Leon Younger

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

IN THE IATTEr: 01"

LEON YOUNGER ET AL. TRADING AS YOUNGER'S COXSEXT onder: ETC.: I REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE cmnIIssrox AND THE Fur PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket C-589, Complaint 8(1)/. 17 lfHS-Decis-ioll, Sept. 1/, 1963 Consent order requiring Louisvile, Ky., retail furriers, to cease violating Ole Fur Products Labeling Act by failng, on labels and invoices and in advertising, to show the true name of the fl1imal producing a fur: to show tbe country of origin of imported products on tags and invoices, to usc the word "natural" for unbleached furs in labeling and advertising; to show when furs were artificially colored and to dbclose the country of origin of imported furs on labels; by invoicing and !Hlverth:ing fur products deceptiyely as to the animals that p.oduced the fur; by representing prices of fur products falsely as reduced from so-called regular prices that were fictitious; by failng to maintain adequate records as a basis for pricing claims; und by failng in other respects to comply with requirements of tbe Act.

COMPI,AIX' Pursuant to the provisions of the Federa.l Trade Commission Act and ihe Fur Products Labeling Act and by virtue of the authority Yf:ste,c1 in it by said c\cts, the Federal Trade Commission having reason to believe that Leon Younger and Alvin Younger, individuals Hnd copart.ners t.trading as Y ounger, hereinafter referred to as respondents, han violated the provisions of said Acts a.nd the Rules nnd 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 in thitt respect 118 follows: PAR,\GnAl'H 1. Leon Younger and Alvin Younger are indivjc1uals and cop:lrtncrs trading as Younger s with their offce and principal place of business loented at 659 Sout.h Fourth St.reet, Louisville, ICentuchy. Respondents ate engagec1 in the reta,il sale of fur products. PAIL 2. Subsequent.lo the effective elate of the Fur Products Labeliug Act on Ang-nst 0 , 1952, respol1c1ent.s have been itnd arc now engnger1 in the introduction into commerce and in the sale, advertising, ancl offering for sale, in commerce, and in the transportation and distribution, in commerce, of fur products; and have sold, advertised , 730 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION DECI6IO Oomplaint 83 F.

offered for sale, transported and distributed 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 defined in the Fur Products Labeling Aet. 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 the Rules and Hegulations promulgated thereunder. Among such misbranded fur products, but not limited thereto were fur products wlth labels which failed: 1. To show the true animal nlLme of the fur used in the fur product. 2. To disclose that the fur contained in the fur product \\as bleached, dyed, or otherwise lLrtificially colored, when such was the hct.

3. To show the name or other identification issued and registered by the Connnission of one or more of the persons who mlLnufactured such fur product for introduction into commerce, introduced it into commerce, sold it in commerce: advertised or ouered it for sale in commerce, or tra,nsported or distributed it in commerce. 4. To show the country of origin of the imported furs used in the fur product.

PAR. 4-. Cert.ain of said fur products were misbranded in violation of the Fur Products LlLbeling Act in that they were not Jabeled accorela-nee wit.h the Rules and Hegulat.ions promulgated thereunder in the iol1mying respects:

(aJ Information required under Section 4,(2) of the Fur Products Labe,1jng '\ct and the Hulesanc1 Uegulations promulgated thereunder was set forth in abbreviated form in violation of Rule 4 of sain Rules and Regulations.

(b) The term nlLlural was not set forth to describe fur products when such fur products were not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed or otherwise artificially colored in viobtion of Rule 19 (g) of said Rules and Regulations.

(c) Information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regubtions promulgated thereunder WlLS set forth in handwriting on labels in viollLtion of Rule 29 (b) of said Hules and Regulations.

(d) Information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations prolllulgatecl thereunder \\"18 no;; set forth in Ole required sequence in violation of Rule 30 or Sflid Hnles and llegulations.

