Georgia Fabric Corporation

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

In THE Marrer OF GEORGIA FABRIC CORPORATION; ET AL, CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, THE TEXTILE FIBER PRODUCTS IDENTIFI- CATION AND THE WOOL PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket C-2289. Complaint, Sept. 21, 1972—Decision, Sept, 21, 1972, Consent order requiring an Atlanta, Georgia, purchaser and wholesaler of fabrics, among other things to cease falsely advertising, deceptively guaranteeing, and misbranding his textile fiber products; misbranding the fiber content of his wool products; and misrepresenting the prices of certain products as being at “cost or below” and discounted from the “regular” price. Complaint Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act, the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939, and the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act, and by virtue of the authority vested in it by said Acts, the Federal Trade Commission, having reason to believe that Georgia Fabric Corporation, a corporation, and Elliott I. Reich, individually and as an officer of Georgia Fabric Corporation, hereinafter referred to as respondents, have violated the provisions of said Acts and the rules and regulations promulgated under the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939, and the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act, and it now appearing to the Commission that a proceeding by it in 390 FEDERAL: TRADE . COMMISSION’ DECISIONS . Complaint 8 TO.

‘respect thereto would be in the public interest, hereby issues its complaint stating its charges in that respect as follows: Paracrarn 1. Respondent Georgia Fabric Corporation is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Georgia. The respondent corporation maintains its main offices and principal place of business at 4440 Commerce Circle; S.W., Atlanta, Georgia. co, _ _- Respondent Elliott I. Reich is an officer of said corporation. He as- ‘sists in formulating, directing and controlling the practices of the cor- ‘porate respondent. He maintains offices at 108 W. 39th Street, New York, New York. , .

. Respondents are engaged in the business, of purchasing fabrics from ‘various: sources, and the wholesaling of such fabrics throughout the “United States. : a . ok Par. 2. Respondents are now and for some time last past. have been engaged in the introduction, delivery for introduction, manufacture for introduction, sale, advertising, and offering for sale, in commerce, and in the transportation or. causing to be transported in commerce, and in the importation into the United States, of textile fiber products; and have sold, offered for sale, advertised, delivered, transported and caused to be transported, textile fiber products which have been advertised or offered for sale in commerce; and have sold, offered for sale, advertised, delivered, transported, and caused to be transported after shipment in commerce, textile fiber products, either in their original state or contained in other textile fiber products, as the terms “commerce” and “textile fiber product” are defined in the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act.

Par. 3. Certain of said textile fiber products were misbranded by respondents within the intent and meaning of Section 4.(a) of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder, in that they were falsely and deceptively stamped, tagged, labeled, invoiced, advertised or otherwise identified as to the name or amount of the constituent fibers contained therein. Among such misbranded textile fiber products, but not limited thereto, were textile fiber products, namely fabric, which were advertised in commerce as “Color Linens” and “Bonded Linen” by Georgia Fabric Corporation but which, in fact, did not contain the fiber linen but substantially different types of fibers. . Par. 4, Certain of said textile fiber products were misbranded by respondents in that'they were not stamped, tagged, labeled, or otherwise identified as required under the provisions of Section 4(b) of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act, and in the manner and form _.. “GEORGIA FABRIC CORP., ET AL. 391 389 Complaint as prescribed by the rules and regulations promulgated under said Among such misbranded textile fiber products, but not limited _ thereto, were textile fiber products, namely fabric, with labels affixed by Georgia Fabric Corporation which failed to disclose the true ge- ‘neric names of the.fibers present. 7 _ Also among such misbranded textile fiber products were fabrics offered by Georgia Fabric Corporation which did not have labels affixed thereto disclosing:

1. The percentages of the fibers present by weight. =~ . 2. The name, or other identification issued and registered by. the | Commission, of the.manufacturer of the products or one or more per- sons subject to Section 3 with respect to such products. ° Par. 5. Respondents, in violation of Section 5(a) of the Textile Fiber — Products Identification Act, have caused and participated in the removal of, prior to the time textile fiber products subject to the provisions of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act were sold and delivered to the ultimate consumer, labels required by the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act. to be affixed to such products, without substituting therefore labels conforming to Section 4 of said Act and in the manner prescribed by Section 5(b) of said Act. . Par. 6. Respondents, in substituting a stamp, tag, label, or other identification pursuant to Section 5(b) of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act, have not kept such records as would show the information set forth on the stamp, tag, label, or other identification that was removed, and the name or names of the person or persons from whom such textile fiber products were secured in violation of Section 6(b) of said Act.

