G & M Home Freezer Service, Inc.

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

and form in which they hayc complied \"ith this order. IN 'rile l\latter 0'1"

G & f Hmm FHEEZEH SERVICE, INC., ET AL.

CO.lTSENT ORDER , ETC. , IX REG.A.RD TO THE -,\ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDEHAI TRADE C01DllSSIOX ACT Docket C-,'60. Complaint, Jleld 16' li!;'' Deci8iulI , Ju.ne, 1964 Consent order requiring opera tors of a freezer-food plan in Yonkers, XY., to cease making a yariet,r of mi."l'epl'e:sentations in adyel'ti::;ing and by statements of sales reVl'esentati'Ves concerning the benefits IlccJ'using to purchasers of their freezers and food, including economy, quality, prices, and savings, gnarantees, free goods, and respondents ' time in bllsines, a:' in the orner below,y set out; aud to cease procuring the signature of a lJUrchaser on a negotiable promissory note without revealing that the note ,,,auld be sold to a finance company or 01 her commercial institution to whom flJlallCe charges \vould be payable, and without l'eyealing the full fllGOunt, carrying charges, interest, and all terms and condition 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 G & ::1 Home I, reezer Senrjce, Inc., a corporation, and G &. 1J Fre.ezer Provisionists, a c.corporation, and Leo Green, individually and as offcer of said cDl'porations hereinafter referred to as re.spondents, have violat.ecl the provisions of said Act, and it. appearing to the Commission that a proceeding by 1032 FEDERAL TRADE CO:.L\nSSION DECISIONS Complaint 65 F.

it in respect thereof would be in the public interest, hereby issues its complaint stating its charges in that respec.t as follows: \RAGRAPlI 1. Respondent G & :\1 I-Iome Freezer Service, Inc., is a corpora6on organized, existing anel doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York, with its principal offce and place of business located at 200 New :Main Street in the city of Yonkers, State of :New Yark.

respondent G & 1\1 Free,zer Provisionists is a corporation organized existing and doing business under and by virtue of the Ia ws of the State of New York, with its office and principal plaee of business located at 200 New i\lain Street in the city of Yonkers, State of N E\V York.

Re.spolldent. LCD Green is an individual and an offcer of both eorporate respondents. I-Ie formulates, directs and controls the acts and practices or the said corporate respondents, including the acts and practices herein set forth. His offce and principal place of busincs3 is located at the above st.ated addre,' PAR. 2. Respondents are n0\1 and ror some time Jast past have been engagpd in the advertising: offering for sale, sale and distribution of freezers, food and freezer- Juoc1 pln 1S to members of the pl1'CIHl'3in; public.

\R. 3. In the course and conduct of their business, respondents nOlY cause and for some time last. past have caused, the aforesaid freezers and food to be shipped from their aforesaid pbce of business in the State of Kmv York, ancl from various places of business of their snpplie:i's located in other States of the United States to members of the purchasing public located in various other States or the l;united States and maintain and at all times mentioned herein have maintained, a substantial course of trade in said freezers and food in commerce, a commerce" is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act. PAR. 4-. In the course and conduct or their business, respondent.s have disseminated, and caused the dissemination or certain advertisments by the lJnited States mails and by various means in commerce, as "commerce" is defined ,in the Federal Trade Commission Act, for the pul' pose of inducing, and "which were likely to induce, directly or indirectly, the purchase of rood, a,s the term "fooer' is defined in the' Federal Trade Commission j\ct; and have disseminated, and caused the dissemination of advertisements by various means including those aforesaid, for the purpose of inducing, and which ,were likely to induce directly or indirectly, the purchase or food, freezers and freezer-food plans in commerce, as "001111er('8 :' is defined in the Fe.cleral Trade Commission Act.

G & M HOME FREEZER SERVICE , INC. , ET AL. 1033 1031 Complaint PAR. 5. In the course and conduct of their business, a,ncl at all times mentioned herein, respondents hate been in substant.ial competition in commerce, with corporations, firms and individuals engaged in the sale. of freezers, food and freezer-food plans.

