United States Association of Credit Bureaus, Inc.

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

has complied with the order to cease and desist. THE MATTER OF UNITED STATES ASSOCIATION OF CREDIT BUREAUS, IKC., ET AL.

ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRAE CO).:IMISSION ACT Docket 7043. Complaint, Jan. 1958 Decision, June, 1961 Order requiring a collection agency at Oak Forest, Ill. , to cease representing falsely, by use of its misleading trade name, that it ,vas an "association and "credit bureau, and, by use of the words "United States" and offciallooking insignia, that it was connected with the United States Government; misrepresenting- the organization of its business, services rendered " material its clients, and commissions retained; and using "skip-tracing which represented falsely that it was to tbe addressees' financial advantage to provide requested information concerning debtors. Before llfr. John B. Poindexter hearing examiner. M,' . Harold A. Kennedy and Mr. Thomas F. H01vder for the Commission.

Mulroy Wentz of Chicago, Ill., for Hopkins, Sutter, Owen, respondents.

FrXDIXGS "\8 TO THE F ACTS, CONCLLSIO S A D Oiler The Federal Trade Commission issued its complaint against the above-named respondents on .Tanuary 15 , 1958, charging them with engaging in unfair and deceptive acts and practices and unfair methods of competition in violation of said Act. Hearings were held before a hearing examiner of the Commission and testimony 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 on July 29, 1960, the hearing examiner found that certain of the compla.int's allegations ,were sustained by the evidence and that others were not so supported.

The Commission having considered the cross-appeals filed from the initial decision and the entire record in this proceeding, and having ruled on said appeals, and having determined that the initial decision should be vacated and set aside, the Commission further finds that this proceeding is in the public interest and now makes S. ASSOCIATION OF CUED!'l' BUREAVS , INC. , ET AL. 1045 1044 Findings its findings as to the facts, conclusions drawn therefrom and order which together with the accompanying opinion, shall be in lieu of those contained in said initial decision. FINDINGS AS TO THE FACTS 1. The respondent, United States Association of Credit Bureaus Inc., is a corporation organized and doing business under the laws of the state of Illinois with its oflice and principal place of business located at 4809 ,Vest 159th Street, Oak Forest, Illinois. Individual respondents, John W. Burns and Harold E. Holder are president and secretary-treasurer respectively of the corporate respondent. They, together with the wife of I-Iarold E. Holder, own all 01 the stock in respondent corporation. :Mr. Burns exercises prime responsibility in formulating and directing the acts, policies and practices of the corporate respondent while Mr. Holder is engaged principally in personnel work.

2. The respondents are engaged in the business of collecting delinquent accounts for business concerns and professional men located in various parts of the United States. The respondents customers are secured principally through solicitors employed on a commission basis who call on such customers in the various states. The respondpnts furnish their solicitors with contract forms some- 6mes called "' listing sheets" which provide for the listing of each delinquent account by a creditor customer. The contract forms thebefll'ing the name and la.st known address of each debtor, alTount of each delinquent accollnt and the date incurred are forwarded by the solicitors to respondents at their place of business in Oak Forest, illinois.

3. In the operation oT their business, respondents transmit checks. or money orders, letters, contracts, forms and other written instruments through the United States rnails from their place of business in the State of Illinois to customers in various other states of the United States. Respondents also transmit through the United States maDs across state lines, letters, forms and various commercial documents to debtors or their customers and receive letters, money, checks or money orders final other "Titten instruments from sa.id debtors located in the various st tes. Thus, respondents are en gaged in extensive commercial intercourse in commerce, as " commerce:' is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act. 4. In the course and conduct of their business, respondents use and feature the corporate name United States Association of Credit Bureaus, Inc. Through the use of said name, respondents represent, directly ancl by implic.atioll that the corporate respondent 1046 FEDERAL TRADE COM1HSSION DECISIONS Findings 58 F.

an assoc.iation of credit burcaus, that is an organization composed of members banded together for the primary purpose of collecting and disseminating all avnilnble information as to the credit v.'rthiness of an individual who has obtained, or who desires to obtain credit. Such representation by respondents is false, misleading and deceptive. The corporate respondent is neither an association nor a credit bureau but is essentially a single business enterprise vdth its activities being limited primarily to the collection of delinquent accounts by mail.