(e) Infornmtioll required under Section '1(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder YOUNGER' 731 725 Oomplaint was not set forth separately on labels with respect to each section or fur products composed of two or more sections containing different animal furs in violation of Rule 36 of said Rules and Regulations. (f) Required item numbers were not set forth on lwbels in violation of Rule 40 of said Rules and Regulations. PAn. 5. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deeepti very 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 fmd R.eg111ations promulgated under such Act. Among such falsely and deceptively invoiced fur products, but not limited thereto, were invoices pertaining to such fur products which failed:

1. To show the true animal name of the fur used in the fur product. 2. To show (he country of origin of imported furs used in the fur product.

PAR. 6. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiccd with respect to the name or names of the animal or animals that produced the fur from which said fur products had been m::nuiactured, iu violation of Section 5(b) (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

Among such falsely and deceptively invoiced fur products, but not limited thereto, \I-ere fur products invoiced as "Broadtail' " thereby implying that the furs contained in such fur products were entitled to the designation "Broadtail Lamb ' when in truth and fact the furs contained therein ,were from a lamb processed to rcsemble the broadtail lamb.

PAR. 7. Certain of said fur proc1acts were fa1sc1y 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 the following respects: (a) Information required under Section 5(b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Itules and Regulations promn1gated thereunder.r was set forth in abbreviated fOTm in violation of Rule -1 of said Rules and Regulations.

(b) The term "Broadtail Lamb" was not set forth on invoices in the ma,nner required, in violation of Rule 8 of said Rules and R.egulat.ions.

(c) The term "Dyed Broadtail-processed Lamb" was not set forth en invoices in the manner required, in violation of Rule 10 of said ules and Hcgulations.

(d) The, term natural Ivas not used to describe fur products which Tlere not point:ed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed, or otherwise artificially colored in violation of Rule 19 (g) of said Rules aud Regulations. , 732 FEDERAL TRADE COM fI8SIO:\ DECISIOXS Complaint 63 P.

PAR. 8. Certain of said products were falsely and deceptively advertised in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act in that said products were not advertised in accordance with the provisions of Section 5(a) of the said Act and the Rules and Rcgulations promulgated thereunder.

Said advertise,ments were intended to aid, promote and assist directly or indirectly in the sale and offering for sale of said products. Among and included in the advertisements as aforesaid, but not limited thereto were advertisements of respondents which appeared in the Courier-Journal, a new.spaper published in the city of Louisvile, State of Kentucky.

By means of said advertisements and others of similar import and meaning not specifiea,)1y referred to herein, respondents falsely and deceptively advertiscd fur products in that said advertisements failed to disclose the name or names of the animal or animals that produced the fur contained in the fur products as set fort.h in the Fur Products Name Guide in violation of Section 5(a) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

PAR. D. Respondents by means of the advertisements referred to in Poxagraph 8 hereof and others of similar import and meaning not ::pecifically referred to herein falsely and deceptively advertised fur products with respect to the name or names of the animal or animals that produced the fur from which said fur products had been manufactured, in yiobtion of Section 5 (a) (5) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

Among such falsely and dcceptiycly advertised fur products, but not limited thereto, were fur products advertised as "Broadtail" thereby implying that the furs contained in such fur products were entitled to the designation "Broadtail La.mb" when in truth and fact the furs contajned therein were from a lamb processed to resemble the broadtail lamb.

PAll 10. By mmms of t.he aforesaid advertisements and other advertisements of similar import and mea,ning not specifically referred to herein, respondents falsely and dcceptiyely advertised fur products in that said advertisements represented that the prices of fur products \were reduced from regular or usual retail prices and that the amount of such price reductions afforded savings to the purchasers of respondents' products hen t.he so-ca.llecl regular or usual retail prices were in fact fictitious in that they ere not the prices at which said merchandise was usually sold by respondents in the recent regular course of business and the represented savings were not thereby afforded to the purchasers, in violation of Section 5(a) (5) of the Fur Products YOUNGER' 733 729 Decision and Order Labeling Act and Rule 44 (a) of the Rules and Regulations promulgatec1under the said Act.