PAR. 6. The majority of the. shares of stock of each of the said corporate respondents is owned by respondent L.eo Green \yho, as aforesaid, formulates, directs and controls the, affairs of each of the corporate respondents. The rema.incler of such stock is mn1ec1 in its virtua.l entirety by members of his family and is under the control of respondent rc-Leo Green. Through the devices of these corporate respondents, spondent Leo Green carries on the nets and practic.es hercinRfter charged. The t\yO corporate respondent.s are, therefore, but the devices em.ployed by respondent Leo Green to efIcctuate his false a.nc1 misleading plans to mislead and deceive. members of the purchasing public. PAR. 7. By means of a,elvertiscments disseminated as afore-'3aid and by the and statements of srdes representati,- , respondents have represented, directly or by implication:

01' 1. That purchasers wjJl receive food a.nd a freezel' for the same less money.y than they previously paid for the food alone; :2. That al1 the food produd::; .3olcl by re::po 1Clents are natiolw. adv(- rtisec1 brands;

3. That all the beef products sold by respondents arc "first cuts 4. That respondents' food products sell at. one- half their retail p1'il"e; 5. That the food and freezers sold by respondents are fully and unconditionally guaranteed;

6. That purchasers can order any amount 01 food the.y desire from respondents;

7. That respondents lUlve been in the frl'PZer- Food business for twenty.y years;

8. That purchasers will receive a freezer free. PAR. 8. In truth and in fact:

1. Purchasers of respondents' freezer-food plan do not re.ceive fooll and a freezer for the same or less money than they previously paid Tor the food alone.

2. In many cases! the food products sold by respondents are not n:1tionally advertised brands.

3. In many eases the bct f produds sold hy respondents are not "fir cuts 4. The price of respondents' food prod nets iF not as low as one- h;1 1: the retail price of said products and often is the same or higher than the generally prevailing retail price of said products. 5. Neither the food nor the freezers sold by ,' espoIl1ents are fully or llnconditionaHy guaranteed.

31:'- 121 -jO- 1034 FEDERAL TRADE COM:-ISSIO:\ DECISIONS Complaint G5 F , 6. Respondents refuse to accept orders for sman quantities of food. 7. Respondents have not been in the freezer-food business for twenty years.

8. Purchasers do not receive the freezer free but are required to pay the fun purchase price of the freezer.

Therefore, the advertisements referred to in Paragraph Four were and are, misleading in material respects and c.onst.itutec1, and now constitute, "false advertisements" as that te.rm is define c1 in the Federal Trade Commission Act, and the statements and representations 1'Cfelted to in Paragraph Seven were, and now are false, misleading and deceptive.

PAR. D. Respondents induce purchasers to pay between $800 and $000 for a home food freezer by representing, as aforesaid, that IJllrchas wi1J receive brand name food products and first cuts of beef at one, half the retail price, that respondents wil supply the food and the freczer for the same or less money than they previously paid for food alone that all the food and freezers are unconditionally guarantee, , and that purchasers can purchase any amount of food they desire. These representations \\ere made solely for the purpose of inducing the sale, of the home food freezers.

\R. 10. In the manner aforesaid, respondents' salesmen have incluced purchasers to sign negotiable promissory notes or conditional sales contracts when the said purchasers were not informed of and did not know or understand the nature of the instrmnent executed. Hcspolldents have sold these notes or contracts to finance companies and other commercial institutions who take and hold the notes or contracts as bona fide holders for va.lue "lthout notice, and they c1ema,nc1 payment thereof free from any agreements or obligations existing bebveen respondents and the freezer and food plan purehasel's. In the absence of information to the contrary, purchasers believe that their eontractural obligation will run between themselves and respondents, and do not knmv that finance charges will be incnrred there,by; nor do they understand that the promissory notes or conditional sales contracts will be sold as negotiable instruments to holders in due course to whom such finance charges \vill be payable. Furthermore, they ate completely unaware that they have no personal defense a va-ilable against c.olleetion by such holders. Purchasers would prefer to purcha.se the freezer and freezer food plan free of finance charges, without dealing with fu1ance companies or other third parties in paying for the freezcr 01' pion, and would prefer not to sign negotiable instruments. Therefore, the fa.ilure of respondents to disclose all of these factors is deceptive and prejudicial to said purchasers.

