Annis Furs, Inc.

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

In THE Martrer oF ANNIS FURS, INC., ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FED- ERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND THE FUR PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket C-285. Compaint, Sept. 13, 1962—Decision, Sept. 18, 1962 Consent order requiring New York City furriers to cease violating the Fur Products Labeling Act by advertising in newspapers which represented sale prices of fur products as reduced from purported regular prices which were in fact fictitious and which stated falsely that customers could “Save 14, 4%, %, and more”; and by failing to maintain adequate records as a basis for price and value claims.

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 Federa] Trade Commission having reason to believe that, Annis Furs, Inc., a corporation, and Felix Merrick, an individual and employee of the said corporation, hereinafter referred to as respondents, have 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: Paracrapy 1. Respondent Annis Furs, Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Delaware with its office and principal place of business located at 180 West 30th Street, New York, N.Y. Respondent Annis Furs, Inc., is a wholesaler and retailer of fur products. Respondent Felix Merrick is an employee of the said corporate respondent and participates in controlling, formulating and directing the acts, practices and policies of the said corporate respondent. His office and principal place of business is the same as that of the said corporate respondent.

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 sale, advertising, and offering for sale, in commerce, and in the transportation and distribution, in commerce, of fur products; and have sold, advertised, offered for sale, transported and distributed fur products which have een made in whole or in part of fur which had been shipped and Complaint 61 F.T.C.

received in commerce as the terms “commerce”, “fur” and “fur product” are defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act. Par. 8. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively advertised in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act in that respondents caused the dissemination in commerce, as “commerce” is 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.

Par. 4. Among and included in the advertisements as aforesaid,. but not limited thereto, were advertisements of respondents, which appeared in issues of the Arkansas Gazette and Arkansas Democrat, newspapers published in the City of Little Rock, State of Arkansas,, and having a wide circulation in said State and various other States. of the United States.

By means of said advertisements and others of similar import and meaning, not specifically referred to herein, respondents falsely and deceptively advertised fur products in that said advertisements : (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 respondents in the recent regular course: of business, in violation of Section 5(a) (5) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and Rule 44(a) of said Rules and Regulations. (b) Represented through percentage savings claims such as “Save V4, 1, 44, and more” that prices of fur products were reduced in direct proportion to the percentage of savings stated when such was not the fact, in violation of Section 5(a) (5) of the Fur Products Labeling: Act.

Par. 5. Respondents 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. Respondents in making such claims and representations failed to maintain full and adequate records disclosing the facts upon which such claims and representations were based in violation of Rule 44(e) of said Rules and Regulations.

Par. 6. The aforesaid acts and practices of respondents, as herein alleged, are in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the ANNIS FURS, INC., ET AL. 585 583 Decision and Order Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder and constitute unfair and deceptive acts and practices and unfair methods of competition in commerce under the Federal Trade Commission Act. DECISION AND ORDER The Commission having heretofore determined to issue its com- ‘plaint 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 counse] 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 statement 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 the complaint, and waivers and provisions as required by the Commission’s 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, Annis Furs, Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of ‘Delaware with its office and principal place of business located at 180 West 30th Street, New York, N.Y. Respondent Annis Furs, Inc., is a wholesaler and retailer of fur products. Respondent Felix Merrick is an employee of the said corporate respondent and his address is the same as that of the said corporate respondent.

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 ts ordered, That respondents Annis Furs, Inc., a corporation, and its officers, and Felix Merrick, individually and as an employee of said corporation, and respondents’ representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the introduction into commerce or the sale, advertising or offering for sale in commerce, or the transportation or distribution in commerce, Syllabus 61 F.T.C.

of any fur product; or in connection with the 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 product” are defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act, do forthwith cease and desist from: 1. 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:

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 price at which respondents have usually and customarily sold such products in the recent regular course of business.

B. Represents directly or by implication through percentage savings claims that the prices of fur products are reduced in direct proportion to the percentage of savings stated, when such is not the fact.

C. Misrepresents in any manner the savings available to purchasers of respondents’ fur products.

2. Making claims and representations of the types covered by subsections (a), (b), (c) and (d) of Rule 44 of the Regulations promulgated under the Fur Products Labeling Act unless there are maintained by respondents full and adequate records disclosing the facts upon which such claims and representations are based.

lt is further ordered, That the respondents herein 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 this order.