-\L 11. Respondents in udveTti ing fur products for sa.le as aforesaid made claims and representations respecting prices and values of TUl' products. Sa-id representations were of the types coveted by subcections (a), (b), (c) and (c1) of Rule H of t.he Rules and Regulations promulgated under the Fur Products Labeling Act. Respondents in making such cla,ims and representations fa.filed to maintain full and adequate records disclosing the facts upon \Which such claims and representations were ba.sed in violation of Rule 44 (e) of said Rules and Regulations. .

PAR 12. Respondents by the means herein before alleged falsely and deceptively advertised fur products in violat.ion of the Fur Products Labeling Act, in that said fur products were not advertised in accordance wit.h the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder. Among such advertisements, but not limited thereto, were advertisements which:

(It) Failed to set fort.h the t.erm "Dyed Broadtail-processed Lamb" in t.he manner required, in violation of Rule 10 of said Rules and Hegulations.

(1) Failed to use t.he term natural to describe fur products which "\\"ero not pointed, bleachec1 dyed, tip-dyed, 01' otherwise artiflCially colored in vjo1ation of Rule 19 (g) of said Rules and Regulations. PAR. 13. The aforesaid acts and practices of respondents, as herein flllegec1, are in violation of tl1C Fur Products Labeling Act and the TIu1es and R.egulations promulgated thereunder and constitute unfair and deceptive acts and practices and unfair methods of competi.tion in comerce under the Federal Trade C01mnission Act. DEOISIOX A)"D ORDER The Commission having heretofore determined to issue its com. plaint charging the respondents named in the caption hereof with violation of the Fecleral Trade Commission Act and the Fur Products Labeling Act., and the respondents having been served with notice of sa,id det.termination and 'with a copy of the complaint the Commission intended to issucj 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 jn the complaint (0 is:-m8 Lel'ein H, stateme,nt that the signing of said agreement is for sett1C:ll18nt purposes only and c1ces not constitute an admission , 734 FEDERAL TRADE CO:'LNII8SIQX DECI,SIQXS Decision and Order 63 p.

respondents 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 fornl contemplated by said agreement makes the following jurisdictional findings, and enters the following order:

1. respondents, Leon Younger and Alvin Younger are individuals and copartners trading as Younger s with their offce and principal place of business located at 659 South Fourth Street, in the city of Lonisvi1e, State of Kentucky.

2. The Fe,deral Trade Commission ha:8 jurisdiction of the subject matter of this proceeding ami of the respondents, and the proceeding is in the public interest.

Oil)ER It is ordered That respondents Leon Young-er and Alvin Younger individually and as copartners trflc1ing as Younger s or under any other trade name and respondents' representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in conuection \\ith tho introduction into commerce, or the sale, advertising, (lr offering for sale in commerce, or the transportation, or distribution in commerce, of any fur product; or in connection '11t, h the sale, Qch'ertising, offering for sale, tnmsportation, or distribution of any fur product which is made in ,,,hole or in part of fur which has been shippedancl received in commerce, as "commerce fur" and " fut product" are defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act, do forthwith cease and desist from:

1. Iisbranding fur products by:

A. Failing to aff 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 1(2) of the Fur Products Lwbeling Act.

B. Setting forth on labels affxed to fur products: (1) Information required under Section 1(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in abbreviated form. (2) InformCLtion required under Section 1(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Hules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in handwriting. C. Failing to describe fur products as natural when such fur products are not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed, or otherwise artificially colored.

YOL'KGER' 735 720 Decision and Orde.r D. Failing to set forth on labels the item number or mark assigned to fur products.

E. Failing to set forth separately on labels attached to fur products composed of two or more sections containing different animal furs the information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder -with respect to the fur comprising each section.

