS Syllabus 58 F.

C. Fails to set forth thc information required under Section 5(a) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in type of equal size a.nd conspicuousness and in close proximity with each other.

D. Represents directly or by implication through the use of the term " V nInes to" or any other words or terms of similar import or meaning, that the regular or usual price of any fur product is any amount which is in excess of the price at which the respondents have usually and customarily sold such products in the recent regular course of business.

E. fisrepI'esents in any manner the savings available to purchasers of respondents' fur products.

3. :Making pricing claims or representations respecting prices or values of fur products unless there are maintained full and adequate records disclosing the facts upon ,,,which such claims and representations arc based.

It is JUTther ordered That the complaint bc, and the same hereby , dismissed as to Echvin 1. Einbender, individually but not as an offcer of said corporation.

DECISION OF TI-IE CQJOfISSIOX .A D ORDER TO FILE REFORT OF co::urLL\NCE Pursuant to Section 3.21 of the Commission s Rules of Practice, the initial decision of the hearing examiner shall on the 17th day of fay 1 )61, become the decision 01 the Commission; and, accordingly: It is O'.dered Thftt respondents, Einbender s Inc., a corporation; Edwin T. Einlwnder, as an offcer of said corporation; and Sylvia B. Einbender and Lester L. Einbender, individually and as offcers of said corporation, shan -within sixty days after service upon them of this order, file with the Commission a report in writing setting forth in de.tail the mftnner and form in which t.hey have complied ,,'ith the order to cease and desist.