Leifer-Levitt, Inc.

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

IN THE MATTER OF LEIFER-LEVITT, INC., ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FED- ERAL TRADE CO1tI~fISSION AND THE FUR PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Dooket 0-221. Complaint, Sept. 1962-Decision, Sept. , 1962 Consent order requiring manufacturing furriers in New York City to cease violating the Fur Products Labeling Act by labeling and invoicing as "natural fur products which were artificially colored, and failing to show on labels and invoices when they were bleached or dyed; and by furnishing false guaranties with respect to certain of their fur products by representing falsely in writing that they had a continuing guaranty on file with the . Commission.

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 Leifer-Levitt, Inc., a corporation, and Abe Leifer and Samuel Levitt, individually and as officers of said corporation, hereinafter referred to as respondents, have violated the provisions of such 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: P ARAGR.-\PH 1. Leifer-Levitt, Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York.

Individual respondents Abe Leifer and Samuel Levitt are officers of the said corporate respondent and control, direct and formulate the acts, practices and policies of said corporate respondent. Respondents are manufacturers of fur products and have their office and principal place of business at 350 Seventh Avenue, New York PAR. 2. Subsequent to the effective c1atB of the Fur Products Labeling Act on August 9, 1952, respondents have been and are now engaged in the introduction into COIIllllerce, and in the 1l1manufacture for introduction intocomlllerce, and in the sale, advertising and offering for sale, in conl1nerce, and in the transportation and distribution, in comn1erce, of fur products; and have manufactured for sale, sold, advertised, offered for sale, transported and distributed fur products which have been lllade in whole or in part of fur which had been shipped and , LEIFER-LEVITT, INC., ET AL. 483 482 Complaint received in C01111nerce, as the terms "comlnerce 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 fals~ly and deceptively labeled or otherwise falsely and deceptively identified 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 4(1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. PAR. 4. Certain of said fur products were misbranded in that they were not labeled as required lUlder the provisions of Section 4 (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and in the 111anner and fornl prescribed by the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder. Among such Inisbrancled fur products, but not limited thereto, were fur products with labels which failed to show that the fur product contained or wascO111posed of bleached, dyed, or otherwise artificially colored fur, when such was the fact.

PAR. 5. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced by the respondents in that they were not invoiced as required by Section 5 (b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act, and the Rules and Regulations pro111ulgated under such Act. .AJnong such falsely and deceptively invoiced fur products, but not lilnited thereto, were invoices pertaining to sudlfur products which failed to disclose that the fur contained in the fur products was bleached, dyed, or otherwise artificially colored, when such was the fact.

PAR. 6. 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. 7. Respondents furnished false guaranties under Section 10 (b) of the Fur Products Labeling Act with respect to certain of their fur products by falsely representing in writing that they had aeontinuing guaranty on file with the Federal Trade CO1l1111ission when respondents in furnishing such guaranties had reason to believe that the fur products so falsely guaranteed would be sold, transported and distributed in commerce, in violation of R.ule 48 (c) of the Rules and Regulations promulgated under the Fur Products Labeling Act and Section 10 (b) of said Act.

PAR. 8. The aforesaid acts and practices of respondents, as herein alleged, are in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and R,egulations prOll1ulgated thereunder and constitute lmfair and deceptive -acts and practices and unfair methods of competition in commerce under the Federal Trade Comlnission Act. , Decision and Order 61 F.

DECISION AND ORDER The Conln1.ission having heretofore determined to issue its complaint charging the respondents named in the caption hereof with violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Fur Products Labeling Act, and the respondents 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 respondents and counsel for the Commission having thereafter executed an agreement containing a consent order, an admission by respondents of all the jurisdictional facts set forth in the complaint to issue herein, a statmnent that the signing of said agreement is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by respondents that the law has been violated as 'set forth in such complaint, and "waivers and provisions as required by the Col1llnission rules; and 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, Leifer-Levitt, Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the hnvs of the State of New York, ,with its office and principal place of business located at 350 Sev,enth Avenue, in the city of New York, State of New Yor1\:. COl'- Respondents Abe Leifer and Samuel Levitt are officers of said pol' ation and their address is the same as that of said corporation. 2. The Federal Trade Comlnission has jurisdiction of the subje.ct matter of this proceeding and of the respondents, and the proceeding is in the public interest.