Par. 7. Respondents, in violation of Section 4(c) of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act, have falsely and deceptively advertised textile fiber products by disclosing or implying fiber content in written advertisements without disclosing therein the same information as that: required to be shown on the stamp, tag, label, or other identification under Section 4(b) (1) and (2), of said Act, except percentages of the fibers present need not be stated.

Among such textile fiber products falsely and deceptively advertised, but not limited thereto, were those fabrics described by Georgia Fabric Corporation solely through the terms “Orlons,” “Dacron,” and “Corduroy.”

Par. 8. Respondents, in violation of Section 10(b) of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act, have furnished a false guaranty under said Act by falsely claiming textile fiber products will not be misbranded or falsely or deceptively invoiced or advertised within the “392. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION DECISIONS - . ‘Comhplaiiit ) 81 FTC.

‘meaning of thé'Textile Fiber Products Identification Act.and the tales and regulations thereunder when such is not the fact. ; Par, 9. The'acts'and practices of respondents as set forth’above were, and ‘are, in violation of thé Textile Fiber Prodticts Identification: Act and the riiles and regulations promulgated thereunder, and constituted, and now constitute, unfair methods of dompetition and unfair and deceptive5 1 2 3 4 2 975 940 79 29 94.295586 acts5 1 2 3 4 3 1067 933 79 38 46.015778 aids 1 2 3 4 4 1152 933 181 74 36.996330 ‘piadticts,5 1 2 3 4 5 1353 929 21 82 46.067280 i5 1 2 3 4 6 1353 933 39 54 96.849312 in5 1 2 3 4 7 1404 933 212 84 66.928223 commerce;5 1 2 3 4 8 1621 938 115 68 96.888077 under5 1 2 3 4 9 1743 938 68 62 93.521622 ‘thes 1 2 3 4 10 1829 940 150 35 96.568680 Federal5 1 2 3 4 11 1999 940 114 51 96.635857 Trade4 1 2 3 5 0 773 985 488 37 -1 5 1 2 3 5 1 773 981 240 40 41.839592 ‘Corimission5 1 2 3 5 2 1032 989 101 33 71.628105 ‘Act.5 1 2 3 5 3 1121 977 16 58 37.977261 :5 1 2 3 5 4 1222 998 39 13 20.010765 ae3 1 2 4 0 0 828 1003 1283 83 -1 4 1 2 4 1 0 828 1003 1283 83 -1 5 1 2 4 1 1 828 1038 83 32 91.457047 Par.5 1 2 4 1 2 929 1040 48 30 95.877563 10.5 1 2 4 1 3 992 1010 248 76 93.932045 Respondents,5 1 2 4 1 4 1255 1051 76 20 96.370903 now5 1 2 4 1 5 1347 1040 69 32 96.374474 ands 1 2 4 1 6 1431 1015 58 57 96.886818 for5 1 2 4 1 7 1502 1050 92 22 96.782265 some5 1 2 4 1 8 1606 1012 89 66 87.080170 times 1 2 4 1 9 1704 1040 68 31 81.909012 lasts 1 2 4 1 10 1782 1003 93 83 96.360405 past,5 1 2 4 1 11 1888 1011 102 62 76.335770 have:5 1 2 4 1 12 1993 1048 118 26 86.674568 manu-3 1 2 5 0 0 740 1088 1414 499 -1 4 1 2 5 1 0 781 1088 1333 45 -1 5 1 2 5 1 1 781 1088 159 34 91.929123 factured5 1 2 5 1 2 959 1089 58 33 96.279129 for5 1 2 5 1 3 1036 1084 235 46 91.862900 introductions 1 2 5 1 4 1289 1091 84 