M. Rappaport'S Fur Shop, Inc.

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

In the Martrer or M. RAPPAPORT’S FUR SHOP, INC., ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND THE FUR PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket C-824. Complaint, Sept. 2, 1964—Decision, Sept. 2, 1964 Consent order requiring Chicago retail furriers to cease violating the Fur Products Labeling Act by affixing fictitious price labels to fur products and representing falsely thereby that prices were reduced from former higher prices and the amount of such reductions constituted savings to purchasers. Complaint Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Fur Products Labeling Act and by virtue of the authority vested in it by said Acts, the Federal Trade Commission having reason to believe that M. Rappaport’s Fur Shop, Inc., and Herman Seeman, individually and as an officer of said corporation, hereinafter referred to as respondents, hare 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: ParacrapnH 1. Respondent M. Rappaport’s Fur Shop, Inc., is a. corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Illinois. Respondent. Herman Seeman is an officer of the corporate respondent and formulates, directs and controls the acts, practices and policies of the said corporate respondent, including those hereinafter set forth.

Respondents are retailers of fur products with their office and prin- M. RAPPAPORT’S FUR SHOP, INC., ET AL. 627 626 Complaint cipal place of business located at 2032 W. 95th Street, Chicago, Illinois. 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 been made in whole or in part of furs which 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 were misbranded in violation of Section 4(1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act in that they were falsely and deceptively labeled or otherwise falsely and deceptively identified in that labels affixed to fur products, contained representations, either directly or by implication that the prices of such fur products were reduced from respondents’ former prices and the amount of such purported reductions constituted savings to purchasers of respondents’ fur products. In truth and in fact, the alleged former prices were fictitious in that they were not actual, bona fide prices at which respondents offered the products to the public on a regular basis for a reasonably substantial period of time in the recent regular course of business and the said fur products were not reduced in price as represented and savings were not afforded purchasers of respondents’ said fur products, as represented.

Par. 4. 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 limited thereto, were labels which were affixed to the aforesaid fur products and by means of which the respondents falsely and deceptively advertised such fur products, in violation of Section 5(a) (5) of the Fur Products Labeling Act by representing either directly or by implication, that the prices of such fur products were reduced from respondents’ former prices and the amount of such purported reductions constituted savings to purchasers of respondents’ fur products. In truth and in fact, the alleged former prices were fictitious in that they were not actual, bona fide prices at which respondents offered the products to the public on a regular basis for a reasonably substantial period of time in the recent regular course of business and the said fur products were not reduced in price as represented and savings

Complaint 66 F.T.C.

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

8. Falsely or deceptively represents in any manner that prices of respondents’ fur products are reduced. C. Making claims and representations 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 unless there are maintained by respondents full and adequate records disclosing the facts upon which such claims and representations are based.

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 complied with this order.