Koster-Pearl Furs, Inc.

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

IN THE i\IATTEH OF KOSTER-PEAHL FliRS, INC" ET AL, ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED YIOLATIQX OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COI'DIISSIDN AND THE F"L"" Products LABELING ACTS Docket 8-450. Com.plnint, Nov. 196.1-Deci!Jion, Feb. 24, 1962 Order requiring manufacturing furriers in J'ew York City to cease violating the Fur Proclucts Labeling Act hy failng to rlisdose on 1alJels and invoices that certain furs were dyed, and invoicing fur produc:s falsely to show that artificially colored fur was natural and that they had a continuing guaranty on file with the Commission.

COMPI,AINT 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 E:oster-Pearl Furs, Inc., a corporation, and Larry Koster, Bernard Pearl, David Koster, and Ralph Immeglueck, hereinafter referred to as respondents, have violated the provisions of said Acts and t.he Rules and Hegulations 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 ill that respect as follows:

PARAGRAPH 1. I(oster Pearl Furs, Inc., is a corporation organiz.ed and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Kew York with its oflce and principal place of business located at 150 West 28th Street, New York Larry Koster, Bernard Pearl, David Koster and Ralph Immeglueck are offcers of the said corporate respondent and control, direct and formulate the acts, practices and policies of the said corporate respondent. Their offce and principal place of business is the same as that of the corporate respondent, "'Released January 3, 1963.

KOSTER-PEARL FURS ET AL. 435 434 Complaint 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 commerce, and in the manufacture for introduction into commerce, and in the sale, advertising, and offering for sale, in commerce, and in the transportation and distribution, in com. Inerce, of fur products; and have manufactured for sale, sold, advertised, offered for sale, transported and distribut.ed 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 defuled 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 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and in the manner and form prescribed by t.he Hules and Hegulations promulgated thereunder. Among such misbranded fur products, but not limited thereto, were fur products with labels which failed to disclose that the fur contained in the fur products was dyed when such was the fact. PAR. 4. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced in that they were not invoiced as requiredlmder the provisions of Section 5(b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and in the manner and form prescribed by the Hules and Hegulations promulgated thereunder.

Among such falsely and deceptively invoiced fur products, but not limited thereto, were invoices which failed to disclose that the fur contained in the fur products was dyed when such was the fact. PAR. 5. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced in that said fur products were invoiced to show that the fur contained therein was natural when in fact such fur was bleached dyed or otherwise artificially colored in violation of Section 5(b) (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

PAR. 6. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced in that such invoices contained statements to the effect that the respondents have a continuing guaranty on file with the Federal Trade Commission when such is not the fact 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 Rules and Heglllations promulgated thereunder and const.itute unfair and deceptive acts and practices and unfair methods of competition in commerce under the Federal Trade Commission Act. Mr. Robert W. LowtMan for the Commission. )Jo appearance for respondents.

719-603 64-- 436 FEDERAL TRADE C01IMISSION DECISIOXS Initial Decis.ion 60 F.

Initial DECISION BY EAHL T. I(olb, HEAIUNG EXA1\IlXER The complaint in this proceeding charged the respondents lCoster- Pearl Furs! Inc., anew York corporation located at 150 ,Vest 28th Street, New York, K. , and Larry Koster, Bernard Pearl, David Koster and Ralph Innneglueck, individually and as offcers of said corporation, with the use of unfair and deceptive acts and practices in interstate commerce, in violation of the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission ..t\ct and the Fur Products Labeling - ct and the Rules and Hegulations promulgated thereunder. After the issuance of said complaint, the respondents filed their ans,yer thereto wherein they admitted an the lllaterial allegations set forth ill said complaint and vmived any hearings in this matter. This proceeding is now before the undersigned hearing examiner for fial consideration upon said complaint and answer thereto, and the hearing exanliner having duly considered the record herein, makes the following findings as to the facts, conclusion drawn therefrom and order:

PARAGRAPH 1. Respondent Koster-Pearl Furs, Inc., is a corporation organized and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the offce and principal place of businessState of New York with its located at 150 1Vest 28th Street, Kew York, N. Respondents Larry Koster, Bernard Pearl, David Koster and Ralph lmmeglueck arc offcers of the said corporate respondent and control direct and formulate the acts, practices and policies of the said 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 0, 1952, respondents have been and are now engaged in the introduction into commerce, and in the manufacture for 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 have manufactured for sale, sold, advertised, offered for sale, t.transported and distributed fur whichfur products which have been made in whole or in part of had been shipped and recei vecl in commerce as the terms "commerce "fur" and "fur product" are defined in the Fur Products Labeljng Act.