5. In the course and conduct of their business, respondents use and feature the name "Uniteel States " in connection with an insignia on certa,in of their advertising and correspondence composed of a facsimile of the American eagle and a shield, the upper portion of which contains stars on a dark background, find the lower portion of which bears the legcnd upon a red background. Thc record established that through the use of the name "Vniteel States" and through the nae of said insignia, respondents represent, directly or by implication, that they are in some manner connected with, or an agency of the L united States government. Said representations are false, misleading and deceptive. Respondents are in no "ay connected or associated with any bra,nch, arm or agency of the united States Goyernment. 6. In the course and conduct of their business and for the pur pose of inducing individuals, firms and corporations to enter into contracts with them, respondents have represented, directly and by implication, that their business is organized into separate functional divisions; that they employ local representati,' , regional investigators, correspondents and lawyers on their personnel staff in vari ous states; that personal calls are made on debtors to collect delinquent accounts; that if no collections are made on a specific ac count there \"i11 be no charge thereon; that their commission fee is based on the percentage collected with the maximum rate never in €xcess offifty per cent; and that they furnish credit reports to parties who l1ave assigned accounts to them. 7. The aforesaid representations by the l' csponclents are false misleading and deceptive. The, responclents business is not 01'ga.nized into separate functional.l divisions since "ith the possible exception of their skip-tracing operation, a.ll other of respondents col1cction functions are handled interchangeably by correspondents, typists and other clerical help at respondents' offce in Oak Forest s. ASSOCIATIO).TOF CREDIT BUREAl:S , I).T , ET AL. 1047 I044 Findings Illnois. The respondents do not have a personnel staff outside their offce in Oak Forest, other than solici tors whose only function is to solicit accounts for collection. Nor do the respondents make personal calls on debtors to collect accounts as they confine their collection efforts primarily to the use of the mails. Respondents charge a listing fee on certain accounts on which they have made rio collection. Fifty per cent of the amount collected is not the maximum commission rate in many instances as respondents charge a listing fee on certain accounts which is deducted from the proceeds of an account on which respondents have charged a fifty per cent commission. Respondents do not issue credit reports as that term is normally understood.

8. In the course and conduct of their business, respondents have used and have caused the use of printed "skip-tracing" forms cards, and other material designed to obtain information relating to delinquent debtors. Respondents' procedure has been to purchase the forms from various firms, fin in the name and address of the debtor, return the form to the firm from which it was obtained and after the completed form ,,' as returned to that firm by the addressee, the form was forwardecl to the respondents. Respondents' transmittal of said forms through the United States mails across state lines constituted ads and practices in commerce, as commerce ' is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act. The aforesaid forms represent that it is to the addressee s financial advantage to furnish the requested information. In truth anel in fact the amount of the financial advantage given in return is not suffcient to justify any reference to it. The truth is that the sole purpose of the form is to locate a debtor and collect a debt. Therefore, the representation as to financial advantage is found to be false misleading HIHI deceptive. Said forms deceive recipients respecting the, purpose for yhieh the information is being requested and wi1 be used.

Although respondents have discontinued the use of the aforesaid forms, one such form was in nse subsequent to the issuance of the complaint he,l'e, in. There has been no change in the competitive situat.ion nor are there any unusual eirel1mstances which warrant a conclusion that in the absence of an order, respondents will not resume the use of saiel forms.

9. The use by respondents of (he aforesaid skip-tracing material has the capacity and tendency to mislead a substantial number of debtors and others into the erroneous belief that such representation found in paragraph 8 thereof is true and to induce them because 1048 FEDERAL TRADE CO:VD1ISSlO~ DECISIOKS Order 58 F.

of such erroneous and mistaken belief to furnish information which they would not have otherwise provided.

The use by respondents of the false, misleading and deceptive representations found in paragraphs 4 , 5 , 6 and 7 hereof has had and now has the tendency and capacity to mislead creditors into the erroneous and mistaken belief that such representations are true and into signing a substantial number of assignment contracts with respondents because of such mistaken and erroneous belief. CONCLUSION 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, are all to the prejudice and injury of the public and constitute unfair and deceptive acts and practices in commerce. within the intent and meaning of the Federal Trade Commission Act.

