A. H. Schechner & Sons, Inc

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

IN THE MATTER OF A. H. SCHECHNER & SO:\, INC., ET AL.

CO?\SENT ORDER, ETC. , IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND THE FUR PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket C-1652. Complaint, Dec. 19G9-Decision, Dee. 19 1969 Consent order requiring manufacturers of fur products of New York City, to cease falsely advertising and in"voicing furs, and failing to maintain adequate records to support pricing claims. 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 A. H. Schechner & Son, Inc. , a corporation, and Emanuel Greenfield, 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 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 A. H. Schechner & Son, Inc. , is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of :\ew York. Respondent Emanuel Greenfield is an offcer of the corporate A. H. SCHECHNER & SON , INC. , ET AL. 911 J1U Complaint respondent. He formulates, directs and controls the policies, acts and practices of the said corporate respondent including those hereinafter set forth.

Respondents are manufacturers of fur products with their offce and principal place of business located at 330 Seventh Avenue, NeVi' York, New York.

PAR. 2. Respondents are now, and for some time last past have been, 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 fuy and fuy product" are defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act.

PAR. 3. 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:

1. To show the true animal name of the animal or animals which produced the fur used in such fur products. 2. To disclose that the fur contained in the fur products was bleached, dyed, or otherwise artificially colored, when such was the fact.

3. To show the country of origin of imported fur used in any such fur product.

PAR. 4 . Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced with respect to the name or designation of the animal or animals that produced the fur from which the said fur products had been manufactured, in violation of Section 5 (b) (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

Among such falsely and deceptively invoiced fur products, but not limited thereto, were fuy products which were invoiced as tail" thereby implying that the furs contained therein were entitled to the designation "Broadtail Lamb" when in truth and in fact the furs contained therein were not entitled to such designation.

Complaint 76 F.

PAR. 5. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act in that they were not invoiced in accordance with the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in the following respects: (a) Information required 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 artifically colored, in violation of Rule 19 (g) of said Rules and Regulations.

(c) The term "Dyed Broadtail-processed Lamb" was not set forth on invoices in the manner required by law, in violation of Rule 10 of said Rules and Regulations.

PAR. 6. 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 and 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 advertisements, but not limited thereto, were advertisements of a retail department store which appeared in issues of the Anniston Star, a newspaper published in the city of Anniston, State of Alabama and having a wide circulation in Alabama and in other States of the United States. Respondents together with the retail advertisers of the fur products cooperated, participated and assisted in the preparation of said advertisements.

By means of the aforesaid advertisements and other advertisements of similar import and meaning not specifically referred to herein respondents cooperated, participated and assisted in the preparation of false and deceptive advertisements and falsely and deceptively advertised fur products, in violation of Section 5 (a) (5) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and Rule 44 (a) of the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder by representing, directly or by implication, that the prices of said fur products were reduced from the purported former prices at which such fur products were offered for sale by the retail advertiser and the amounts of such purported reductions constituted savings to purchasers of such fur products. In truth and in fact the purported A. H. SCHECHNER & SON, INC. , ET AL. 913 910 Complaint former prices were fictitious in that they were not actual bona fide prices at which such fur products were offered for sale by the retail advertiser to the public on a regular basis for a reasonable 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 said fur products as represented.

PAR. 7. In advertising fur products for sale as aforesaid respondents represented through such statements as " 20 to 40 off on aji furs" that prices of fur products were reduced in direct proportion to the percentage stated from purported former prices at which the fur products were offered for sale to the public at retail on a regular basis for a reasonably substantial period of time in the recent regular course of business and that the amount of said reduction afforded savings to the purchasers of such 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. PAR. 8. 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 fuji and adequate records disclosing the facts upon which such claims and representations were based, in violation of Rule 44 (e) of said Rules and Regulations.

PAR. 9. 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 methods of competition and unfair and deceptive acts and practices in commerce under 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 Textiles and Furs proposed to present to the Commission for its consideration and which, if issued by the Commission, would Decision and Order 76 F.

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 settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by respondents that the law has been violated as alleged in such complaint, and waivers and other provisions as required by the Commission s Rules; and The Commission having thereafter considered the matter and having determined that it has reason to believe that the respondents have violated the said Acts, and that complaint should issue stating its charges in that respect, and having thereupon accepted the executed consent agreement and placed such agreement on the public records for a period of thirty (30) days, now in further conformity with the procedure prescribed in :04 (b) of its Rules, the Commission hereby issues its complaint, makes the following jurisdictional findings, and enters the following order. 1. Respondent A. H. Schechner & Son, 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 :030 Seventh Avenue, New York, New York. Respondent Emanuel Greenfield 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.

Respondents are manufacturers of fur products. 2. The Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction of the subj ect matter of this proceeding and of the respondents, and the proceeding is in the public interest.

ORDER It is ordend That respondents A. H. Schechner & Son, Inc. , a corporation, and its offcers, and Emanuel Greenfield, individually and as an offcer of said corporation, and respondents' representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connecbon 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; A. H. SCHECHNER & SON, INC. , ET AL. 915 910 Decision and Order 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 commerce, as the terms "commerce fuy and "fur product" are defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act, do forthwith cease and desist from:

A. Falsely or deceptively invoicing any fur product by: 1. Failing to furnish an invoice, as the term "invoke is defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act, showing in words and figures plainly legible all the information required to be disclosed by each of the subsections of Section 5 (b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. 2. Setting forth on an invoice pertaining to such fur product any false or deceptive information with respect to the name or designation of the animal or animals that produced the fur contained in such fur product. 3. Setting forth information required under Section 5 (b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in abbreviated form on an invoice pertaining to such fur product. 4. Failing to set forth the term "natural" as part of the information required to be disclosed on an invoice under the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder to describe such fur product which is not pointed, bleached, dyed, tipdyed, or otherwise artificially colored. 5. Failing to set forth the term "Dyed Broadtail-processed Lamb" in the manner required \vhere an election is made to use that term instead of the words "Dyed Lamb, B. Participating, cooperating or assisting in the preparation of any false or deceptive advertisement or falsely or deceptively advertising any fur product through 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 such fur product, and which:

1. Represents, directly or by implication, that any price whether accompanied or not by descriptive termjnology is the former price of such fur product when Decision and Order 76 F.

such price is in excess of the prices at which such fur product has been sold or offered for sale at retail in good faith by the advertiser 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 such fur product has been sold or offered for sale by the advertiser.

2. Falsely or deceptively represents that savings are afforded to the purchaser of any such fur product or misrepresents in any manner the amount of savings afforded to the purchaser of such fur product. 3. Falsely or deceptively represents that the price of any such fur product is reduced.

4. Misrepresents directly or by implication through percentage savings claims that prices of fur products are reduced to afford purchasers of the fur products the perccntage of savings stated.

C. Failing to maintain full and adequate records disclosing the facts upon \which pricing claims and representations of the types described in subsections (a), (b), (c) and (d) of Rule 44 of the Rules and Regulations promulgated under the Fur Products Labeling Act, are based.

It is fU1.that ordered That respondents notify the Commission at least 30 days prior to any proposed change in the corporate respondent such as dissolution, assignment or sale resulting in the emergence of a successor corporation, the creation or dissolution of subsidiaries or any other change in the corporation which may affect compliance obligations arising out of the order. It is further ordered That the respondent corporation shall forthwith distribute a copy of this order to each of its operating divisions.

It iB 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. FURS BY TSISTINAS, LTD. , ET AL. 917 917 Complaint