G & :\:1 HO:\IE FREEZER SEHVICE , I:-C. , ET AL. 1035 1031 Deci;-ioll ,and Order PAIL 11. The use IJY respondents of the false, misleading and deceptive practices hc disclose that z:'cinabove set forth and t.he failure topure-hasers are 1 equired to pay finance charges, are l't'quired t, o deal ,with finance companies or other commercial.! institutions and are required to sign negotiable instruments, has had and now has the capacity and tendency to mislead and deceive members of the purchasing public in the rrlfmllcr aforesaid and thereby to inlluce them to purchase respondents' freezer food plan. As a c.onsequence thereof, trade in commerce has been unfairly diverted to respondents from their competitors a,nel injury has thereby been clone to competitors in commerce. PAR. 12. The aforesaid acts and practices of the respondents as herein alleged, were and are aU to the prejudice and injury of the public and of respondents competitors and constituted, and nO\v cons6tute, unfair methods of competition in commerce, and unfair and deceptive acts and practices in COlllmerCe, within the intent and meaning of the Federa.l Trade Commission Act, Hnd -in violation of Sections .. a.nd 12 of sa.id Act.

DECISION AND ORDER The, Commission having heretofore determined to issue its complaint charging the respondents named in the ca.ption hereof with violat.ion of the Federal Trade Commission Act, and the respondents having been served with notice of sa.id determination and w-itll a copy of the complaint the Comnlission intended to issue, together with a proposed form of order; and The respondents and counsel for the Comnlission 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 1'espondents that the la.w has been violated as set forth in such c01llplaint and waivers and provisions as required by the Commission s rules; and The Commission, having considered the agreement, hereby accepts same, issues its cOlnplaint in the form contemplated by said agreement makes the following jurisdictional findings, and enters the following order:

1. Respondent G & 31110me Freezer Service, Inc. is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the Jaws of the State of New York with its offce and principal place of business located at 200 :"ew Main Street, in the city of Yonkers, State of New York.

R.respondent G &. I Freezer Provisionists is a corporation organized existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the 1036 FEDERAL 'trade COMMISSION DECISIONS Decision and Order 65 F.

State of ew York, with its offce and principal ,place of business located at 200 ",ew :\fain Street in the city of Yonkers, State of New York.

Respondent Leo Green is an offcer of said corporations and his adult-G:::: is the S:\lne as that of said corporations. 2. The Fedecal Tmde Commission has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this proceeding and of the respondents, and the proceeding is in the public interest.

ORDER Part I It -is ordered That respondent G &, )1 1-Iomf', Freezer Service, Inc. corporate.ion, and its offcers, and G & 1\1 Freezer Provisionists, a. corporation, a.nd Hs offcers and Leo Green, individually and as offcer of said corporations, and respondents' agents, representatives and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in conne.ction with the otrering for sale sale or distribution of freezers :food or freezer food plans in COn1l1eTCe 88 "commerce.e is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act do iortlnyirh cease ami desist :from:

1. Representing directly or by iTnplication that: fl. Purchasers of respondents: frcezer :food plan \Till receive food and a. freezer for the same or less money than they previously paid for food alone.

b. R,respondents sell only nat1oral1y a,c1vr,rtised brands of food.

c. Respondents sell nationally achcrtised brands of food unless such representa.tion is dearly limited in direct connection therewith to those brands of food sold by respondents which they are p,'epared to establish arc in fact nationally adyertisec1.

d. Respondents supply only "first cuts" of beef. e. Respondents sell food products belm\" the generally preva.filing retail prices of such products.

f. R.respondents' food or freezers are unconditionally guara.nteed.

g. The freezers or any part thereof. or the food are guaranteed in any manner unless the nature and extent of the guarantee and the manner in which tlle guarantor will perform thereunder are clear,rly and' conspicuously disclosed in imlnec1iate conjunction with any such repre entation. h. Responde,nts impose no minimum requirements as to the size of a food order.

G & M HOME FREEZER SERVICE , INC. , ET AL. 1037 1031 Decision and Onler i. Respondents have been in the freezer food business for t\Venty years or otherwise misrepresenting the length of time respondents ha.ve, been in the freezer food business. j. Purchasers willl'ec.eive a freezer or any other merchandise free.