ORDER It is ordered That respondent, United States Association of Credit Bureaus, Inc., a corporation, and it.s offcers, and respondents, John 'V. Burns and Harold E. Holdcr, individually and as offcers of said corporate respondent, and sa.id respondents' agents, representatives and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device in connection ,,-jth the solicitation of accounts for collection, or the collection of, or attempts to collect accounts, or to obtain information concerning delinquent debtors, in commerce, as "commerce" is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act, do forthwith cease and desist from:

1. Using the words "association" or "credit burcaus, or a,ny other term of similar import or meaning in the corporate name or in any other manner to designate, describe or refer to respondents ' business, or otherwise representing, directly or by implication, that respondents' business is an association or a credit bureau. 2. L'sing the name " United States" in the corporate name or in any other manner, or an insignia so designed as to suggest government connection, to designate, dcsc.ribe or refer to respondents' business; or otherwise representing, directly or by implication, that they are an agency or branch of the united States government, or that their business is in any way connected with the 1Jnited States government.

3. Representing, through the use of a corporate or other trade name, or in any other manner, that their business is other than that of a collection agency engaged in col1acting past due accounts. S. ASSOCIATION OF CREDIT BUREAUS , IKC. , ET AL. 1049 1044 Opinion 4. Representing, directly or by implication: (a) That their business is organized into separate functional divisions for the collection of accounts;

(b) That they employ local representatives, regional investigators correspondents or lawyers on their personnel staff in various states or throughout the world, or that they employ anyone on their per- Chicagosonnel staff except solicitors anywhere outside of the Oak Forest, Illinois area;

(c) That they make personal calls on debtors to collect accounts; (d) That no charges will be made for accounts unless they are collected;

(e) That the collection fee or commission is less than any amount a.ctually to be cha.rged or retained by respondents from accounts collected ;

(f) That they furnish credit reports to parties who have assigned accounts to them.

5. Using, or causing to be used, any forms, cards or other material, printed or \written, for use in obtaining information concerning delinquent debtors, which represent, directly or by implication, that money or propert.y is being held for, or is due, persons concerning whom the information is sought., or is collectible by such persons unless money or property is in fact due and collectible by such persons and the amount of money or property is actually stated. o. Using, or causing to be used, any forms, cards or other material, printed or written, \which do not dearly reveal that the purpose for which the information is requested is that of obtaining information concerning delinquent debtors.

It is JUTther O)'dered That the respondents 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. Commissioner Elman not participating.

OPIXIO OF THE CQ:\I:MISSION By KERN Com1nissioner:

The complaint in this matter charges respondents with misrepresentation in violation of the Fedcntl Trade Commission Act in conction with their business of collecting delinquent accounts. In his initial decision, the hearing examiner found that certain of the charges were sustained by the evidence and ordered respondents to cease and d sist from the practices found to be unlawful. He found Opinion 58 F.

that the remaining charges were not supported and ordered that they be dismissed. Both sides have appealed from this decision. Considering first the appeal of counsel supporting the complaint the first issue presented is whether the he,ating examiner erred in finding that the name United States Association of Credit Bureaus Inc., is not deceptive. The comphtint alleges that this name is false misleading and deceptive because respondents are neither an association nor a credit bureau, but are instead a collection agency. The hearing examiner correctly found that respondents' primary business is the co1leet-ion of delinquent accounts. IIowever, he found that respondents had five members at the time complaint issued and ruled in effect that. since the evidence foiled to establish that a credit bureau must perform the functions of credit reporting to the exclusion of col1acting accounts, the allegations were not sustained. Counsel supporting the complaint introduced the testimony of two experts in the field of credit reporting. These witnesses testified in substance that a credit bureau is any organization whose primary function and objective is to gather and disseminate information as to the credit. worthiness of any individual who may be the subject of a credit inquiry. The information is gathered from numerous sources and constitutes a record of the subject' s paying habits. It is recorded in bureau files which remain active and ma.y reflect a good as well as bad credit standing. The information is disseminated to businesses which have extended credit or who wish to have some basis for either extending or rejecting an individual' s credit. Both witne,sses testiiied that credit bureaus may and do ofIeI' a debt collection service. However, it is clear from thejr testimony that the collection function is entirely separate and distinct from the credit reporting function of these organizations and that in the absence of this latter function, no organization can be considered to be a credit bureau.

