Joe D. Riff trading as Riff'S

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

In roe Marvrer oF JOE D. RIFF TRADING AS RIFF’S CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND THE FUR PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket C-9. Complaint, Oct, 28, 19¢1—Decision, Oct. 23, 1961 Consent order requiring a furrier in Longview, Tex., to cease violating the Fur Products Labeling Act by failing to identify on labels the manufacturer or seller of fur products; advertising prices of fur products as reduced from usual prices which were, in fact, fictitious; failing to keep adequate records as a basis for price and value claims; and failing 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 Joe D. Riff, an individual trading as Riff’s, hereinafter referred to as respondent, has 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: Paracrary 1. Joe D. Riff is an individual trading as Riff’s with his office and principal place of business located at Longview, Texas. Par. 2. Subsequent to the effective date of the Fur Products Labeling Act on August 9, 1952, respondent has been and is 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 commerce, of fur products; and has sold, advertised, offered for sale, transported and distributed fur products which have been made Complaint 59 F.T.C.

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. 3. Certain of said fur products were misbranded in that they were not labeled as required under the provisions of Section £(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and in the manner and form prescribed by the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder. Among such misbranded fur products, but not limited thereto, were fur products without labels and with labels which failed: (1) To show the name or other identification issued and registered ly the Commission of one or more of the persons who manufacture such fur product. for introduction into commerce, introduce it into commerce, sel] it in commerce, advertise or offer it for sale, in commerce, or transport or distribute it in commerce. 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 mingled with non-required information, in violation of Rule 29 (a) of said Rules and Regulations.

(b) Required item numbers were not set forth on Jabels, in violation of Rule 40 of said Rules and Regulations. Par. 5. 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 Re soulations promulgated thereunder.

Par. 6. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act in that they were not invoiced in accordance with the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in that. required item numbers were not set forth on invoices in violation of Rule 40 of said Rules and Regulstions. Par. 7. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively advertised in violation of the Fur Preducts Labeling Act in that respondent. 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.

RIFF'S 887 885 Decision Par. 8. Among and included in the advertisements as aforesaid, but not limited thereto, were advertisements of respondent which appeared in issues of the Longview Sunday News Journal, a newspaper published in the City of Longview, State of Texas, 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, respondent falsely and deceptively advertised fur products in that said advertisements: (a) Represented prices of fur products as having been reduced from regular or usual prices where the so-called regular or usual prices were in fact fictitious in that they were not the prices at which said merchandise was usually sold by respondent in the recent regular course of business, in violation of Section 5(a) (5) of the Fur Products Labeling Act, and Rule 44(2) of said Rules and Regulations. Par. 9. Respondent in advertising fur products for sale as aforesaid, made claims and representations respecting prices and values of fur products. Said representations were of the types covered by subsections (a), (b), (c) and (d) of Rule 44 of the Rules and Regulations promulgated under the Fur Products Labeling Act. Respondent in making such claims and representations failed to maintain full and adequate records disclosing the facts wpon which such claims and representations were based in violation of Rule 44(e) of 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 Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder and constitute unfair and deceptive acts and practices in commerce, under the Federal Trade Commission Act.

DECISION AND ORDER The Commission having heretofore determined to issue its complaint charging the respondent named in the caption hereof with violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Fur Products Labeling Act, and the respondent having been served with notice of said determination and with a copy of the complaint the Commission intended to issue, together with a proposed form of order; and The respondent and counsel for the Commission having thereafter executed an agreement containing a consent order, an admission by the respondent of all the jurisdictional facts set forth in the complaint, a statement that the signing of said agreement is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by respondent that the Jaw has been violated as set forth in the complaint, and waivers and provisions as required by the Commission’s rules; and Order 59 F.T.C.

The Commission, having considered the agreement, hereby accepts same, issues its complaint in the form contemplated by said agreement, makes the following jurisdictional findings, and enters the following order:

1. Respondent Joe D. Riff is an individual trading as Riff’s with his office and principal place of business located at Longview, Texas. 2. The Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this proceeding and of the respondent, and the proceeding is in the public interest.

ORDER Lt is ordered, That Joe D. Riff, an individual trading as Riff’s or under 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 of 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. Misbranding fur products by :

A. Failing to affix 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.

B. Setting forth on labels affixed to fur products information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder mingled with nonrequired information.

C. Failing to set. forth on labels the item number or mark assigned toa fur product.

2. Falsely or deceptively invoicing fur products by : A. Failing to furnish invoices to purchasers of fur products showing in words and figures plainly legible all the information required to be disclosed by each of the subsections of Section 5(b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. .

B. Failing to set forth on invoices the item number or mark assigned to a fur product.

3. 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: SMOLOWITZ & BENKEL, INC., ET AL. 889 885 Complaint A. Represents directly or by implication that. the regular or usual price of any fur product is any amount which is in excess of the prices at which respondent has usually and customarily sold such products in the recent regular course of business.

B. Misrepresents in any manner the savings available to purchasers of respondent’s fur products.

4. Making claims and representations of the types covered by subsections (a), (b), (c) and (d) of Rule 44 of the Rules and Regulations promulgated under the Fur Products Labeling Act unless there are maintained by respondent full and adequate records disclosing the facts upon which such claims and representations are based. lt is further ordered, That the respondent herein 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 this order.