F. Failing to set forth the information required under Sc(:tion 4 (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules ami Regulations promulgated thereunder in the sequence required by Rule 30 of the aforesaid Rules and Regulations.

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. Falsely or deceptively invoicing any such product as to the name or designation of the animal.l or animals that produced the fur frolll which t.he fur product was manufactured. C. Failing to set forth the term "Broadtail Lamb" in the manner required where (111 eledion is m.ade to use that term in lieu of the VIaI'd "Lamb"

D. Failing to set forth the term "Dyed Broadtail-processed Lfllnb:: on invoices in the l18,nl1er required where an election is made to use that term in lieu of the term "Dyed Lamb"

E. Setting forth information required under Section 5 (b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in abbreviated form. F. Failing to describe as natural fur products which are not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed, or otherwise artificially colored.

3. Falsely or deceptively advertising fur products through the use of any advertisement, T2presentation, public announcement or notice, \which is intended to aid, promote or assist directly or indirectly in the saJe, 01' offering for sale of fur products and which:

A. Fails to set forth all the information required to be disclosed by each of the subsections of Section 5 (a) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

736 FEDERAL 1'TRADE COMMlSSWN DECISIONS Syllabus G3 F.

B. Contains any form of misrepresentation or deception directly or by implication, as to the name or designation of the animal or animals that produced the fur from which the fur product Tras manufactured.

C. Fails to set forth the term "Dyed Broadtail-processed Lamb" in the manner required where an election is made to use that te.rm in lieu of the term "Dyed Lamb" D. Represents that any price, ,1,hen accompanied or unaccompanied by any descriptive Innguage, was the price at which the merchandise advertised was usually and customarily sold at retail by the respondents unless such advertised merchandise .was in fact usually and customarily sold at retail at such price by the respondents in the recent past. E. Misrepresents directly or by implication that savings are available to purchasers of respondents' fur products. F. Fails to nse the term natural to describe fur products which are not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed, or otherwise artificially colored.

4. J\Iakillg cln,ims and represe,ntations of the types covered,d by subsections (a), (b), (c) and (d) of Rule 44 of the Rules and I egubtions promulgated under t118 Fur Products Labeling --:\.ct unless there are maintained b respondents full and adequate records disclosing the facts upon which11 such claims and representations are based.

It 7S further O?Ylend 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 fort.h in detail t.he manner fwd form in 'which they hate complied ,,,ith this order. Lv THE j\IATTEH OF THE KRAMER FUR CO., INC., TRADING AS KRAMER' CONSENT ORDER , ETC. , 1K REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE co:nnIISSIO AND THE Ji'UR PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket C-590. Complaint, Sept. .1963-Deci-sion, Sept. , 1963 Consent order requiring New Haven, Conn. , retail furriers to cease Yiolating tbe Fur Products Labeling Act by failing, in invoicing and newspaper adnrtising, to show the true animal name of fur, to clisclo e ,""ben fur was fllt.fieially colored, and to use the terms "::hltUral" and "Persian Lamb" as required; to identify the persall i.'3suing an i11,ojce and t.o show, on iu\'oices, tbe country of origin of imported fur.,,; ami failing b ot.her respects to comply with requirements of OJe Act.

, KHA:ver' 737 736 Complaint COl\PLAI Pursuant to the provisions or the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Fur Products Labeling Act and by virhlO of the authority vested in it by srdd Acts, the Federal Trade Commission having reason to believe that The Kramer Fur Co., Inc., a corporation, trading as Kramer, hereinaft.er referred to as respondent has violated the provisions of said Acts and the Rnles and Regulations promulgated under the Fur Products Labeling Act, and it appearing to the Commission that a proccediug 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 The Kramer Fur Co., Inc., doing business as I(rarner s is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under "nd by virtue of the laws of the State of Connecticut. Respondent is a retailer of fur products with its offce and principal place of business located at 191 Orange Street, New Haven, Connecticut.