ORDER It is ordel' That respondents Leifer-Levitt, Inc., a corporation and its officers, and Abe Leifer and Samuel Levitt, individually and as officers of said corporation and respondents' representatives, agents and employe. , directly or through any corporate or othet device, in connection with the introduction or manufacture for introduction, into commerce, or the sale, advertising, or otIering for sale in commerce or the transportation or distribution in commerce, of any fur product; or in connection with the manufacture for sale, sale, advertising: offering for sale, transportation, or distribution of any fur product which is made in whole or in part of fur which has been shipped and received in commerce, as "commerce fur:' and "fur produce' are , , INC. , ET AL. 485 S. CHEMICAL & PLASTICS, 482 Syllabus defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act, do forthwith cease and desist from:

1. ~fisbranding fur products by:

A. Representing directly or by implication on labels that fur contained in fur products is natural, when such is not the fact.

B. 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) the Fur Products Labeling Act.

2. Falsely or deceptively invoicing fur products by : A. Representing directly or by implication on invoices that the fur contained in fur products is natural, when such is not the fact.

fur prod- B. Failing to furnish invoices to purchasers of ucts showing in words and figures plainly legible all the inforn1.ation required to be disclosed by each of the subsections of Section 5 (b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. 3. Furnishing a false guaranty that any fur product is not misbranded, falsely invoiced, or falsely advertised, when respondents have reason to believe that such fur product may be introduced sold, transported, or distributed in commerce. t is furthe1' ordered That the respondents herein shall, within sixty (60) days after service upon them of this order, file with the Col11.lnission a report in writing setting forth in detail the manner and form in which they have complied with this order. IN THE ~1:A TTER S. CHEMICAL & PLASTICS, INC., ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE :FEDERAL TRADE COl\OnSSION ACT Sept. 11, 1962 Docket C-222. Complaint, Sept. 196. Decision, Consent order requiring Canton, Ohio, distributors of plastic metal menders designated "Jet Black" Jet Bond" KwH\: Magic" and "Black Label" to \varebouse distributors and jobbers for resale to autobody repair shops and others, to cease representing falsely that such products were nontoxic and safe under all conditions of use, and to label containers of the products clearly and conspicuously with directions for safe use. 728-122-65- , , Complaint 61 F.

COMPLAINT 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 U.S. Chemical & Plastics, Inc., a corporation, and Jerome L. Maggiore, Philip ~laggiore and Jerome V. ~laggiore, individually and as officers of said corporation, hereinafter referred to as respondents, have violated the provisions of said Act, and it appearing to the ColTIll1ission 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 U.S. Chemical & Plastics, Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue the laws of the State of Ohio, with its principal office and place business located at 4944 Seventeenth Street, S. , in the city of Canton State of Ohio.

Respondents J erOllle L. ~laggiore, Philip 1vIaggioreand Jerome V. lVIaggiore are officers of the corporate respondent. They formulate direct and control the acts and practices of the corporate respondent including the acts and practices hereinafter set forth. Their address is the same as that of the corporate respondent. PAE. 2. Respondents are now, and for some time last past have been, engaged in the advertising, offering for sale, sale and distribution of, among other things, plastic metallnenders designated "Jet Black", " Jet Bond", "I\: wik Magic" and "Black Label" to warehouse distributors and jobbers for resale to autobody repair shops and other consumers.

PAR. 3. In the course ' and conduct of their business respondents now cause, and for some time last past have caused, their said products when sold, to be shipped from their place of business in the State of Ohio to purchasers thereof located in various other States of the Vnited States, and maintain, and at all times mentioned herein have maintained, a substantial course of trade in said products in commerce as "commerce" is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act. PAR. 4. In the course and conduct of their business, and for the purpose of inducing the sale of their plastic metal menders designated Jet Black" Jet Bond" I(:wik Magic" and "Black Label", respondents have made certain statements and representations in advertising in magazines of national circulation, in form letters, circulars and catalog sheets and on labels, and by other media, of which the following are typical:

. . , , S. CHEMICAL & PLASTICS, INC. , ET AL. 487 485 Complaint Jet Black filler provides safety and is used with a non-toxic cream hardener Jet Bond also features non-toxic cream hardener. It also is non-toxic, and involves no itching. Jet Black '" Used with non-toxic cream hardener. will not irritate skin.

JET BOND DELIVERS safety-thanks to ** non-toxic cream hardener. Jet Bond cream hardener is non-toxic, no itching, no irritated skin. Kwik-Magic autobody filler with non-toxic cream hardener. KWIK MAGIC NO ITCH.

Safety (Kwik Magic Label) . Safety (Black Label Label) PAR. 5. By and through the use of the aforesaid statements and representations, and others of similar import but not specifically set forth her.ein, respondents represented, directly or by implication : (1) That the cream hardener is nontoxic.

