Goodfriends, Inc., et al.

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

IN THE MATTER OF GOODFRIEKDS , JXC., ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC., I" REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLA 1'10'1 OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COllMISSION A"D THE FUR PRODUCTS LADELI:-G ACTS Docket C-1163, Complaint, Jan. 1967- Decision, Jan. , 1967 Consent order requiring an Austin, Tex. , department store to cease misbranding, deceptively invoicing, and falsely advertising its fur products. COMPLAINT Pursuant to the provisions of the FedenJl 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 Goodfl'ienos, Inc. , a corporation, and Xathaniel Goodfriend, individually and as an offcer of said corporation, hereinafter referred to as respondents, have violated the provisions of said Acts and the Rules and Regulations FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSIO!\ DECISIONS Complaint 71 F.

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: PARAGRAPH 1. Respondent Goodfriends, Inc. , is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Texas. Its offce and principal place of business is located at 901 Congress Avenue, Austin, Texas. Respondent Nathaniel Goodfriend is an offcer of said corporation. He formulates, directs and controls the policies, acts and practices of said corporation and his address is the same as that of said corporation.

Corporate respondent is a department store which retails fur products.

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 fu!' products which have been made in whole or in part of fur which has been shipped and received in commerce, as the terms commerce fur" and "fur products " are defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act.

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 thc Fur Products Labeling Act and in the manner and form prescribed by the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder.

Among such misbranded fur products, but not limited thereto were fur products with labels which failed to show the true animal name of the fur used in the fur product. PAR. 4. Certain of said fur products were misbranded in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act in that they were not labeled in accordance with the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in the following respects: (a) The term "natural" was not used on labels to describe fur products which were not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed, or otherwise artiiiciaily colored, in violation of Rule 19 (g) of said Rules and Reg-lllations.

(b) Required item llUmbers were not set forth on labels, in violation of Rule 40 of said Rules and Regulations. PAR. 5. Certain of said ful' products were misbranded in vio- GOODFRIE:-DS, INC. , ET AL.

Complaint lation 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 affxed 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 reduction 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. 6. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively 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 and Regulations promulgated under such Act. Among such falsely and deceptively invoiced fur products, but not limited thereto, were fur products covered by invoices which failed to show the true animal name of the fur used in the fur products.

PAR. 7. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act in that they were not invoiced iJl accordance with the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in the following respects: (a) Information requh.ed under Section 5 (b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder was set forth on invoices in abbreviated form, in violation of Rule 4 of said Rules and Regulations. (b) 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 vioiation of Rule 19 (g) of said Rules and Regulations.

PAR. 8. Respondents falsely and deceptively advertised fur products by affxing labels thereto which represented either directly or by implication that prices of such fur products were reduced from respondents' former prices and the 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 the actual bona fide prices at which respondents offered the fur products to the public on a regular basis for a reasonably substantial period of time in the recent regular course y, FEDERAL TRADE COXIMISSION DECISIONS Decision and Order 71 F. of business and the said fur products were not reduced in price as represented and the represented savings were not thereby afforded to purchasers, in violation of Section 5 (a) (5) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and Rule 44 (a) of the Rules and Regulations.

PAR. 9. 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 false and deceptive advertisements, but not limited thereto, were advertisements of respondents which appeared in issues of the Austin American Statesman, a newspaper published in the city of Austin, State of Texas, having a wide circulation in Texas and in other States of the Lnited States.

PAR. 10. In offering fur products for sale in advertisements as aforesaid respondents represented through such statements as 0 to off" that prices of fur products offered for sale 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 , in vio-savings were not thereby afforded to the said purchasers lation of Section 5 (a) (5) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. PAR. 11. In advertising fur products for sale, as aforesaid, respondents made pricing claims and representations of the types covered by subsections (a), (b), (c) and (d) of Rule 44 of the Regulations under the Fur Products Labeling Act. Respondents in making such claims and representations failed to maintain full and adequate records disclosing the facts upon which such pricing claims and representations were based, in violatitm of Rule 44 (e) of the said Rules and Regulations.