PAR. 3. Certain of said fur products ,,'ere misbranded in that they were not labeled as required lmder the provisions of Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and in the manner and form preseribec1 by the Rule,s and Regulations promulgated thereunder. KOSTER-PEARL FURS INC. ET AL. 437 434 Initial Decision Among such misbranded fur products, but not limited thereto, were fur products with labels which failcd to disclose that the fur contained in the fur products ,vas dyed when such was the fact. PAR. 4. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced in that they were not invoiced as required under the provisions of Section 5(b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and in the manner and form prescribed by the Rules and Hegulations promulgated thereunder.

Among such falsely and deceptively invoiced fur products, but not lilnjtec1 thereto, were invoices ,which failed to disclose t.hat the fur contained in the fur products was dyed when such was the fact. PAn. 5. Certain of said fur products ,"ere blsely and deceptively invoiced in that said fur products were invoiced to show that the fur contained therein was natural when in fact such fur was bleached dyed or otherwise artificially colored in violation of Section 5 (b) (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

PAH. 6. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced in that such invoices contained statements to the effect that the respondents have a continuing guaranty on file with the Federal Trade Commission when such is not the fact in violation of Section 5 (b) (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. COXCLUSlON The aforesaid acts and practices of respondents, as herein fOillCI are in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Ilegulations promulgated thereunder and constitute unfair ,wd deceptive acts and practices and unfair methods of competition in commerce under the Federa 1 Trade Commission Act. ORDER It is ordered That Koster Pearl Furs, Inc., a corporation, and its officers, and Larry Koster, Bernard Pearl, David Koster and Ralph Imn18glueck, 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 ll1manufacture for introduction, into commerce, or the sale, advertising or offering for sale in conm1erce, or the transportation or distribution in commerce of fur products; or in connection with the sale, manufacture for sale, advertising, offe,ring for sale, transportation or distribution of fur products which have boon Inade in whole 'Or in part of fur which has been shipped and received in commerce, as "com- , , 438 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION DECISIONS: Complaint 60 F.

merco fur:' and " fur product" are defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act, do forthwith cease and desist from: 1. ~Iisbranding fur products by:

A. Failing to affx labels to fur products showing ill words and fig. ures plainly legible all the information required to be disclosed each of the subsections of Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

2. Falsely or deceptively invoicing fur products by: A, Fa,filing to furnish to purchasers of fur products invoices showing in words and figures plainly legible a11 the information required to be disclosed by each of the subsections of Section 5 (b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling l1-Ct.

B. R,eprese.nting directly or by imp)jcatioll that the fur contained in fur products is natural, \\ hen such is not the fa.ct. C. Heprcsenting directly Ol by implication that respondents have a continuing guaranty on file with the Federa,l Trade Comlnission, when such is not the fact.

DECISION OF Tile C01l(llISSIO T AXD ORDER TO l"ILE REPonT OF COI'fI' lance Pm:suant to Section 4.19 of the Commission s Hules of Practice effective July 21 , 1961, the initial decision of the hearing exa-miner shall on the 24th day of February 1962, become the decision of the Comj11ission; anel, accordingly:

It lB o1Yle1'ed "t respondents herein shall, within sixty (GO) clays after service upon them o:f this order, file with the. Commission a report ill writing setting forth in detail the manner and form in which they have complied with the order to cease a,ncl desist. IN THE IA'I'TER OF THE PROCTER & GAMBLE CO IP ANY CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FED- EfuH, 'J\DE COl\nnsSIO ACT Dod' ct C- ComplahJ,t, Feo. 196i2-JJecisi.oJ1 , Feb. 2U , 19692 Consent order requiring the manufacturer of " Crest" toothpaste to cease repre+ senting falsely in advertising in ne\"vspapers and magazines and by tele\7ision that in test.s referred to Crest" was compared with competing brands of a commercially available tootl1paste wheu, in fact, it was compared 'with formulation substantially the sume as "Crest" out minus the ingrcdieut stannous fluoride.