(2) That the Inetal menders designated "Jet Black" Jet Bond" and "Irwik Nlagic" will not cause itching and are nontoxic and safe. (3) That the metal mender designated "Black Label" is safe. PAR. 6. In truth and in fact:

(1) The cream hardener is not nontoxic and 11lay cause itching or skin irritation as it contains benzoyl peroxide, which is a primary irritant and sensitizer to the skin.

. (2) The cream hardener nlust be combined with a putty to make the plastic nletal menders designated" Jet Black" Jet Bond" and IC wik lVlagic" and when this is done the products resulting therefrom may cause itching or skin irritation and they are not nontoxic and safe under all conditions of use.

(3) The putty and liquid hardener composing the metal mender designated "Black Label" are not safe and Inay cause itching or skin irritation as the putty contains cobalt naphthenate and the liquid hardener contains methyl ethyl ketone peroxide, both of which are primary irritants and sensitizers to the skin. The vapors from the methyl ethyl ketone peroxide contained in the liquid hardener may be harnlful if inhaled.

Therefore, the statenlents and representations set forth in paragraph 4 were, and are, false, misleading and deceptive. PAR. 7. The label on the respondents' cream hardener contains only cautionary statements as to the flmnmability of the product, as to its being kept out of reach of children and as to steps to be taken if it is ingested. However, the benzoyl peroxide contained in the eream hardener nlay through prolonged or repeated contact with the skin irritate or sensitize the skin and, therefore, in ease of eon tact should be flushed from the skin. The label on the respondents' cream hard- , , Complaint 61 I!"'.'l\C. eneI' is misleading in that it fails to reveal this material fact with respect to the consequences which Inay result froln the use of the product as directed on the labels for the putties used in the plastic metal menders desig1lated "Jet Black" t Bond" and "Kwik ~Iagic . Each of the labels on the respondents' putties used in the plastic metal menders designated "Jet Black:' Jet Bond" and "Ie wile ~~f,agie" is !misleading in that it fails to reveal the material fact that after the putty is mixed with the cream hardener the product. resulting therefrom may through prolonged or repeated contact with the skin irritate or sensitize the skin and, therefore, in case of contact should be flushed from the skin. The label on the respondents' liquid hardener contains only cautionary statements as to the flammabilit.y of the product, as to its being kept out of reach of children and as to the steps to be taken if ingested. However, the methyl ethyl ketone peroxide contained in the liquid hardener may through prolongeel or repeated eontact with the skin irritate or sensitize the skin and, therefore, in ease of contact should be flushed from the skin. The vapors from the methyl ethyl ketone peroxide contained in the liquid hardener may be harmful if inhaled and, therefore, the product should be used in a well ventihted area and the vapors avoided. The label on the respondents' liquid hardener is misleading in that it fails to reveal these matf\!'ial facts with respect to the eon sequences which may result from the use of said prodnet as directed on the label for the putty used 1:1.l Hle plf~:3tic metal mender designated "Blaek Label". The label on the respondents' putty used in the plastic metal mender designated "Black Label" contains only a cautionary statement as to the product being kept out of reach of ehildren. Because it contains cobalt naphthenate, the putty used in the plastic metal mender designated "Black Label" is toxic. if taken internally and therefore, if the putty is ingested vomiting should be induced and a physieinn consulted. The cobalt naphthenate contained in said putty and the methyl ethyl ketone peroxide contained in the liquid hardener which is mixed with the putty to IuRke the plastic. metal mender, may through prolonged or repeated contact \with the skin irritate or sensitize the skin and, therefore, in c.ase of eon tact should be. flushed from the skill. The label on the respondents' putty used in the plastic metal mender designated "Black Label" is misleading in that it fails to reveal these 'l11aterialfacts .with respect to the eonsequenees which may result from the use of said product as directed on its label and with respect to the conditions of its storage. The label on the respondents' putty used in the plastic metal mender desig1lated "B1a.ck Label" is further misleading in that it fails to reveal the material fact that after it is Inixed with the liquid hardener the vapors from the methyl ethyl ke- S. CHEMICAL & PLASTICS , INC. , ET AL. 489 485 Decision and Order tone peroxide contained in the liquid hardener may be harmful if inhaled and, therefore, the product should be used in a well ventilated area and the vapors avoided.