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 COITnercc, 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 in whole or in part or furs 1which have 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 "ere falsely and deccptiveJy invoiced by the respondent in that they ,were not invoiced as required by Section 5 (b) (1) of the Fur Products L"bcling Act and the Rules anel. R.egulations prollu1gated under such Act. Among such falsely and deceptively invoiced fur products but not limited thereto, were fur products covered by invoices which failed: 1. To show the true animal name of the fur used in thc fur produet.

2. To disclose that the fur contained in the fur product was bleach- , dyed, or otherwise artificially colored, when such was the fact. ;:L To show the name a.nd address or the person issuing such in- VOlce.

4. To show the country of origin of imported furs used in fur products.

PAR. 4. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act in that they Complaint 63 F.

were not invoiced in accordance with the Rules and Regulations prolnulgated thereunder in the following respects: (a) Information required under Section orb) (1) of tI,e Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder \yas set forth on invoices hl abbreviated form, in violation of Rule 4 of said Rules and Regulat.ions.

(b) The term "Persian Lamb" was not set forth on invoices in the manner required by law, in violation of Rule 8 of said Rules and Regulations.

(c) The term "Dyed Broadtail-processed Lamb" was not set forth on invoices in the manner required by law, in violation of Rule 10 of said Rules and Regulations.

(d) The term "natural" was not used on invoices to describe fur products which were not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed or otherwise artificially colored, in violation of Rule 19 (g) of said Rules and Regulations.

(e) Information required under Section 5(b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the I\ules and Regulations promulgated thereunder was not set forth separately on invoices with respect to each section of fur products composed of two or more sections containing different animal furs, in violation of Rule 36 of said Rules and Regulations.

PAR. 5. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively advertised in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act in that certain advertisements intended to aid, promote and assist, directly or indirectly, in the sale and offering for sale of such fur products were not in accordance with the provisions of Section 5 (a) of the said Act.

Among and included in the aforesaid advertisements but not lim ited thereto, were advertisements of respondent which a,appeared in issl1CS of the New Haven Register, a newspaper published in the city of New Haven, State of Connecticut.

Among such false and deceptive advertisements, but not limited thereto.o, ''Iere advertisements which failed: 1. To show the true animal name of the fell' used in the fur product.

2. To show that the fur contained in the fur product was bleached dyed, or otherwise artificially colored, when such was the fact. PAR. 6. By means of the aforesaid advertisements and others of similar import und meaning not specifically referred to herein, respondent falsely and deceptively advertised fur products in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act in that the said fur products were KRAMEH' 739 736 Decision and Order not advertised in accordance with the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in the following respects: (a) The term "Persian Lamb" was not set forth in the ma.nne.r required, in violation of Rule 8 of the said Rules and Regulations. (b) The term "natural" was not used to describe fur products which were not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed or otherwise artificially colored, in violation of Rule 19 (g) of the said Rules and Regulations.

PAR. 7. 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 deccptive acts and practices and unfair methods of competition in commerce under the Federal Trade Commission Act. DECISION A D ORDER The Commission having heretofore determined to issue its com. plaint charging the respondent named in the caption hereof with violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Fur Products LnJJCling Act, and the respondent having been served with notice of said dctermination 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 11 consent order, an admission by respondent 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 respondent that thc 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 fornl contemplated by said agreement, makes the follmving jurisdictional findings, and enters the following order:

1. Respondent The Kramer Fur Co., Inc., doing business as Kramer s is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the la\Ts of the State of Connecticut, with its offce and principal place of business located at 191 Orangc Street, New liaven, Connecticut.

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.