Except in rare instances, the gathering and dissemination of credit information hy respondents is purely incidental to their pri- , it is clear thatmary function of collecting accounts. :;'1moreover such information as they do obta,in is not suffcient to be of benefit to those concerned with the extension of credit. R.esponrlents obviously do not qualify as a credit bureau and we fmd that the use of that term in their name is misleading. Cf. In the :\fatter of United States Retail Credit Association, lncorpomted Docket ?lo. 7488 (1960) .

Of the five organizations named by the hearing exa.miner as being members of the corporate respondent at the time complaint issued three were organized and became members within about three months S. ASSOCIATION OF CREDI1' BUREAUS mc. ET AL. 1051 1044 Opinion prior to the issuanc.e of the complaint and subsequent to the completion of the investigation in this matter. All three were organized for collection purposes only, thc stockholders of one being the individual respondents herein while the other two were organized by a friend of respondent Burns with the assistance of respondents collection attorney.

Another of the organizations entered into an agreement with the corporate respondent in October, 1955, whereby the latter agreed to provide guidance, assistance and instruction in the general conduct of a collection business. The evidence discloses that the sale owner of that business contacted respondents in 1955 seeking a job and ended up entering into the agreement. For a short time he opernted a small collection business which was being liquidated at the time of the hearing in 1958.

The fith company, Federated Credit Control Corporation, was organized by respondents Burns and Holder, who are the offccrs thereof less than one month before complaint issued. Admittedly, they began soliciting accounts for collection under that name to avoid unfavorable consequences attendant upon the issuance of the, complaint herein.

It is obvious from this record that respondents are nothing more than a single business enterprise and are not an association as that term is understood: of either credit bureaus or any other business enterprises. T'their use of the word "Association:' in their name is dearly false and deceptive and the hearing examiner was in error in not EO ruling.

Counsel supporting the compla.int has requested that the order include a provision which would prohibit the respondents from representing that their business is other than a collection agency. We have found that respondents have engaged in the practice of misre.presenting the nature of their business by the use of a corporate name ,which states that they are all association of c.redit bureaus. The courts ha,ve made it clear t hat the Commission is not hmited to proscribing an unfn.ir practice in the precise, form found to have existed in the past but may frame its order broadly enough to prohibit the future use of the deceptive practice in any fonn. 'Y0' believe. that the provision in the order as requested by counsel supporting the complaint is necessary to achieve that purpose. Counsel supporting the comphtint next contends that the hearing 8xamjner erred in failing to find that respondents falsely represent t.hat they arc in some manner connected ,vlth, or an agency the United States Goyernment. On this point, the hearing exarl1- 1 Consllmer Sales Corp. v. Fedei"I 'Pmde Oommis ion 198 P. 2(l 404 (5 S & D 419J (2cJ Cir. HJ;:2).

, 1052 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSlOC\ DECISlO~S Opinion ;:8 F. iner ruled in effect that the use of the name "United States" in connection with an insignia composed of a facsimile of the American €agle and a shield with stars on a blue background and bearing t.he islegend " A. of C, " on a red background, standing alone, not suffcient to justify a finding of government connection. He rejected the testimony of respondents' former clients on this point ,characterizing such testimony as mere vague statements of subjective impressions. V e have examined the testimony of these ,vitncsses and in our opinion, the hearing examiner failed t.o give proper weight t.hereto. An example of such testimony is that of f. E. Fisher, a creditor client, who, in answer to a question from the hearing examiner as to why he believed respondent corporation was connected with the government, testified: The Witness: Well, because they used this assumed name of this ""Gnited States" or whatever the name of the company is. 1111'. Kennedy: Do you want to use an exhibit? The Witness: The Vnited States Association -of Credit Rureaus. It led me to believe that they were connected 'with the United States some way in that. Another witness, Geraldine Capinski, st" ted: A. . . . But, just by looking at it United States Association it made us both think that it had something to do with the government. We do not regard such statements as being vague. In Olir view this test.imony, together with testimony of like effect by other client witnesses, constitutes reliable and probative evidence in support of this "l1egation. Moreover, t.his allegation is amply supported by the testimony of one of respondents' former solicitors Blumenshein, whose testimony was apparently ignored by the hearing examiner. Blumenshein stated that at the outset of his employment he himself inquired of respondents' representative who or-trained him whether either the represent.ative or respondents' ganization was with the government. ::10roover, he test.ified that Vis a gov- possibly one or two customers a day asl;;ed him if he ernment representative. Since these inquiries were not prompted by oral representat.ions, a reasonable inferenc.e is that they resulted from the literature bearing the corporate namf', and insignia ,,,hieh was used by Blumcnshein in soliciting accounts. It is undisputed that respondents are in no way c.onnected or States Government.associated ,with any branch of the United Accordingly, we find that respondents: use of the name "linited misleading. lore- States': together with the insignia is false and that respond- over, t.he evidence of record fully supports a finding ents' use of the name " United States " ,whether' or not used with the insignia, has a tendency and capacity to mislead and deceive S. ASSOCIATION OF CREDIT BB"REAUS, I , ET AL. 1053 I044 Opinion creditors. The initial decision s dismissal of this charge was therefore erroneous.