33 63.915821 into:5 1 2 5 1 5 1378 1088 201 51 89.021774 commerce,5 1 2 5 1 6 1598 1087 204 36 95.436485 introduced5 1 2 5 1 7 1820 1091 86 33 94.876526 into5 1 2 5 1 8 1911 1095 203 38 95.459740 commerce,4 1 2 5 2 0 773 1133 1338 65 -1 5 1 2 5 2 1 773 1137 101 44 45.326736 ‘NOld;5 1 2 5 2 2 877 1132 241 51 29.744987 transported,5 1 2 5 2 3 1134 1139 224 44 82.460854 distributed,5 1 2 5 2 4 1370 1135 183 53 95.662598 delivered5 1 2 5 2 5 1570 1137 62 37 95.662598 for5 1 2 5 2 6 1644 1139 193 58 80.232574 shipment,5 1 2 5 2 7 1860 1138 168 60 95.551201 shipped,5 1 2 5 2 8 2041 1142 70 34 95.679337 anda 1 2 5 3 0 740 1164 1414 66 -1 5 1 2 5 3 1 740 1216 3 3 0.000000 ;5 1 2 5 3 2 778 1164 151 57 79.397720 ‘offered5 1 2 5 3 3 935 1189 58 32 92.351257 for5 1 2 5 3 4 1005 1190 113 40 61.060059 sale,5 1 2 5 3 5 1110 1194 51 27 93.021027 in5 1 2 5 3 6 1161 1192 198 46 83.200333 ‘commérce,5 1 2 5 3 7 1372 1190 46 33 92.664551 as5 1 2 5 3 8 1435 1191 253 33 89.666039 “commerce”5 1 2 5 3 9 1672 1199 46 25 73.348175 is:5 1 2 5 3 10 1728 1186 160 39 84.350975 defined.5 1 2 5 3 11 1879 1203 37 21 84.350975 in5 1 2 5 3 12 1934 1188 64 37 94.133179 thes 1 2 5 3 13 2006 1192 115 36 85.591026 Wool.5 1 2 5 3 14 2145 1198 9 28 0.000000 -4 1 2 5 4 0 779 1235 1347 81 -1 5 1 2 5 4 1 779 1241 171 45 93.275764 Products5 1 2 5 4 2 967 1234 177 55 23.407051 Labélitig5 1 2 5 4 3 1151 1241 72 58 88.334785 Acts 1 2 5 4 4 1235 1236 48 66 73.894653 of5 1 2 5 4 5 1301 1244 93 59 93.066116 1989,5 1 2 5 4 6 1424 1242 84 66 85.521019 Wook5 1 2 5 4 7 1511 1236 185 80 77.639900 products5 1 2 5 4 8 1705 1235 42 51 95.459282 as5 1 2 5 4 9 1759 1237 120 75 49.363945 “wool5 1 2 5 4 10 1886 1239 181 65 88.169090 product”5 1 2 5 4 11 2077 1243 49 36 77.660034 is,4 1 2 5 5 0 767 1282 466 68 -1 5 1 2 5 5 1 767 1282 142 68 73.435219 ‘defined5 1 2 5 5 2 923 1282 163 41 21.887634 ‘therein.’5 1 2 5 5 3 1187 1306 46 7 44.793823 a4 1 2 5 6 0 750 1309 1360 81 -1 5 1 2 5 6 1 750 1337 154 46 20.023994 Par.5 1 2 5 6 2 920 1334 52 41 70.617935 11.5 1 2 5 6 3 983 1333 160 42 83.793022 Certain5 1 2 5 6 4 1148 1343 43 32 92.211166 of5 1 2 5 6 5 1204 1311 88 65 12.816628 aiid:5 1 2 5 6 6 1288 1309 188 76 2.327049 -piodviots:5 1 2 5 6 7 1473 1339 93 51 37.149803 ‘were5 1 2 5 6 8 1582 1312 220 65 0.000000 inisbiinnded5 1 2 5 6 9 1817 1325 55 61 96.286423 by5 1 2 5 6 10 1882 1341 228 46 76.239700 respondents4 1 2 5 7 0 775 1386 1333 63 -1 5 1 2 5 7 1 775 1390 47 33 95.534714 in5 1 2 5 7 2 827 1392 89 31 92.775764 that5 1 2 5 7 3 919 1384 88 50 92.775764 they5 1 2 5 7 4 1015 1393 87 32 94.371300 were5 1 2 5 7 5 1110 1395 66 30 93.275520 not5 1 2 5 7 6 1186 1394 170 55 96.288933 stamped,5 1 2 5 7 7 1358 1386 156 54 71.865730 ‘tagged,5 1 2 5 7 8 1521 1387 144 48 96.568710 labeled,5 1 2 5 7 9 1681 1401 40 25 96.924820 or5 1 2 5 7 10 1735 1394 180 34 92.996971 otherwise5 1 2 5 7 11 1929 1395 179 33 65.194077 idetitified4 1 2 5 8 0 772 1419 