Steinberger Bros., Inc.

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

IN THE MATTER OF STEINBERGER BROS., INC., ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC. , IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSIO:\ AND THE WOOL PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket C-1091. Complaint, Aug. 1966-Decision, Aug. 2, 1966 Consent order requiring a New York City clothing importer and wholesaler to cease misbranding and falsely invoicing its wool products and furnishing false guarantees for them.

COMPLAINT Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939, and by virtue of the authority vested in it by said Acts, the Federal Trade Commission, having reason to believe that Steinberger Bros. , Inc. , a corporation, and Franklin Steinberger and Howard Steinberger individually and as offcers of said corporation, hereinafter referred to as respor.dents, have violated the provisions of the said Acts and the Rules and Regulations promulgated under the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939, 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 Steinberger Bros., Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York.

Individual respondents Franklin Steinberger and Howard Steinberger are offcers of said corporate respondent and participate in STEINBERGER BROS. , INC., ET AL. 487 486 Complaint the formulation, direction and control of the acts, poEcies and practices of said corporation, including the acts and practices hereinafter referred to.

Respondents are importers and wholesalers of wool products with their offce and principal place of business located at 1160 Broadway, New York, New York.

PAR. 2. Subsequent to the effective date of the Wool Products LabeEng Act of 1939 , respondents have introduced into commerce, sold, transported, distributed, delivered for shipment and offered for sale in commerce, as "commerce" is defined in said Act, wool products as "wool product" is defined therein. PAR. 3. Certain of said wool products were misbranded within the intent and meaning of Section 4(a) (1) of the Wool Products LabeEng Act of 1939 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 limited thereto were certain yarns stamped, tagged or labeled as containing 100% Mohair" whereas, in truth and in fact, said yarns contained a substantial amount of other woolen fibers. PAR. 4. Certain of said wool products were further misbranded in that they were not stamped, tagged, labeled or otherwise identified as required under the provisions of Section 4 (a) (2) of the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939 and in the manner and form as prescribed by the Rules and Regulations promulgated under said Act.

Among such misbranded wool products, but not limited thereto were certain yarns with labels on or affxed thereto which failed to disclose the percentage of the total fiber weight of the wool product, exclusive of ornamentation not exceeding 5 -per centum of said total fiber weight of (1) woolen fibers; (2) each fiber other than wool if said percentage by weight of such fiber is 5 per centum or more; and (3) the aggregate of all other fibers. PAR. 5. Certain of said wool products were misbranded in violation of the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939, in that they were not labeled in accordance with the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder, in that the term "mohair" was used in lieu of the word "wool" in setting forth the required fiber content information on Jabels affxed to wool products when certain of the fibers described as "mohair" were not entitled to such designa- Complaint 70 F. T.

tion, in violation of Rule 19 of the Rule and Regulations under the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939.

Par. 6. Respondents furnished false guaranties that certain of their wool products were not falsely or deceptively s amped, tagged, labeled, or otherwise identified when respondents in furnishing such guaranties had reason to believe that wool products so falsely guaranteed would be introduced, sold, transported or distributed in commerce, in violation of Section 9 (b) of the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939.

Respondents furnished false guaranties that certain of their wool products were not falsely or deceptively stamped, tagged, labeled, or otherwise identified in that they have set forth a separate guaranty that wool products listed on such invoices are properly labeled under the provisions of the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939 and are not misbranded.

PAR. 7. The acts and practices of the respondents as set forth above were, and are in violation of the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939 and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder, and constituted, and now constitute unfair and deceptive acts and practices and unfair methods of competition in commerce within the intent and meaning of the Federal Trade Commission Act.

PAR. 8. In the course and conduct of their business, respondents now cause and for some time last past, have caused their said products, when sold, to be shipped from their place of business in the State of New York to purchasers located in various other States of the United States, and maintained a substantial course of trade in said products in commerce, as "commerce" is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act.

PAR. 9. Respondents in the course and conduct of their business as aforesaid, have made statements on invoices and shipping memoranda to their customers misrepresenting the fiber content of certain of their said products.

Among such misrepresentations, but not limited thereto, were statements representing the fiber content thereof as "Mohair whereas, in truth and in fact, said yarns contained substantially different fibers and amounts of fibers than represented. PAR. 10. The acts and practices set out in Paragraph Nine have had and now have the tendency and capacity to mislead and deceive the purchasers of said products as to the true content thereof and to cause them to misbrand products sold by them in which said materials were used.

STEINBERGER BROS. , INC., ET AL. 489 486 Decision and Order PAR. 11. The aforesaid acts and practices of respondents as herein alleged were and are al1 to the prejudice and injury of the public and of respondent's 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.

DECISION AND ORDER The Federal Trade Commission having initiated an investigation of certain acts and practices of the respondents named in the caption hereof, and the respondents having been furnished thereafter with a copy of a draft of complaint which the Bureau of Texties and Furs proposed to present to the Commission for its consideration and which, if issued by the Commission, would charge respondents with violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939; and The respondents and counsel for the Commission having there after executed an agreement containing a consent order, an admission by the respondents of al1 the jurisdictional facts set forth in the aforesaid draft of complaint, a statement that the signing of said agreement is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by the respondents that the law has been violated as alleged in such complaint, and waivers and provisions as required by the Commission s rules; and The Commission, having reason to believe that the respondents have violated the said Acts, and having determined that complaint should issue stating its charges in that respect, hereby issues its complaint, accepts said agreement, makes the following jurisdictional findings, and enters the following order: 1. Respondent Steinberger Bros. , Inc., 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 1160 Broadway, in the city of New York State of New York.

Respondents Franklin Steinberger and Howard Steinberger are offcers of said corporation and their address is the same as that of said corporation.

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

ORDER It is ordered That respondents Steinberger Bros., Inc. , a corpo- Decision and Order 70 F.

ration, and its offcers, and FrankUn Steinberger and Howard Steinberger, individually and as offcers of said corporation, and respondents' representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, do forthwith cease and desist from introducing into commerce, or offering for sale, selling, transporting, distributing or deUvering for shipment in commerce wool yarn or any other wool products, as "commerce" and wool product" are defined in the Wool Products LabeUng Act of 1939 :

1. Which are falsely and deceptively stamped, tagged, labeled or otherwise identified as to the character or amount of the constituent fibers contained therein. 2. Unless each such product has securely affxed thereto or placed thereon a stamp, tag, label or other means of identification correctly showing in a clear and conspicuous manner each element of information required to be disclosed by Section 4(a) (2) of the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939; 3. To which is affxed a label wherein the term "mohair " is used in Ueu of the word "wool" in settng forth the required information on labels affxed to such wool products unless the fibers described as mohair are entitled to such designation and are present in at least the amount stated. It is further ordered That respondents Steinberger Bros., Inc. a corporation, and its offcers, and Franklin Steinberger and Howard Steinberger, individually and as offcers of said corporation and respondents' representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, do forthwith cease and desist from furnishing a false guaranty that any wool product is not falsely or deceptively stamped, tagged, labeled, or otherwise identified when respondents have reason to believe that such wool product may be introduced, sold, transported, or distributed in commerce.

It is further ordered That respondents Steinberger Bros. , Inc. a corporation, and its offcers, and FrankUn Steinberger and Howard Steinberger, individually and as offcers of said corporation and respondents' representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the offering for sale, sale or distribution of yarn or any other textile products in commerce, as Ijcommerce" is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act, do forthwith cease and desist from misrepresenting the character or amount of constituent fibers con- BROWN SHOE CO. 491 486 Order tained in yarn or any other textile products on invoices or shipping memoranda applicable thereto or in any other manner. 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.