2. :J1:srepresenting in any manner the quality of food products sold by respondents.

3. Misrepresenting in any manner the savings realized by the purchasers of respondents' freezcI' food plan, freezers or food. 4. Procuring the signature of a. purchaser on a. negotiable promissary note or condit.ional sales contract without revealing to such purchaser, so long as it is the practice of respondents, that the note or contract wil be sold to a third party to whom the purchaser must make full payment, including finance charges, without regard to any personal defenses the purchasers might assert against respondents.

5. Procuring the signature of any purchaser to any promissory note or any other instrument without revealing the amount inter- 'est, carrying charges, terms and conditions of said note or other instrument.

Part II 1 t ,is fwrtlwr ordered That respondents G &, )1 I-Iome Freezer Service, Inc., a corporation, and its offcers, and G &. 1: Fl""' 7.er Provisionists, a corporation, and its offce.rs and Leo Green, indi\' iclually 'and as an offcer of sa,id corporations, and respondents' agents, representative.s and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in conne.etion with the offering for sale, sale or distribution of food or any purchasing plan involving food do fortlnyith cease and desist from:

1. Disseminating, or causing to be disseminated any adve.rtise, ment by means of the United States m ils or by any means in commerce, as "commerce ' is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act, '\h1('11 advertisement contains any representation or misrepresentation prohibited by Paragnlphs 1 through 3 of PART I of this order, or \\which fails to make the disclosures required by Pa,l'agl'aphs 4 ands of PART I of this order. 2. Disseminating, or causing the dissemination of any aelvertiseme,nt by any means, :for the purpose of inducing, or which \were likely to induce, directly or indirectly, the, purchase of any food or any purchasing plan involving fooel, in commerce. ns ':commerce" is defined in the Fe-deral Trade Commission '-\.ct, which advert.isement contains any of the 1 cpresentations or 11lisrepre- 1038 FEDERAL TRADE J:iission DECISIONS Complaint G5 F.

se-ntations prohibited by Paragraphs 1 through 3 of PART I of this order, or 'which fails t.o make the disclosures required by Paragraphs 4 and 5 of P \RT I of this order.

It is further ordel'ed 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.

Ix THE )L-\TTER OF PLATON FABRICS CORP. ET AL.

ORDER, ETC., IX REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL Tile co::nIISSIO AND THE 'VOOL PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket 8590. COJ/pla.jllt Aug. r2, 1963-Decision, June 11, 196. Orrler requiring a Xrw York importer of Italian fabrics to cease laheling nnd inyoieing wool fabries falsely as to their fiber content, and failng to "how on \Tool products labels the true genc1'k name of the fibers present and tile percentage tbereof.

'IPLAIXT Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the 'Wool Products Labeling Ad of 1030, and by virtue of the authority vestp;( in it by said Acts, the Federal Trade Commission having reason to believe that. PlfltOIl Fabrics Corp. t cnrporatioJl: and Benjamin Platovsky, Xathan Platovsky, and Leo Platovs1.'- , individually and as offcers of said eorporarion, here.inafter referred to as respondents, have. violated the. provisions of said Acts and the R.llles and Regulations promulgated under' the 1V 001 Products La:beling Act of 1030, 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: PARAGRAPH 1. Respondent Plat on Fabrics Corp. is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under.T and by virtue of the laws of the State of Xew York with its office and principal plac" business located at 2:16 1Vest 36th Street, in the city or K ew York, State of Kew York.

Hespondents Bcnja,min Platovsky: Xathan P1ato"lasky, and Leo Platoysky are offcers of said Corporation. They forl1uJate, direct and control the policies, acts and practices of said corporation, and their address is the same as that of said corporation. PLATON FABRICS CORP. ET AL. 1039 1038 COl1vlaint The respondent corporation is an importer of Italian fabrics and a jobber of domestic fabrics. The corporation buys woolen fabrics in Italy, imports the same into the United States and sells the fabrics to manufacturers in N ew York City who in turn sell to customers throughout the country.