The next. issue raised by counsel supporting the complaint is w!lether the hearing examiner erred in failing to find that respondents falsely represented that their business is organized into separate functional eli visions.

The hearing examiner found that there was no evidence that respondents' solicitors had made the alleged representation and that no statement in respondents brochure supported such an interpretation. Counsel supporting the complaint, however, points to the following language in a so-called "'Yelcome Jetter (Commission Exhibit 28) sent by respondents to new creditor clients: "Each account is being carefully studied aud referred to the department ,ye believe best suited to handle the particular case, depending upon the circumstances involved. ,Whether it be our Collection Division our Tracing Division, our Credit Reporting Division, Analytical Division. . . local representatives, investigators, correspondents. . . depends upon the accollnt itseH and the reaction of the debtor aft.er the jnitial contact.: This letter is sent to fl client after respondents rece.ive from their solicit.or a list of aceou:nts that have been turned over for collection by that client.

The e.videnee establishes that with the possible exception of their skip-tracing function, respondents' business is not organized into separate functional divisions as represented in the letter. IIowever the hearing examiner ruled that since the letter was sent to the client after the accounts were assigned, it could not possibly have induced the assignment of those accounts. Thus, he concluded that said representation is harmle,ss and may be considered as mere puffng . However, the hearing examiner s eonclusioll overlooks the fact that. the "welcome" letter is an integral part of respondents' collection business. The evidence shows that in many instances clients assign only a portion of their available delinquent accounts when cont.acted by responclents solicitors. Hence, the "welcome letter may be construed as soliciting such additional accounts as is evidenced by the follow1ing language: "And, too: I would like to point out right here at the outset that. you may feel free to call upon us at any time for assistance, in connection ,,-ith your outstanding receivables. It. is clear that the assignment 01 accounts for collection and the solicitation thereof are continuing propositions not. limited to a,n initial cont.act by a solicitor. In our view the "welcome letter representation may well induce the assignment of further accounts. The hearing examiner s characterization &:

1054 FEDERAL TRADE COMldISSION DECISIQKS Opinion 58 F.

is inof the statement in the letter as "harmless and "puffng" error as is his ruling on this point.

The next question raised in the appeal of counsel supporting the compla-int relates to the examiner s ruling that the evidence fails to sustain a finding that respondents have ever represented that they employ local representatives on their persannelstaif in various states.

Page 3 of respondents' brochure is headed with the statement ,With OUI Nation ,Vide Associates, Affliates, Bonded Attorneys, Collectors, Investigators, and Skip-Tracers, directed by Nationally ICnown Leaders in this field, we ean convert your Losses into Recovered Principal and PROFIT" . On page 4 of this brochure there appears a map of the United States with numerous dots in each of the states. The map is headed with the statement "Points From lVhich You Can I-lave Personal Service On Your Accounts Thru Bonded Collectors and Investigators . In addition, the front page of the brochure bears a picture of respondents' offce building with the words "Ho:vrE OFFICE" depicted thereon in large letters. On the basis of our own examination of the brochure, we find it unnecessary to rule on the hearing examiner s rejection of the consumer testimony on this point.2 'Vo have no doubt that these statements do, and \\-ere intended to, convey the impre,ssion that respondents have offces throughout the eonntry and that on the st.aff of these oifl( es there are investigators, correspondents and lawyers employed by respondents for the purpose of coDeeting accounts.

