Montaldo'S, Inc., et al.

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

and form in w11ich they have complied with this order. Ix THE MATTER MOXTALDO' , IXC., ET AL.

CO:KSEXT OBDEn. , ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLA nox OF THE FnJERAL TRADE CO?'DIISSlOX AND THE F17R PRODUCTS L\BELlXG ACTS Docket C-600. Complaint, Sept. 1963-Decisioll, Sept. , 1963 Consent order requiring a St. Louis, 1\10., retail furriel' to cease ,violating the Fm Products Labeling Act by advertising in newspaper' s ,,- !lieh failed to show the true animal name of fur and the country of oeigin of imj)orted furs and to 1'e,eal ,,-hen fnl' was artificially colorer1 , to llse the term " DYE'r1 Broadtail-processed Lflmb" as required and the word "Xatural" where applicaiJle; hy failing in other respects to comply with advertising anrl invoicing requirements; and by failng to maintain adequate records as a basis for pricing claims.

CO::IPL\JXT Pursuant to the provisions or the Federal Trade Commi -sion Act and the Fur Products Labeling Act and by virtue, of the anthol'iry vested in it by said Acts, the Federal Trade Commjssion having 7S0- 01S- , 870 FEDERAL TR,Ane COMMISSION DECISIONS Complaint 63 F.

reason to believe that l\Iontaldo, Inc., a corporation, and J ach: :Montaldo, individually and as an offcer of said corporation hereafter 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 tlh'.reo would be in the public interest hereby issues its complaint statini Its charges in that respect as follows:

ARAGRAPII 1. Respondent Montaldo, Inc. , is a corporation orgallizecl, exist jug and c10jng business uneler and b)' virtue of the laws of the State of Missouri.

Respondent J acle :Montalclo js an offcer of the corporate re'3ponclent and controls, directs and formulates the acts, practices and policies of the said corporate respondent including those hereinafter set forth.

Respondents are retailers of fur products with their offce and principal place of business located at 14 Maryland PJaza, St. Louis Th1issol1ri.

\n. 2. Subsequent to the ef1ediye date of the J, ur Products Labeling Act on August 1952, respondents have been and are llow engaged hl 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 been made in whole or in part of furs ,,,which 11(ve been s11ipped and received in commerce, as the terms "commerce fur" and "fur product" are defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act.

\Il. 3. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively ach' crtisecl in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act in that certain advertisements. intended to nid, promote and assist, directly or inr1directly, in the .sale and offering for sale of such fur products were not in accordance with the provisions of Section 5(0.) of the said Act.

Among and included in the aforesaid advertisements but not 1imlted thereto, were advertisements of respondents which appeared in issues of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, a newspaper published in the city of St. Louis, State of Missouri.

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

2\10NTALDO' , I C" ET AL. 871 t-GO Oomplaint :2. To show that the fur contained in the fur product 'was bleached, dyed, or otherwise artificially colored, when such was the fact.

3. To show the country of origin of imported furs contained fur products.

Paint. 4. In advertising fnr products for sale as aforesaid respondents represented through such statements as " Final clearance of furs bringing you savings of 23% to 50% off, that prices of fur products were reduced in direct proportion to the percentages stated and that the amount of said reduction afforded savings to the purchasers of respondents' products when in fact such prices were not reduced in direct proportion to the percentages stated and the represented savings were not thereby afforded to the said purchasers, in violation of Section 5 (a) (5) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. PAn. 5. By means of the aforesaid advertisements and others of similar import a,nel meaning not specifically referred to herein, respondents falsely and dcceptively advertised fur products in vlola tion of the Fur Products Labeling Act in that the said fur products were not ad\ ertised in accordance with the Hules and Regulation!: promulgated thereunder in the following respects: (a) The term "Dyed Broadtail.processed Lamb" was not set forth in the manner required, in violation of Rule 10 of the said Hules and Regulations.

(b) The term "natural" was not used to describe fur products ,,,which "'ere not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed or otherwise artificially colored, in violation of Hule 19(9) of the said Rules and Regulations.

PAn. 6. By means of the aforesaid advertisements and others of similar import and meaning not specifically referred to herein rcspondents falsely and deceptively achertised fur products in that certain of said fur products were falsely or deceptively identified ,with respect to the name or de ignatjon of the anilnal or animals that produced the fur from which the said fur products had been manufactured, in violation of Section 5(a) (5) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

Among such misbranded fur products, but not limited thereto were fur products advertised as "Broadtail thereby implying that the furs contained therein were entitled to the designation "Broadtail Lamb" ,vhen in truth and in fact they were not. entitled to SUC11 designation.

\R. 7. In advertising fur products for sale, as aforesaiel, re pondents made pricing claims and repre.-;entations of the types covered by subsections (a), (b), (c) and (d) of Rule 44 of the 872 FEDERAL TR nE CO:\I1lISSJOX DECISIONS , Ded i(Jn and Order 63 F. Regulations under the Fur Products Labeling Act. Hespondents in making such claims and representations failed to maintain fun and adequate records disclosing the facts upon ",yhieh such pricing c.claim.s and representations were based, in violation of TiuIe 44 (e) of the said Rules anti Hegulations.