1335 67 -1 5 1 2 5 8 1 772 1440 46 33 81.393196 as5 1 2 5 8 2 830 1440 162 52 96.566269 required5 1 2 5 8 3 999 1441 110 32 58.481514 under5 1 2 5 8 4 1117 1442 66 32 93.451691 thes 1 2 5 8 5 1184 1438 198 52 78.067932 ‘provisions5 1 2 5 8 6 1393 1443 40 33 96.607666 of5 1 2 5 8 7 1444 1440 140 49 79.448555 Sections 1 2 5 8 8 1594 1419 87 67 69.414444 4(a)5 1 2 5 8 9 1690 1438 60 48 96.946098 (2)5 1 2 5 8 10 1762 1444 40 32 96.858505 of5 1 2 5 8 11 1813 1441 59 36 95.008583 thes 1 2 5 8 12 1882 1446 104 33 93.177170 Wool5 1 2 5 8 13 1999 1440 108 39 85.458900 Prod-4 1 2 5 9 0 766 1486 1342 72 -1 5 1 2 5 9 1 766 1487 96 37 88.247322 ‘ucts5 1 2 5 9 2 862 1485 174 54 62.024502 Labeling5 1 2 5 9 3 1048 1486 124 41 90.756065 Act-of5 1 2 5 9 4 1188 1496 88 31 84.001968 19395 1 2 5 9 5 1285 1491 94 36 84.001968 ands 1 2 5 9 6 1369 1506 37 20 95.979210 in5 1 2 5 9 7 1423 1495 58 32 96.918060 thes 1 2 5 9 8 1495 1499 143 28 96.910477 manners 1 2 5 9 9 1646 1495 77 32 96.407654 ands 1 2 5 9 10 1740 1495 94 32 95.539734 forms 1 2 5 9 11 1849 1495 196 63 95.900497 prescribed5 1 2 5 9 12 2056 1497 52 56 96.366707 by4 1 2 5 10 0 759 1542 1088 45 -1 5 1 2 5 10 1 759 1542 79 45 79.651482 ‘thes 1 2 5 10 2 848 1544 107 46 71.170425 tules5 1 2 5 10 3 956 1542 85 33 91.407928 ‘ands 1 2 5 10 4 1047 1543 211 49 24.056412 ‘regulations5 1 2 5 10 5 1276 1545 243 45 92.053787 promulgated5 1 2 5 10 6 1531 1545 114 33 96.167923 under5 1 2 5 10 7 1663 1539 76 39 76.016014 said5 1 2 5 10 8 1756 1545 91 33 92.305107 Act.3 1 2 6 0 0 774 1593 1334 285 -1 4 1 2 6 1 0 819 1593 1289 45 -1 5 1 2 6 1 1 819 1584 83 41 80.303772 Par.5 1 2 6 1 2 906 1588 60 38 95.174576 12.5 1 2 6 1 3 980 1584 74 42 96.602448 Thes 1 2 6 1 4 1067 1598 72 28 95.256516 acts5 1 2 6 1 5 1152 1595 68 31 74.310112 aiid5 1 2 6 1 6 1233 1594 166 42 87.916733 practices5 1 2 6 1 7 1412 1596 40 31 96.979164 of5 1 2 6 1 8 1460 1595 62 32 96.991470 thes 1 2 6 1 9 1535 1591 223 47 96.399956 respondents5 1 2 6 1 10 1771 1599 103 30 14.624329 assets 1 2 6 1 11 1883 1596 104 33 96.454254 forth5 1 2 6 1 12 2001 1597 107 33 96.692520 above4 1 2 6 2 0 779 1643 1326 45 -1 5 1 2 6 2 1 779 1653 98 30 96.796730 were,5 1 2 6 2 2 892 1643 69 31 96.243996 ands 1 2 6 2 3 973 1654 67 29 94.374947 are,5 1 2 6 2 4 1055 1643 37 31 95.506584 in5 1 2 6 2 5 1104 1644 166 32 95.506584 violations 1 2 6 2 6 1284 1644 39 32 96.788689 of5 1 2 6 2 7 1334 1645 60 32 96.788689 thes 1 2 6 2 8 1407 1642 100 36 96.729416 Wool5 1 2 6 2 9 1522 1646 169 31 96.224045 Products5 1 2 6 2 10 1705 1639 169 49 96.800705 Labeling5 1 2 6 2 11 1883 1646 74 32 96.583282 Acts 1 2 6 2 12 1971 1647 38 32 96.949249 of5 1 2 6 2 13 2026 1650 79 30 96.383224 19394 1 2 6 3 0 775 1693 1331 47 -1 5 1 2 6 3 1 775 1694 69 31 96.275757 ands 1 2 6 3 2 854 1695 59 30 96.758911 thes 1 2 6 3 3 923 1694 90 32 96.466728 rules5 1 2 6 3 4 1025 1693 69 34 96.537064 ands 1 2 6 3 5 1105 1695 211 42 96.700073 