740 FEDERAL TRADE COM:;lISSIOX DECISIONS Decision and Order 63 F.

ORDER I t is ordered That respondent The ICra.mer Fur Co., Inc., a corporation, t,ra,cling ns E::ramer, a,nd its offcers, and respondent's representatives agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other clevie-e, in connection with the introduction, into commerce or the sale, advertising or offering for sa.le in comme.rce, or the transportation or distribution in c.ommcrce, of any fur product; or in connection with the sale, advertising, offering for sale, tl'anspOli,a.tion 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 the terms col1unerce, "fur" and "fur product" are defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act, do forthwith cease and desist from: A. Falsely or dcceptively invoicing fur products by: 1. Failing to furnish invoices to purchasers of fur prod. uds shmdng in words and figures plainly legible all the :information required to be disc.osed in each of the subsec. tions of Section 5 (b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. 2. Setting forth information required under Section 5(b) (1) of the Fur Products Labcling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in abbreviated form.

3. Failing to set forth the term " Persian Ll1mb ' in the manner required where an election is ma.de to use that term instead of the word "Lamb"

4. Failing to set forth the term "Dyed Broadtail-processed Lamb" in the manner requ:ired \yhere an election is r;wde to u e that term instead of the \words "Dyed Lamb" :x Lt.ural as part of the o. Failing to set forth the term ;; information required to be disclosed on lnyoiees under thi: J:' Ul' Products Labeling Act and Hules ancl Regulations promulgated thereunder to describe fur products \' which arc not pointed: ble,a.ched, dyed, tip-dyed or oth('n\- e al,tificially colored.

G. Failing to set forth separately in101.118.tion rC(luil'cd umler Section 5(b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder wit.h respect to each section of iur products composed of two or more sections containing diiIerent animal furs. B. Falsely or deceptively advertising fur products through the use of a.ny advertisement, representation. public announc,emellt or notice which is intended to aic1 promot.e or assist: directly or LABOR DIGEiST) INC. , ET AL. 741 736 COn1vlaint indireeLly in the sale, or offering for sale. of flll fur proc1nct Rnd which:

1. Fails io S'2t forth in ,words and figures plainly legible all the informivLion required to be clisclos('d by each of the subsections of Section 5 (a) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

2. Fails to set forth the term "Persi,ln Lamb:: in the manner required -where an eject.ion is nmdc to use that term instead of the \yord "Lamb"

3. Fa,ils to set forth the term "XaLuraP as part of t.he information required to be disclosed in advertisements under the Fur Products L beling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder to describe fur products which arc not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip clye.c1, or othenvise artificially colored.

It is ful'hel' OI'del'ed That the respondent h01'e,in shall, within sixty (60) clays after service upon it of this order, 1ile wit.h the Commission a report in 'writing setting forth in detail l.he maIUler and form in which it has complied with this order. Ix TI-n :MATTER OF LABon DIGEST, INC., ET AL.

COXSEXT OHDEH , ETC. , IX REGARD TO 'nie ALLEGED YlOL -\TION OF THE lQ';DEHAL TRADE C01.IJnSSION ACT Docket C-iid1. C01nplaint, Sept, 1/, 1963-Decision, Sept. rr logs Consent order requiring New York City publishers of a mngfzine known fHJ Labor Digest", deriving a large TJfrt of their income from the sale of ad,ertising space therein. to cease representing falsely to Pl'":pf'ctive ad ,ertisel' S that their said publication was endorsed by, affliated with. or the offcial publication of, the AFL-CIO or other labor unions; intimidating business concerns by threats that if they did not purchase advertising space, their products ,,-auld receive unfa,orable treatment by labor uniOll members; and placing ad,ertisements of various concerns in their mag' zinc without authorization and then seeking to exact payment therefor. CO:!lplaint Pursuant to the. provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act nntl by virtue of the ftuthorit.v vested in it by said Act, the Federal rrac1e C01nmi:-,sion, having re;sol1 to believe that Labor ' Digest: Inc. it corporation, Ernest. .T. ::loclare1li and linn') B. Simon, inclividllalJy 7S0-01S-G!J- 742 FEDE,RAL THADF. COM::nSSION DECISlOj\ Oomplaint 63 F.