It is admitted by respondents that except for their solicitors, aJl of their employees are located at respondents' only place of business in Oak Forest, Illinois. Also, the solicitors' function is limited solely to the soliciting of delinquent accounts from creditors and respondents' collection business is conducted almost entirely by mail. vVe find that the statements appearing in respondents' brochure are false and misleading and that the examiner erred in dismissing this charge.

The next issue for our consideration rebtes to the hearing examiner s finding that respondents misrepresented the amount percentage of their collection fees. Both sides lmve appealed on this -point, respondents contending that the fmding is not supported by the evidence and counsel supporting the complaint arguing that the finding should be broadened.

2l.mitchell S. Nohr v. Federal Trade Commi"sio?t, 272 F. 2d 401 (9th Clr. 1959), cffrt. den 6d, 362 'C. S. 920 (960) ; E. F. Drew Co., Inc. v. Fede!-al Trade Com, millllioJ1, 235 F. 2d 735 (2d Clr. 1956).

1). S. ASSOCIATIO OF CREDIT BUREAUS , INC. , ET AL. 1055 J044 Opinion It is undisputed that respondents represent that their maximum collection fce is fifty per cent. vVe agree with respondents that the evidence does not support a finding that respondents have charged a listing fee of fifty cents on the same account on which it has charged a fifty per cent commission. However, it is clear from the documentary evidence that respondents do charge a listing fee on accounts submitted to them for conection even though no collection was made thereon. Also, it is respondents' practice to deduct the listing fce for accounts on which no col1sections were effected from the proceeds obtained from those accounts which they have collected and on which they have charged a fifty per cent commission. In one instance of record, respondents remitted to the creditor only about twenty per ce,nt of the amount collected on one account after deducting listing fee,s. Thus the evidence clearly supports a finding that respondents have engaged in the practice of misrepresenting the amount of their collect.ion fees. Accordingly we do not find it necessary to rule on the request of counsel supporting the complaint for a finding that respondents have falsely represented the amount of the collection fees in certain other respects. The hearing examiner s order on this point, which \e are adopting, is properly designed to prohibit future use of the il1legal practice whether accomplished through listing fees or any other manner. Respondents use and have caused the use of Skip-tracing forms designed to obVlin informat.ion relating to dej1nrluent debtors. The complaint alleges that through the use of such material, respondents have represented that it is to the adc1ressee s financial advantage to respond to the questions asked on the forIn. It is further alleged that the amount of financial advantage given in return is insuffcient to justify any reference to it and that the use of such forms has a tendency and capacity to mislead recipients into disclosing informat.ion they would not otherwise have supplied. The evidence discloses that respondents used skip tracing forms containing the alleged repl'esentation which they obtained from various skip-tracing organizations and that the financial advantage if any, accruing to the addressee was insignificant. It is, of course well settled that such forms ate deceptive and the hearing examiner correctly ruled on this point.. The record also discloses that. in addition t.o such forms, respondents USB forms which they themselves designed and prepared. The examiner found that respo'1dents' forms do not represent that it is to the addressee s financial advantage to respond thereto, that t.therefore those forms are not eoyered by the compl:int, and proceeded to rule that said forms are not in viobtion of the Federal Trade Commission Act. 1056 FEDERAL TRADE COM IISSION DECISIONS Opinion ti8 F. Both sides have appealed. Respondents contend that since they did nothing more than purchase the services of professional skiptracing organizations, they should not he subjected to a cease and desist order on the basis of those companies' forms. Also, they argue that their conduct with respect to the use of said forms does not constitute deceptive acts or practices in commerce. These same arguments were used by a collection agency in National Clearance Bnreau v. Federal Trade Commission 255 F. 2d 102 (3rd Cir. 1958) and were rejected by the court with the statement that they are so wholly lacking in merit as to require no detailed discussion. Likewise, there is no substance in respondents' argument that they have discontinued the use of the professional forms. One such form was in use by respondents even after complaint issued. As found by the examiner, there are no unusual circumstances in connection it.h respondents' discontinuance of those forms nor there any record basis for a conclusion that the practice charged has been surely stopped ,,-ith no likelihood of resumption. Respondents appeal on this issue is denied.