THE PROCTER & GAMBLE CO. 439 438 Complaint COMPLAN.

Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act and by virtue of the authority vested in it by said Act, the Federal Trade Commission, having reason to believe that The Procter & Gamble Company, a corporation, hereinafter referred to as respondent, has violated the provisions of said, 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 ill that respect as follows:

PARAGRAPH 1. Respondent The Procter & Gamble Co. is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Ohio, with its principal offce and place of business loclltedllt 301 East 6th Street, Cincinnati, Ohio. PAR. 2. Respondent is now, and has been for more than one year last past, engaged in the manufacture, advertising, offering for saJe sa.le and distribution of various products, including a dentifrice designated "Crest" which comes within the classification of drugs and cosmetics as the terms "drug" and "cosmetic" are defined in the Federal Trade Corrunission Act.

PMt. 3. Respondent causes the sflid dentifrice, when sold, to be transported from its place of business in the State of Ohio to purchasers thereof located in various other states of the United States and in the District of Columbia. Respondent maintains, and at all times mentioned herein has mainta.ine, , a course of trade in said dentifrice in commerce as "commerce" is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act. The volwne of business in such commerce has been and is substantial PAR. 4.. In the course and conduct of its sa,ieI business, respondent has disseminated, and caused the dissemination of, certain advertisements concerning the said dentifrice by the United States mails and by various 1neans in commerce, as "commerce" is denned in the Federal Trade Commission Act, including, but not limited to, advertisements inserteel in ne"' spapers, magazines and other advertising media, and by means of television broadcasts transmitted by tele-dsion stfltions located in various states of the United States, and in the District of Columbia, having su:fci nt power to carry such broa,dcasts across state Jines, for the purpose of inducing, and which were likely to induce directly or indirectly, the purchase of sa,id dentifrice; and has disseminated, and caused the dissemination of, advertisements concerning said dentifrice by various means, including but not limited to the a.foresaid media, for the purpose of inducing and which were likely to induce directly or indirectly, the purchase of said dentifrice in com- . . . ...... ... 440 FEDERAL TRADE C01-n.HSSIO:L DEClSIO Complaint 60 F.

rnerce, as "commerce" is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act. PAR. 5. Among and typical of thc statements and representations contained in said advertisements disseminated as hereinabove set forth are the following:

Patti: "We joined a toothpaste test.

Reimers: "1With mother s permission, of course. Mrs. Timms: "'Veil, I (lid feel that all toothpastes were alike. But if ODe cou.ld reduce ea vities . . . the test would be worthwhile. H,eimers: " And 1Oa, it? Here s a film report, by Patti. The test divided YOll into two groups?"

Patti: "Right. . . My group used Crest toothpaste and the other group used regular toothpaste. They told us to brush as usual." Reimers: "How d your group do 1"

Patti: "Really great! After ODe year, my group had forty-nine percent fe\ver eavities with Crest!"

Reimers: " Stil think all toothpastes are alike, Mrs. Timms?" ::lrs. Timms: "Xot \"ith results like those from the Crest group. Reimel"s: "Crest with E'luoristan . , . so different, it's patented,. *.. *" Laraine: "Did everyone use Crest, Jim?"

Jim: "Xo. Xo, we used Crest. . the others used regular toothpaste. Laraine: "Any special rules, Mrs. Clayton?" ::Irs. Clayton: "1\0 . . . they all brushed as usual for two years. araine: "And what were the results, Jim'!" Jim: "We got twenty five percent fewer cavities with Crest." Larfiine: "1,Vonderful! You were in another test, weren t you?" Cynthia: "Yes.