PAR. 8. In the course of their business, at all times mentioned herein respondents have been in substantial competition, in commerce, with corporations, firms and individuals in the sale of plastic metal menders of the same general kind and nature as that sold by respondents. PAR. 9. The use by respondents of the a.foresaid false, misleading and deceptive statements, representations and practices and failure to warn the purchasing public on the labels of the products of the dangers attendant to the use of the proch~cts have had, and now have the capacity and tendency to mislead members of the purchasing public into the erroneous and mistaken belief that said statements and representations were and are true and that there is no danger in use of the products and into the purchase of substantial quantities respondents ' products by reason of said erroneous and mistakenbeliefs.PAR. 10. The aforesaid acts and practices of respondents, as herein alleged~ were, and are, all to the prej uclice and inj ury of the public and of respondents' competitors and constituted, and now constitute unfair methods of competition in commerce andllllfair and deceptive acts and practices in COlnmerce, in violation of Section 5 of the Federal Trade. Commission Act.

DECISION AND ORDER The. Fede.ral Trade Commission having initiated an investigation ce.rtain acts and practices of the corporation name.d n,bove, and the respondents named in the caption hereof having been furnished thereafter with a copy of a draft of complaint which the. Bureau Deceptive Practices proposed to present to the Comlnission for its consideration and which, if issued by the. Commission, would charge the respondents with violation of the Federal Trade Comlnission Act; and The respondents and counsel for the Commission having thereafter executed an agreem,ent containing a consent order, an admission by the respondents of all the jurisdictional facts set forth in the aforesaid draft of complaint, a statement that the signing of said agreement is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an adlnission by the respondents that the law has been violated as alleged in such complaint, and waivers and provisions as required by the Commissjon s rules; and , , , Decision and Order 61 F.

The Commission, having reason to believe that the respondents have violated the Federal Trade Commission Act, and having determined that complaint should issue stating its charges in that respect, hereby issues its complaint, accepts said agreement, makes the following jurisdictional findings and enterstne following order: 1. Respondent, V.S. Chemical & Plastics, Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Ohio, with its office and principal place of business located at 4944 Seventeenth Street, S.W. in the city of Canton, State of Ohio.

Respondents, Jerome L. ~faggiore, Philip Maggiore and Jerome V. Maggiore are officers of the said corporation and their address is the same as that of said corporation.

2. The Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this proceeding and of the respondents, and the proceeding is in the public interest.

ORDER It ordered That respondent U.S. Chemical & Plastics, Inc., a corporation, and its officers, and respondents Jerome L. ~laggiore Philip Maggiore and Jerome V. ~laggiore, individually and as officers of said corporation, and respondents' representatives, agents and employees, directly Or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the offering for sale, sale or distribution in comnlerce as "commerce" is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act, of plastic metal menders designated "Jet Black" Jet Bond" I\:wik Magic" and "Black Label", or any other product or products of similar composition or possessing substantially similar properties under whatever name or nan1es sold, do forthwith cease and desist from: 1. Representing, directly or by implication: (a) That the cream hardener is nontoxic or will not cause itching or skin irritation.

(b) That any of the plastic metal menders is nontoxic or safe or will not cause itching or skin irritation. 2. Using a label on the container for the cream hardener which does not set forth in a clear and conspicuous manner the following statmnents :

CAUTION: I\:eep away from heat or flame. I\:eep out of reach of children. If taken internally, induce vomiting; consult physician. Avoid prolongeel or repeated contact with skin. In ease of eontact, flush skin with water. 3. Vsing a label on the container for any of the putties used in the plastic metal menders designated "Jet Black" Jet Bond" LAM FI CORP. ET AL. 491 485 Syllabus or "Kwik ~lagic, or any other product or products of similar composition or possessing substantially similar properties, which does not set forth in a clear and conspicuous manner the follow- ingstatements: CAUTION: After mixing with cream hardener, avoid prolonged or repeated contact with skin. In case of contact flush skin with water.

4. Vsing a label on the container for the liquid hardener which does not set forth in a clear and conspicuous manner the following 3tatements:

CAUTION: I(eep away from heat or flame. Keep out of reach of children. If taken internally, induce vomiting; consult physician. A void prolonged or repeated contact with skin. In case of contact, flush skin with water. Use in well ventilated area; avoid vapors.

5. Vsing a label on the container for the putty used in the plastic metal mender designated "Black Label", or any other product of similar composition or possessing substantially similar properties, which does not set forth in a clear and conspicuous manner the following statements:

CAUTION: Keep out of reach of children. If taken internally, induce vomiting; consult physician. Avoid prolonged or repeated contact with skin. In case of contact flush skin with water. Vse in well ventilated area; avoid . vapors.

1 t is further ordel' That the respondents herein shall, within sixty (60) days after service upon thelll of this order, file with the Commission a report in writing setting forth in detail the manner and form in which they have comphed with this order.