That respondents ha\Te used certain skip- tracer forms as alleged in t.he complaint in violation of the 1fw is fully established. Thus the hearing examiner s findings that. other forms were not in violation of the .Federa.1 Tradr Commission Act is beside the point. 1,,10roover, the hearing examiner s order on this point obviously was fashioned to reflect his vic"Wsas to the other forms. In our opinion his order is not suffciently broad to prevent the future use of the unfair practices in which respondents are found to have engaged namely, obtaining information concerning delinquent debtors by deceit and inducing debt.ors and others to furnish information they would not otherwise have, furnished had the true purpose of the request been disclosed. 'Ve have so indicated In the Matter of i1itohell S. Hohr Docket No. 6236 (1958), and our modified order was sustained by the Court. The order to be issued herein wil conform to the requirements of the modified order in that case. Respondents have appea.led from the hearing examiner s ruling that they falsely represent that personal calls are made on debtors. As we ha,ve previously stated, page 4 of a brochure used by respondents in soliciting accounts, hears a map of the United Stat"" with dots spotted in each state. The map is headed in large letters with the statement "Points From ",Which Yau Can Have Personal Service On Your Accounts Thru Bonded Collectors And Investigators . The obvious interpretation of this claim is that bonded Mitchell S. Mohr v. Pederal Trade Commission, supra. ().

s. ASSOCIATION OF CREDIT BUREAVS IXC. ) ET AL. 1057 1044 Opi11ion collectors and investigators located in towns indicated by the dots would make personal calls on debtors to collect assigned accounts. It is admitted by respondents that the dots represent nothing more than places where collection attorneys Ested in various commercial law directories are located. The service.s of these attorneys are available to any creditor without the necessity of assigning accounts to respondents a,nd respondents have no control over the attorneys to whom they refer accounts insofar as personal contacts are concerned. It is clearly established.d that respondents' efforts in collecting accounts are confined primarily to correspondence and that their use of the above elaim is deceptive. Respondents' attempt to place a different interpretation on the claim avails them nothing. It is set.tled that where one of two meanings conveyed by an advertisement is false, the advertisement is misleading. As previously found, documentary evidence establishes that on certain accounts on which respondents ma.de no collection, a filing fee of fifty cents each was charged which was deducted from the proceeds of an account ,,'hieh had been pajd. On this basis, the hearing examiner found that respondents' chim "If There Are No Collections There Are No Charges " is deceptive. Respondents contend that the statement is true since if no collection is made on any of the account.s assigned by a particular creditor, no filing fees are charged. '\Ye think the claim may rea.sonably be interpreted as relat.ing to each specific account nssigned, regardless of respondents' action on any other of the creditor s accounts. 1Ve find that the claim is misleading and respondents ' appeal is rejected. Respondents ' contention that certain parts of the hearing examiner s order to cease and desist are too broad is without substance. Those parts of the order with ,,,which respondents take issue go no further than to preyent the future USB of those deceptive practices a1!eged in t.he complaint and shown by the record to have been engaged in by the respondents.

Counsel supporting the complaint has not appealed from the hearing examiner s dismissal of the allegation that respondents falsely represent. t.hat. they furnish credit. reports to part.ies who have assignec1 accounts to them. That respondents have made the alleged representation is not disputed.

The. evidence. shows that respondents are primarily engaged in collecting delinquent accounts a.nd the only credit information they obt.ain is incidental and pursuant to their operat.ion of that business. They are not an nssocint.ion of credit bureaus as their name Rhodes P/larmncal Co. , Inc. T. Federal Trade CommiMi,Oll 208 F. 2d 382 (7tll Clr 1953).

(jS12::7- , ,, 1058 FEDERAL TRADE COMivIISSION DECISIONS Complaint 58 F.

implies and the eyiclence fully establishes that respondents do not and are not equipped to furnish credit reports as that term is normally understood. Having l'eyiewed the record e believe that the allegation is supported and that the order should contain a prohibition against such practice.

In view of the foregoing, respondents' appeal is denied and the appeal of counsel support.ing the complaint is granted. The initial decision is set aside and we are entering our own findings as to the facts, conclusions and order to cease and desist in conformity wi th this opinion.

Commissioner :Elman did not participate in the decision OT this matter.