PAR. 2. Subsequent to the effective date of the IV 001 Products Labeling Act of 1930 respondents have introduced into commerce, sold transported, distributed, delivered for shipment, and offered for sale in commerce, wool products, as the terms "commerce" and "wool product" are defined in the said Act.

PAR. 3. Certain of said wool products were misbranded by the respondents within the intent and meaning of Section 4 (a) (1) of the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1039 and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder, in that they were falsely and deceptively stamped, tagged, labeled or otherwise identified with respect to the character and amount of the constituent fibers contained therein. Among such misbranded wool products but not lim.ited thereto were fabrics, labeled or tagged by the respondents as "75% rayon 15% reprocessed wool and 10% nylon, as 15% reprocessed "\vool and 85% rayon, and as "95% reprocessed wool and 5% nylon, respectively, whereas, in truth and in fact, said products contained 5111)stantially different quantities of such fibers and other fibers which ,were not disclosed.

PAR. 4. Certain of said wool products were further misbranded the respondents in that they were not stamped, taggcd, labeled o otherwise identified as required under the provisions of Section 4(a) (2) of the Woo! Products LnbeJjng Act of 1939 and in the manner and form as prescribed by the Rules and Regulations promulgated under the said Act.

Among such misbranded wool products, but not limited thereto were fabrics with labels which failed: (1) to show the true generic names of the fibers present; (2) to show the percentage of such fibers.

PAR. 5. The acts and practices of respondents as set forth above were, and are, in violation of the 'W 001 Products Labeling Act of J 939 and of the Rules and Regulations promulgated there.under, and constituted, and now constitute, unfair and deceptivp ects and practices and unfair methods of competiHon in commerce, 1\ithin the intent. and meaning- of the Federal Trade Commission Act. PAR. 6. Respondents are now, and have been engaged in the offering for sale, sale and distribution of products, namely fabrics, to manufacturers and jobbers. The respondents said business, in part, is that of , .

1040 FEDERAL TRADE CO:\IMISSION DECISIOXS Initial Decision 65 F.

importing fabrics from sources in Italy and selling these fabrics to manufacturers and jobbers who in turn distribute the fabrics to customers throughout the United States. The respondents majnbtin, and at all times mentioned herein have maintained, a substantial course of trade of said products in commerce, as "commerce" is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act.

PAR. 7. Respondents in the course and conduct of their business as aforesaid, have made statements on invoices to their customers misrepresenting the character and fiber content of certa.in of their said products. Among such misrepresentations, out not limited thereto, wore stn.tements representing certain fabrics to be " 15% reprocessed wool 75% rayon, 10% nylon :' and 150/0 reprocessed \\'001, 85% ra:von Iyhereas in truth and in fact the said fabrics contained substantially difierent quantities of the fibers than were represented and other fibers which Ivere not disclosed.

PAR. 8. The acts and practices set out in Paragraphs Six and Seven have had, and llow have, the tendency and capacity to mislead and decei VB purchasers of said fabrics as to the true content thereof and to cause them to misbrand products manufactured by them in which said materials are llsed.

PAR. 9. The acts and practices of the respondents set out in Paragraphs Six and Seven I\"ere, and are, all to the prejudice a,nd injury of the public and of the respondents' competitors and constituted, and now constitute, unfair and deceptive acts and practices, in commerce within the intent and meaning of the Federal Trade Commission Act.

311'. 'William M. Donnelly supporting t.he complaint. Jh. John D. Rode of ""e,,, York Mr. E18,oorth F. Q1laley for respondents.

ntial DECISION BY LEON R. GROSS, HBARING E:XA'IlXER AERIL 27 , 10G.