and as offccrs of said corporation, and Alex Adler, Charles Cole and Ralph T. Dc )Ico individuals, hereinafter referred to as respondent.s have violated the provisions of said Act, and it appe ring to the Commission that a proceeclLng by it in respect thereof would be in the pl1bliejnter, hereby issues its complaint stat.ing its charges in that respect as follows.

ru. GR--U' H 1. Hesponclent Labor Digest, Ine" is a corporation 01'gu.nizcd, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York with its offce and principal place of business located at 225 ,Vest 57th Street, Ncw York 19 ew York. Hesponclents Ernest J. :Modarclli and Harry B. Simon are individuals and oflicers of said corporation. Respondent AJex Adler is an individual and offce manager of saiel corporation, ancl Charles Cole is an individual and the editor of Labor Digest magazine. The individual respondents formulate, direct and cont.rol the acts and practices of the corporate respondent including t.he acts and practices hereinafter set forth. Their address is the same as t.hat of the corporate respondent.

Respondent Halph J. De Ideo is an individual and former aUiceI' of Labor Digcst, Inc., ancl part.icipated in the farmuJation direction and control of the acts and practices af corporate respondent including the acts and practices hereinafter set. forth. IIis address is 187 Front Street, Nmv York 7, New York. \n. 2. Respondents are now, and for some time last past have been engaged in the publication of a magazine known as Labor Digest. Said magazine is published periodically and is caused by respondents t.o be eirculated from its point of publication in one State to sub scribers and purchasers located in vnxious other States of the United St.ates.

Further, respondents in the course and conduct of their business engage in extensive transactions involving the transmission of letters advertising proofs, checks and other business instrumentalities and extensive transactions by long distance telephone, all bet'\een and among various States of the United States, and maintain, and at all times rne"ntiollcd herein have maintained, a substantial cour3e of trade in said publication in commerce, as ' commerce" is defined in t.he Federal Trade Conwlission Act.

PAR 3. A large part of respondents' income is derived from the ,lle of advertising space in Labor Digest t.o busine.ss concerns. Re sponclcnts and their duly authorized a,ge,nts and representatives contnct said business c.oncerns b;'l telephone and other means and seek to induce thBln to purchase advertising space in said publication. LABon DIGE'ST , INC. , ET AL. 743 741 Complaint the course of saiel solicitations, respondents and their agent.s and represent.atives represent., and have represented, elire-ct.ly or by implication prospectiyp advertisers that said publication is endorsed by, affliated with or the offcial publication of the AFL-CIO or other hbor uni ons.

PAn. 4. In truth a,nd in fact, Labor Digest is not endorsed by, affliated with, or the offcial pllblication of the AFL-CIO or any other labor union, but is independently organized and operated. in Para- Therefore, the sta,tements and representations referred to graph 3 hereof are false, mislead,ding and deceptive. PAR. 5. In addition, in order to induce the purchase of adver6sing space in Labor Digest, respondents threaten, and have threatened directly or by implication, that if business concerns did not purchase such space, their products would receive unfavorable treatment by labor union members. This practice now has, and has ha, , the tendency and capacity to intimidate and coerce, and does intimidate and coerce business concerns, unfairly, to purchase advertising space in the aforesaid publication.

PAR. 6. Further, in the course and conduct of their business, respondents have also engaged in the unfair and deceptive pract.ice of placing adyertisemenis of various concerns in their magazine without having received authorization therefor and then seeking to exact payment for said advertisement.s from said concerns. PAR. 7. In the conduct of their business, at a.ll times mentioned herein, respondents have been in substantial competition, in comme,rce, with corporations, firms and individuals likewise engaged in the publication of newspapers and other periodicals and in the selling of advertising to be inserted therein and particularly with the publishers of newspapers and other periodicals published or endorsed by labor unions.