Laraine: "'Yell, Cynthia, did your Crest group do as well as Jim s?" Cynthia: "lDvcn better.

Laraine: Better? 'Vas it run the sameT' Cynthia: "Uh-huh and ,ve had forty-nine percent fewer cavities with Crest after a year.

Laraine: ('1'0 Camera) "Are you stil using regular toothpaste . , when you could be reducing cavities with Crest. * 'I *" Blair: "The tests were of Crest against regular toothpaste. And half the group used Crest, and the other half regular toothpaste?" Gary: "Yes, sir. The Dentist told everybody to brush the same way as always at !lome, and my side got 25 percent fewer cavities. Blair: "Now, your half of the test group used Crest, Cheryl?" Cheryl: "Yes, that' s right, and the other group used regular toothpaste. Blair: "And the Crest users got. . .

Cheryl: "Forty-nine percent fewer cavities after one year. , ...... ... THE PROCTER & GAc.IBLE CO. 441 438 Complaint Blair: "Are you stil using regular toothpaste when you could be reducing cavities with Crest?"

ests in which Crest had to prove its superiority over regular toothpaste. And did in test after test.

Are you stil using regular toothpaste when you could be reducing cavities with Crest? In a clinical test with 382 children, half used regular toothpaste for two years, half used Crest.

. '" .. Crest gives you protection no other toothpaste can provide. '" '" . Crest can llea. fewer cavities fof your family. Isn t it time you switched? Again, conditions were identical for both Crest users and regular toothpaste users. '" '" '" So don t expect miracles from Crest. Just fewer cavities. As always. . . conditions were identical. Half used Crest. Half used regular toothpaste. '" '" '" In every test Crest made the difference. Because in every test conditions were identical for both the Crest users and those who used regular toothpaste.

PAR. 6. The expression regular toothpaste, used in the above advertisements may be understood to refer to brands of commercially availablo toothpaste competing with Crest. Through the use of said advertisements and others similar thereto, not specifically set out here- , respondent has represented, directly or by implication, that in the tests referred to in said advertisements Crest was tested in comparison with competing brands of commercially available toothpaste. PAR. 7. The aforesaid advertisements were and are misleading in material respects and constituted and now constitute "false advertisements" as that term is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act. In truth and in fact, in the tests referred to in the aforesaid advertisements Crest was not tested in comparison with competing brands of commercially available toothpaste. In such tests Crest was tested in comparison with a formulation which was the same or substantially the same as Crest but minus the ingredient stannous fluoride, which formulat.ion was not the same as that used in some makes or brands of commercially available toothpaste which are used by a substantial portion of the consuming public. Furthermore, the toothpaste with which ,Crest was compared in the aforesajd tests was not a commercially available brand of toothpaste.

PAR. 8. The dissemination by the respondent of the false advertisements, as aforesaid, constituted and now constitutes, unfair and deceptive acts and pra,ctices, in commerce within the intent a,nd meaning of the Federal Trade Commission Act.

442 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSIO:, DECISIOXS Order 60 F.

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 respondent having been served with notice of said determinat.ion and with a copy of the complaint the COlml1ission intended to issue, together with a proposed form of order; and The respondent and counsel for the Commission having t.hereafter executed an agreement containing a consent order, an admission by respondent of all the jurisdictional facts set forth in the complaint to issue herein, a staten1cnt that the signing of said agreement is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by respondent that the law has been violated as set forth in such complaint, and waivers and provisions as required by the Commission rules; and The Commission, having considered the agreement, hereby accepts same, issues its complaint in the form cont.emplated by said agreement, makes the following jurisdictional findings, and enters the following order:

1. nespondent, The Procter & Gamble Company, is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of t.he Stat.e of Ohio, with its offce and principal place of business located at 301 East Sixth Street, Cincinnati, Ohio. 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.