Tho complaint, \Which was issued herein on August 12, 1963, charges respondents with violating the ,Vaal Products Labeling Act of 1939 and the R.nles and Regulations promulgate,d thereunder. An anslver s f-filed on behali' of responrlents on September 17 , 1963, and a prehearing conference "'-as convened on September 19, 1963. At the preheating eon ference, certain procedural and evidentiary matte.rs were settled and a memorandum setting forth the understandings reached at said conference was issued under elate of September 23, 1963. PLATOX F AERICS CORP. ET AL. 1041 103S Initial Decision The hearing in this matter was set for December 17, 1963, in New York, K ew York. Prior to t.he elato of the hearing, counsel supporting the complaint requested and obtained a postponement to January 13 1964. Thereafter another postponement to February 25 , ID64, was gra,nted at the request of counsel supporting the complaint. On February 11, 1964, a stipulation signed by counsel was filed and made a part of the hearing record. By letter of February 20, 1964, respondents counsel requested a postponement of the hearing to April 15, 1064, in order that certain out of 'Country witnesses might be available. On April 9, 1964, respondents' counsel wrote the undersigned that his clients did not desire to proceed with the hearing set, for April)5 , 1D64 nor to contest the allegations of the complaint. On April 21, 1064, respondents moved for leave to withdraw their original answer to the complaint and to substitute an "Admission. On April 23, 1964, the request WRS granted and the hearing record was closed.

Counsel have waived the filing of proposed findings, conclusions and briefs.

This initial decision is based upon the complaint originally filed herein and the "Admissions" ordered filed on April 23 , 1064. Based upon the record as stated, the hearing examiner makes the following:

FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Respondent Platon Fabrics Corp. is a corporation organized 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 236 'Vest 36th Street, in the city of New York, State of New Yark.

2. Respondents Benjamin PJatovsky, Nathan Platovsky, and Leo PhLtovsky are offcers of said corporation. They formulate, direct and control the policies, acts and practices of said corporation and their address is the same as that of said corporation. 3. The respondent corporation is an importer of Italian fabrics and a jobber of domestic fabrics. The corporation buys wooJen fabrics in Italy, imports the same into the United States and sells the fabrics to manufacturers in New Yark City who in turn sell to customers throughout the country.

4. Subsequcnt to the effective date of the 'Y 001 Products Labeling Act of 1939 respondents have introduced into commerce, sold, transportecl, distributed, delivered for shipment, and offered for sale in commerce, wool products, as the terms "commerce" nnd " ,yool product are defined in the said Act.

, 1042 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION DECISIO:\TS Initial Decision OJ F.

5. Certain of said wool products were misbranded by the respondents within the intent and meaning of Section 4 (a) (1) of the W 001 Products Labeling Act of 1930 and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder, in that they were falsely and deceptively stamped tagged, labeled or otherwise identified ivith respect to the character nnd amount of the constituent fibers contained therein. Among such misbranded wool products, but not limited thereto ere fabrics labeled or tagged by the respondents as "75% rayoll, 15% reprocessed ""001 and 10% nylon, as "15% reprocessed wool and 85% rayoll, and as ' 95% reprocessed wool and 5% nylon, respectively, ,yhcreas, in truth and in fact, said products conta.ined substantially c1ii-rercnt quantities of such fibers and other fibers which were not disclosed. 6. Certain of said wool products were further misbranded by the respondents in that they "were not stamped, tflgged, labeled or otherise identified as required under the provisions of Section 4(a) (2) of the \V 001 Products Labeling Act of 1030 and in the manner ,md form ns prescribed by the Rules and Hegulations promulg-ated under the sa.id Act. Among such misbranded wool products, but not limited thereto, were fabrics with labels which failed: (1) to show the true generic names of the fibers present; (2) to show the percf'ntage of uch fibers.

7. The acts and practices of respondents as set forth above were, and arc, in violation of the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1039 and of the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder, and constituted, and llow const.itute, unfair and deceptive acts find practices and unfair methods of competition in commerce, within the intent and meaning of the Federal Trade Commission Act.

S. Respondents are now, and have been engaged in the oflering for fl.le, sale and distribution of products, namely fabrics, to manufact\11ers and jobbers. Hesponclents' business, in part, is that of importing fabrics from sources in Italy and selling these fabrics to manufactmTTS nnd jobbe!'s who in turn distribute. the fabrics to customers thronghont the TJnitecl States. Respondents maintain, and at all times mentioned herein have mainta,inec1, a substantial C011rse of trade. in their products in commerce, as "commerce': is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act, 9. Hespondents in t.he course and conduct of the.ir business as aforeaic1, 11ave made statements on invoices to their customers misreprecrnting the cha.rnctcr and fiber content of certain of their said products. Ailing such misrepresentations, but not limited thereto, were statement3 representing certain fabrics io be "' 15% reprocessed wool, 75% lfl,yon, 10% n:vJon: and " 15% reproc.essed ''"001 : 85% rayon" whereas in PLATON FABRICS CORP. ET AL. 1043 1038 Initial Decision truth and in fact the said fabrics contained substantially different quantities of the fibers than were represented and other fibers which ,were not disclosed.