PAR. 8. The use by respondents of the aforesaid false, misleading and deceptive statements, representations and practices has had, and now has, the capacity and tendency to mislead prospective advertisers into the erroneous and mistaken belief that said statements and representations ,were and are true and into the purchase of advertising space by reason of said erroneous and mistaken belief. The unfair and deceptive practice engaged in by respondents of publishing unordered or unauthorized advertisements has subjected firms and individuals to harassment and unlawful demands for payment of nonexistent debts.

\R. 9. The aforesaid acts and practices of respondents, as herein alleged, were and are aJl to the prejudice and injury of the public 744 FEDE.RAL TRADE COM1fISSION DECISIONS Decisio'll and Order 03 E' and of respondents' competitors and constituted, and now constitute unfair methods of competition in commerce, and unfair and deceptive acts and practices in commerce in violation of Section 5 of t.he Federal Trade Commission Act.

DECISION AXD ORDER The Commission 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 respondents having been served with notice of said determination and with a copy of the complaint the Commission intended to issue, together with a proposcd form of order; and The respondents and counsel for the Commission having thereafter executed tn agreement containing a consent order, an n,clmission by respondents of all the jurisdictional facts set forth in the complaint to jssue herein, a statement that the signing of said agreement is for settlement purposes only and docs not constitute an admission by respondents that the Jaw has been violated as set forth in such complaint. and waivers and provisions as required by the COlnmission rules; and The Commission, having considered the agreement, hereby a.ccepts same, issues its complaint jn the form contemplated by said agreement, 11a,1\es the following jurisdictional findings, and enters the folowing order:

1. R,respondent Labor Digest, Inc. , is a corporation orga.nized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the Etnte of Kew York, with its offce and principal place of business located at 225 iV cst 57th Street, New York 19, 11 ew York. respondents Ernest T. ?\fodarelli and Harry B. Simon are individuals and offcers of said corporation. Alex Adler is an individual and offcer manager of said corporation, and Charles Cole is an individual 1"nc1 the editor of Labor Digest )fagazine. The respondents' address js tJ1C snmc as that of said corporation.

Eespondent Ralph .T. De Mea is an individual and former offcer of Labor Digest, Inc., and his address is 187 Front Street, New York 7 Xc\\ Yark.

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

ORDER It 'is OJ'dered That respondents Labor Digest, Inc., a corporation ;1111 jts Offc('T8, flnd Ernest J. )fodarelli and I-Iarry B. Simon, jndi- LAUGH DIGEIST , INC. , ET AL. 745 741 Decision and Order vic1l1aJ1v and as offcers of said corporation, and Alex Adler, Charles Cole ar:c1 Ralph J. De ::ieo, individually, and respondents' representatives, a.gents, a,nd employees, directly or through any corporate or other device. in connection with the soliciting, offering for sale or sale in com erce of advertising space in the magazine now designated as Labor Digest, or any ot.her publication, whether published under' that name, or any other name, and in connection with the offering for sale, sale or distribution of said magazine, or any other publi cation, in commerce, as "commerce" is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act, do forthwith cease and desist from: 1. Representing, directly or by implication, that said magazine is endorsed by, affliated with, or an offcial publication of, or otherwise connected with a labor union.

2. Inducing or seeking to induce any business concern to purchase advertising space in or contribute to respondents' publication by means of expressed or implied threats that such business concern will or may be subjected to unfavorable treatment at the hands of representatives or purporteel representatives of labor should it refuse to make such purchase or contribution. 3. Placing, printing or publishing any advertisement on behalf of any person or firm in said paper without a prior order or agreement to purchase said advertisement.

4. Sending bills, lcttcrs or notices to any person or firm with regard to an Rdvertisement which has been or is to be printed inserted or published on bcha!f of said person or firm, or in any other manner seeking to exact payment for any such advertisement, without a bona fide order or agreement to purchase said advertisement.

It 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 c,complied with this order. 746 FEDERAL 'TRADE COJ\MISSION DECISIONS Complaint 63 F,