OlilER It is onlend That respondent The Procter & Gamble Company, a corporation, and its offcers, agents, representa.tives, and employees direct))' or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the offering for sale, sale or distribution of a,ny dentifrice or any other drug or cosmetic product, do forthwith c ase and desist from:

1. Disseminating or causing to be disseminated any advertisement by means of the 1Jnlted States mails or by any means in commcrc.e as "commerce" is deiined in the Federal Tra,c1c Commission Act which advertisement:

(a) Represents, directly or indirectly, t.hat any drug or cosmetic product has been tested in comparison with competing products, when such is not the fact;

'0. JACK l\LLER 443 438 Complaint (b) Misrepresents the manner in which any such drug or cosmetic product has been tested.

2. Disseminating or causing the dissemination of any advertisement by any means for the purpose of inducing or which is likely to induce, directly or indirectly, the purchase of said product in commerce, as "coTIncrce" is defu1ed in the Federal Trade Commission Act, which ,advertisement contains any of the representations prohibited in Paragraph 1 hereof.

It is further ordered That the respondent herein shall, within sixty (60) days after service upon it of this order, file with the Commission a report in writing setting forth in detail the manner and form in which it has complied with this order. IN Tile JY TTR OJ"

O. JACK MILLER CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF TIE FEDERAL TRADE CO BnssIOX ACT Doc7cet 0-S5. Complaint, F'eb. 1962-Decision, Feb. , 1962 Consent order requiring a Milwaukee seller of contact lenses designated Occulettes" to cease representing falsely in newspaper and other advertising that his said contact lenses did not rest upon the eye and were thus more comfortable than other lenses; that they could be worn all day, without discomfort, by anyone in need of visual correction; and that wearers of his lenses could discard eyeglasses. COMPLAINT Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade C0ll11sslon Act and by virtue of the authority vested in it by said Act, the Feder, Trade Commission, having reason to believe that O. .J ack Miler, hereina.after referred to as respondent, has violated the provisions of said Act, and it appearing to the Comnlission 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. Respondent O. Jack :Miner is an individual with his principal offce and place of business located at 736 1Vest 1Visconsin A ycnue, J\1ilwaukee, ,Vis.

PAR. 2. Respondent is now, and has been for more than one year last pa.st, engaged in the stlle and distribution of contact lenses which are designated a.nd sold under the trade name "Occulettes . Contact lenses are designed to correct errors a.nd deficiencies in the vision of 444 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSIOK DECIBIONS Complaint 60 F.

the wearer and are devices as "device" :is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act.

PAn. 3. In the course and conduct of his business, respondent has disseminated, and caused the dissemination of, certain advertisements concerning the said contact lenses by the United States mails, and by various means in commerce, as "commerce" is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act, including, but not limited to advertisements inserted in newspapers and other advertising media for the purpose of inducing and which were likely to induce, dire"tly or indirectly, the purchase of said contact lenses; and has disseminated, and caused the disselninatioll of, advertisements concerning said contact lenses by various 111cans, including but llot will1ited to the aforesaid media for the purpose of inducing and which ,ycrc likely to induce, directly or indirectly, the purchase of said devices in commerce as "cOlnmerce is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act. PAR. 4. Among and typical, but not a11 inclusive, of the statements and representations contained in said advertisements disseminated as hereinabove set forth are the following: See without Glasses.

Wouldn t you rather see without glasses? Of course you ,youlc1 and you probably call.

You see Occulettes are here, those amazing new invisible lenses that don toneh the eyes.

ve heard of contact lenses. ow The Big :\ews is contact-less lenses- You Occnlettes.

They don t tonch the eye.

The most wonderfully comfortable inyisible lenses are tiny Occulettes. The eontact has been taken out of contact lenses, and nmv contact-less lenses are here: Just imagine \-"hat this can mean to you if you Te wanted to throw away your glasses, but doubted your abilty to wear contact lenses. Imagine the Ilew fun and freedom, the new comfort and convenience that can now be yours with Occulettes, contact-less lenses.

Yes, you can try Occulettes without delay. . . You ve everything to gain. . in fact day long, even life long comfort.