10. The acts a,nd practices of respondents found above have had, and now ha,rc, the tendency mid capacity to mislead and deceive purcha::ers oJ said fabrics as to the true content thereof and to cause them to misbrand products manufactured by them in which said materials are used.

11. The acts and practices of respondents heretofore found are, and were, all to the prej ndice and injury of the public and of respondents competitors, and constituted, and now constitute, unfair and deceptive acts and practices, in commerce., within the intent and meaning of the Federal Trade COll11nission Act.

Based upon the above findings of fact, the hearing examiner makes the following:

CO:NCLUSIQXS (a) The Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction OWl' the parties to and the subject matter of this proceeding; and this proceeding is in the public interest.

(h) H.e pondents maintain, and at all times pertinent to this pro. eeeding, have maintained a substantial course of trade in their prodlE' , in commerce, as "commerce" is defined in the Federal Trade Comlli sion Act.

(c) The acts and practices of respondents heretofore found have hnd, and now have, the tendency and capacity to mislead and decelye purchasers of respondents' fabrics as to the true content thereof and to cause. them to misbrand products manufactured by them in Tfhich said 11ilt eria1s are used.

(c1) The acts and practices of respondents heretofore found were and are to the prejudice and injury of the public and of respondents competitors and constituted, a,nd now constitute, unfair and deceptive acts and practices in commerce and un.fllir methoels of competition ,within the meaning of the Federal Trade Commission Act. 1\01\, therefore onder It 1.3 o1'derl'ed That reslJOuclents Platon Fabrics Corp., a. corporation and its offcers, Benjamin Platovsky, Nathan P1atovsky, an(l Le, Platovsky, individually and as offcers of sl1.id corporation, and responclents representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the intToc1action into Decision anu Order 65 F.

c.commerce, or the offering for sale, sale, transportation, delivery for shipment, or distribution, in commerce, of fabrics or other wool prod nets, as "commerce" and "y\'ool proclucf' , are defined in the '\Vool Products Labeling Act of 1030 do forthwith cease aud desist from misbranding wool products by:

1. Falsely or deceptively st.amping, tagging, labeling or otherwise. identifying such products as to the character or amount of constituent fibers included there,in.

2. Failing to securely affx to or place on each slich product, a stamp, tag, label or other means of identification showing in a e1ea.r and conspicuous manner, each clement of information required to be disclosed by Section 'I(a) (2) of the ,Vool Products Labeling Act of 1939.

It ls furthe1' ordered That respondents Platoll Fabrics Corp. corporation, and its offcers, and Benjamin Platovsky, Nathan Platovsky, a.nd Leo Platovsh:y, individual)y and as offcers of said corporation, and respondents' representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection \\ith the aftering for sale, sale or distribution of fabrics or other products, ill c.ommerce" as "c.commerce:' is defined in the Federal Trade Commission \.ct do forthwith cease and desist from misrepresenting the character or amount of constituent fibers cont.ained in such products on invoices applicable thereto, or in any other manner. DF.CIE:ION OF THE C()l\DIIS IOX AXD ORDT:n TO FILE REPORT OF CO)II LIANCE Pursuant to Section 3.21 of the Commission s Rules of Practice effective August 1, 1963, the initial decision of the hearing examiner shall on the 17th clay of .J nne, 1964 , bec.ome the decision of the Oommission; and, accordingly:

It is on/ered That Platon Fabrics Corp., a corporation and Benjamin Platovsky, Kathan Platovsky, and Leo Platovsky, incli\ idualJy and as offcers of said corporation, shall, within sixty (60) cla)', after servke. upon them of this order, file with t11e Commission a report in writing, setting forth in detail the manner and form in which they ha.ve, complied with the order to cease and desist. COT'lO:L CITY -WASH FROCKS , Dye. , ET AL. 1045 Complaint