PAR. 8. Certain of said fur products were falsely and decept.jyely invoiced by the respondents in that they 'Iyere not invoiced a required by Section 5(b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling . ct and the Rules and Hegnlations promulgated under such Act. , but Among such frllsely and deceptively iln-oicec1 fur products not limited thereto, \Were fur products covered by invoices which failed to set forth the information required under the said .Act and said Rules and Regulations.

PAH. O. Certain of said fur products "ere falsely and deceptiH invoiced in vio1ntion of the Fur Products Labeling Act in that they were not invoiced in accordance with the Hnles and Regulations promulgated tl1erel1under inasmuch as required item 11l1mbers were not set forth on invoices in violation of' Hule'. 40 of said RnJcs and Regulations.

PAll. 10. The aforesaid acts and practices of respondellts herein alleged, are in violation of the Fur Proc1uc.ts Labeling Art nnd the Itnles and Regulations promulgaied tl1ereunder and constitute unfair and dec.eptive acts and practices and unfair methods of competition in commerce under the Federal Trade Commission Act. DECISION AKD Order The Commission having heretofore determined to issue its complflint charging the respondents named in the caption hereof ",jth violation of the Federal Traue Commission Aet and the Fur Products Labeling Act, and the respondents having been serycd with notice of said determination and with a copy of the complaint the Commission intended to jssue, together wjth a proposed form of order; and The respondents and c011nsel for t110 Commission lul\-ing there.after executed an agreement. containing a consent order, 8.11 achnissian by respondents of all the jurisdictional facts set forth in t118 , a statement. that the signing of f1id agrec:-complaint to issue herein ment is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute nn admission by respondents that the law has been violated as set iorth in such complaint, and waivers and provisions as reql1ilc(l by the Commi sion s rules; anel , hereby ac- The Commission, J1a dng considered the agreement cepts same issues its complaint in the form contemplated by said J.:lOXTALDO' , INC. , ET AL. 873 Decision and Order agreement, makes the follcJ'ving jurisdictional f-in(Engs, and enters the following order:

1. Respondent JlontnJdo, Inc., is fl. corporation organized, exist ing and doing business under and by virtue of the Jaws of the State of ?\lissouri, with its offce and principal place of business located at 14 Maryland Plaza, St. Louis, Missouri. Hcspondcnt .Jack :JIontaJc1o is an offcer 01 sald corporation and his address is the same as that of said corporation. 2. The Federal Trade Commission has jl1isdiction of the subject matter of this proceeding and of the respondents, and the proceeding is in the public interest.

ORDER , Inc., a corporation It ,is oTde'ied That respondents )Jontalc1o and its offcers, and Jack :Montaldo individually and as an offcer of said corporation and respondents ' representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other devke, in connection with the introduction into commerce or the sale, ac1ycrtising, or offering for sale in commerce or the tran portation or distrilmtion in commerce 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 'iyhole, or in part of fur 'idtich hns been shipl1ec1 and received in commerce, as "commerce fur" and "fur product" are defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act, do forthwith cease and desist from:

A. Fa.)se)y or deceptively ac1,-ertising 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:

1. Fails to set forth in words and figures plainly Jegible all the information required to be disclosed by each of the subsections of Section 5(a) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

2. Represents directly or by imp1icat.ion through percentage savings claims that prices of fur products arc reduced to afford purchasers of respondents' fur products the per. centage of savings stated when tJ1C prices of such products arc not reduced to afford to purchasers the percentage of savings stated.

3. 1:1srepresents in any manner the savings available to purchasers of respondents' fur products.

;

874 FEDERAL TRL.A.,DE COMMISSION DECISIONS llatHs 63 F.

4. Falsely or deceptively represents In any manner that prices of respondents: fur products are reduced. 5. Falsely or deceptively Identifies any such fur product as to the name or designation of the animal or animals that produced the fur contained in the fur product. 6. Fails to set forth the term "Dyed Broadtail.processed Lamb" in the manner required where an election is made to use that term instead of the words "Dyed Lamb" 7. Fails to set forth the term "Natural" as part of the information required to be disclosed in advertisements under the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and R.egulations promulgated thereunder to describe fur products which are not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip.dyed or otherwise artificially colored.

B. Falsely or deceptjveJy invoicing fur products by: 1. Failing to furnish invoices t.o purchasers of fur products showing in words anel figures plllinJy legible an the information required to be disclosed in each of the subsections of Section 5 (b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

2. Failing to set forth on invoices the item number or mark assigned to iur products.

C. Making claims and representations of the types co"ered by subsections (a), (b), (c) and (d) of Rule 44 of the Rnles and Regulations promulgated under the Fur Products Labeling Act 1mless there are maintained by respondents full and adequate records disclosing the facts upon which daims and representations arc based.

It furtlwr ordend That the respondents herein shall, within sixty (60) days aftet ser"lce upon them of this order, file ,,'ith the Commission a report in writing setting forth in detail the manner and form in wh:ich they have complied with this order.