PAR. 5. Through the use of said advertisements and others of similar import not specifically set out herein, respondent has represented and is now representing directly and by implication 1. That respondent's contact lenses are designed so they do not rest upon the eye while other contact lenses do and tlmt they itre therefore more comfortable and better fitting than other contact lenses. 2. That respondents cont.act lenses can be worn an day. s contact lenses. 3. There is no discomfort in wearing respondent' 4. Al1 persons in need of visual correction can successfully wear respondent' s contact lenses.

O. JACK MILLER 445 443 Decision and Order 5. Respondent's lenses can replace eyeglasses to the extent that eyeglasses can be discarded.

PAR. 6. The said advertisements were, and are misleading in mate- Tial respects and constituted, and now constitute, "false advertisements" as t.hat t.erm is defined In the Federal Trade Commission Act. In truth and in fact 1. Respondent's lenses are not more comfortable or better fitting than any other contact Jenses for tbe reason that they do not rest upon the eye, since all contact lenses Test upon the eye. 2. lany persons cannot wear respondent's lenses all day and no person can weal' said lenses all day until such person has become fully adjusted thereto and many persons can never become so adjusted to COD t.act lenses.

3. Practically all persons wil experience some discomfort when first wearing respondent' s lenses. In a significant number of cases discomfort ".ill bc prolonged.

4. A signific.rmt number of persons In ne,ed of visual correction cannot sllccessfully \Vert respondent' s contact lenses. 5. Said lenses cannot replace eyeglasses for all purposes for all persons. Some persons cannot discard their eyeglasses upon the purchase of respondent s lenses but must continue to use them for sub. stantial periods of time.

PAR. 7. The dissemination by the respondent of the false advertisements, as aforesaid, constituted and now constitutes unfair and deceptive acts and practices, in c.commerce, within the intent and meaning of the Federal Trade Commission Act.

DECJSTON AND Order The Commission having hereto.afore determined to issue its complaint charging the respondent named in the caption hereof with violation of the Federal Trade Commission 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 or order; and The respondent and counsel for the Commission having thereafter executed an agreement containing a consent order, an admission by respondent of all the jurisdictional facts set forth in the complaint a stfltement that the signing of said agre,ement is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute fin admission by respondent that the law has been violated as set forth in the complaint, and waivers and provisions as required by thc Commission s rules j and 446 FEDERAL TRADE cO::nnSSIOX DECI&IO Decision and Order GO F. The Comnlission, 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, O. .Jack Miler, is an individual with his offce and principal place of business located at 736 Divest IVisconsin A venue in the city of Milwaukee, State of IVisconsin. 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 J t ;8 ordered That respondent O. .J ack Miller and respondent' representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the offering for sale, sale or distribution of contact lenses sold under the name "Occulettes or under any other name or names, or any other contact lcnses of substantially the same construction or properties, do forthwith cease and desist from directly or indirect.ly:

1. Disseminating, or causing to be disseminated, any advertisement, by means of the United States mails, or by any means in commerce" as "commerce" 18 defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act, which advertisement represents directly or by implication that; A. Respondent's lenses do not rest upon the eye or that said lenses are more comfortable than other contact lenses. B. R.cspondent.s contact lenses can be worn by everyone all day or that anyone can wear them an day unless It is clearly rcycalec1 that this is possible only after the wearer has bec0111c fully adjusted thereto. C. The-re is no discomfort in wearing respondent' s cont.act lenses unless it is clearly revealed that practically all persons will experience some discomfort ,yhen first wearing respondent's lenses, and that in a significant number of cases discomfort will be prolonge, D. All persons ill need of visual correction can suceessfully wear respondent's contact lenses.

E. Respondent's lenses can replace eyeglasses to the extent. that eyeglasses can be discarded by all persons. 2. Disseminating or causing to be disseminated, any advertisement by any means for t.he purpose of inducing or which is likely to induce directly or indirectly, the purchase of said products ill eomlnerce as "commerce" is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act, which advertisement contains any representations prohibited in paragraph 1 hereof.

W ASHINGTOX TRAIXING INSTITUTE 447 443 Complaint 1 tis j1u,tlwr oTdeTecl That the respondent herein shall, within sixty (60) days after senice upon him of this order, file with the Commission a report ill \"\writing setting forth in detail the manner a.nd form in