PAR. 12. The aforesaid acts and practices of respondents, as herein alleged, are in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder and constitute unfair and deceptive acts and practices and unfair methods of competition in commerce under the Federal Trade Commission Act.

DECISro!\ AND ORDER The Federal Trade Commission having initiated an investiga- GOODFRIENDS, INC. , ET AL.

Order tion 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 Textiles 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 Fur Products Labeling Act; and The respondents and counsel for the Commission having thereafter executed an agreement containing a consent order, an admission by the respondents of all the jurisdictional facts set forth in the aforesaid draft of complaint, a statement that the signing of said agreement is for settement 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 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 Goodfriends, Inc. , is a corporation organized existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Texas, with its offce and principal place of business located at 901 Congress A venue, in the city of Austin, State of Texas.

Respondent athaniel Goodfriend is an offcer of said corporation and his address is the same as that of said corporation. 2. The Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this proceding and of the respondents, and the proceeding is in the public interest.

ORDER It is ordered That respondents Goodfriends, Inc. , a corporation, and its offcers, and Nathaniel Goodfriend, individually and as an offcer of said corporation, and respondents' representatives agents, and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the introduction into commerce, or the sale, advertising or offering for sale in commerce, or the transportation or distribution 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 whole or in part of fur which has been shipped and received in com- Order 71 F.

merc€, as "commerce fur" and "fur product" are defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act, do forthwith cease and desist from: A. Misbranding fur products by:

1. Failing to affx labels to fur products showing in words and in figures plainly legible an of the information required to be disclosed by each of the subsections of Section 4 (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. 2. Failing to set forth the term " natural" as part of the information required to be disclosed on iabols under the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder to describe fur products which are not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed, or otherwise artificially colored.

3. Failing to set forth on labels the item number or mark assigned to a fur product.

4. Representing, directly or by implication on labels that any price, whether accompanied or not by descriptive terminology is the respondents' former price of fur products when such amount is in excess of the actual bona fide price at which respondents sold or offered the fur products for sale to the public on a regular basis for a reasonably substantial pe"iod of time in the recent regular course of business or othenvise misrepresenting the price at which the said fur products have been sold or offered for s2le by respondents.

5. Misrepresenting in any manner on labels or other means of identification the savings available to purchasers of respondents' products.

6. Falsely or deceptively representing in any manner directly or by implication, on labels or other means of identification that prices of respondents ' fur products are reduced.

B. Falsely or deceptively invoicing fur products by: 1. Failing to furnish invoices, as the term "invoice is defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act, showing in words and figures plainly legible all the information required to be disclosed in each of the subsections 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 Labeling Act and the GOODFRIENDS , INC. , E'r AL.

Order Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in abbreviated form.

3. Failing to set forth the term "natural" as part of the information required to be disclosed on invoices under the Fur Products Labeling Act and Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder to describe fur products which are not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed, or otherwise artificially colored.

C. Falsely or deceptively advertising 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 any fur product, and which:

1. Represents, directly or by implication that any price, whether accompanied or not by descriptive terminology, is the respondents' former price of a fur product when such amount is in excess of the actual, bona fide price at which respondents sold or offered such fur products for sale to the public on a regular basis for a reasonably substantial period of time in the recent regular course of business or otherwise misrepresents the price at which the said fur products have been sold or offered for sale by respondents.

2. lVlisrepresents in any manner the savings available to purchasers of respondents' fur products. 3. Falsely or deceptively represents in any manner that prices of respondents ' fur products are reduced. 4. Misrepresents directly or by implication through percentage savings claims that prices of fur products are reduced to afford purchasers of respondents' fur products the percentage of savings stated.

D. 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 fuH and adequate records disclosing the facts upon which such claims and representations are based.

It -is jurther OJ'dcred That the respondents herein shah, 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. Complaint 71 F.