regulations5 1 2 6 3 6 1325 1696 242 42 96.745468 promulgated5 1 2 6 3 7 1578 1697 215 41 96.624901 thereunder,5 1 2 6 3 8 1806 1698 69 32 97.013603 ands 1 2 6 3 9 1887 1697 219 43 96.934898 constituted,4 1 2 6 4 0 775 1744 1331 44 -1 5 1 2 6 4 1 775 1744 69 32 96.220970 ands 1 2 6 4 2 864 1755 77 21 96.900368 now5 1 2 6 4 3 963 1745 192 43 96.695740 constitute,5 1 2 6 4 4 1177 1746 121 32 95.989639 unfair5 1 2 6 4 5 1318 1746 156 36 96.333061 methods5 1 2 6 4 6 1495 1747 40 32 96.639809 of5 1 2 6 4 7 1557 1746 222 42 96.016472 competitions 1 2 6 4 8 1801 1748 70 32 96.276146 ands 1 2 6 4 9 1892 1749 122 32 96.603653 unfair5 1 2 6 4 10 2036 1750 70 32 96.972862 anda 1 2 6 5 0 774 1794 1332 47 -1 5 1 2 6 5 1 774 1794 176 42 96.746811 deceptive5 1 2 6 5 2 967 1798 70 29 96.872055 acts5 1 2 6 5 3 1055 1796 69 31 96.685066 ands 1 2 6 5 4 1140 1795 175 43 96.865868 practices,5 1 2 6 5 5 1333 1797 36 31 96.954865 in5 1 2 6 5 6 1385 1807 195 31 96.728416 commerce,5 1 2 6 5 7 1595 1797 125 33 96.744179 within5 1 2 6 5 8 1736 1798 59 32 96.109703 thes 1 2 6 5 9 1811 1797 164 44 96.531761 meanings 1 2 6 5 10 1991 1800 39 31 96.592056 of5 1 2 6 5 11 2046 1800 60 32 96.847946 thea 1 2 6 6 0 778 1844 595 34 -1 5 1 2 6 6 1 778 1844 147 31 93.843773 Federal5 1 2 6 6 2 935 1845 115 31 96.662308 Trades 1 2 6 6 3 1060 1845 226 33 96.291206 Commissions 1 2 6 6 4 1296 1846 77 32 96.336380 Act.3 1 2 7 0 0 772 1895 1332 191 -1 4 1 2 7 1 0 816 1895 1288 45 -1 5 1 2 7 1 1 816 1895 83 32 96.334816 Par.5 1 2 7 1 2 922 1898 49 30 83.017899 13.5 1 2 7 1 3 993 1896 247 42 96.316895 Respondents,5 1 2 7 1 4 1262 1896 149 44 96.148865 Georgia5 1 2 7 1 5 1433 1897 126 34 96.757011 Fabrics 1 2 7 1 6 1581 1897 230 43 96.390518 Corporations 1 2 7 1 7 1834 1899 69 33 95.765343 ands 1 2 7 1 8 1924 1900 127 33 96.368240 Elliott5 1 2 7 1 9 2074 1902 30 31 96.060051 I.4 1 2 7 2 0 772 1946 1332 46 -1 5 1 2 7 2 1 772 1946 119 40 96.316566 Reich,5 1 2 7 2 2 909 1957 57 21 96.316566 ares 1 2 7 2 3 981 1958 77 20 96.756744 now5 1 2 7 2 4 1075 1947 68 32 96.597153 ands 1 2 7 2 5 1160 1948 57 32 96.597153 for5 1 2 7 2 6 1233 1958 91 22 96.647278 some5 1 2 7 2 7 1339 1948 84 32 95.967384 times 1 2 7 2 8 1439 1949 67 32 95.949112 lasts 1 2 7 2 9 1522 1952 79 39 96.156281 past5 1 2 7 2 10 1615 1949 88 32 96.929474 have5 1 2 7 2 11 1720 1949 82 32 96.205070 been5 1 2 7 2 12 1820 1951 156 41 95.629135 engaged5 1 2 7 2 13 1993 1951 36 32 96.796822 in5 1 2 7 2 14 2045 1951 59 33 96.942390 thea 1 2 7 3 0 772 1996 1331 45 -1 5 1 2 7 3 1 772 1996 225 43 96.726616 advertising,5 1 2 7 3 2 1012 1998 79 41 96.869904 sale,5 1 2 7 3 3 1107 1997 148 44 96.556297 offerings 1 2 7 3 4 1270 1998 57 33 96.761696 for5 1 2 7 3 5 1342 1999 69 33 96.406975 sales 1 2 7 3 6 1427 1999 69 33 96.504189 ands 1 2 7 3 7 1511 1998 224 34 96.460052 distributions 1 2 7 3 8 1750 2000 41 32 96.857162 of5 1 2 7 3 9 1806 2000 140 41 96.627701 fabrics,5 1 2 7 3 10 1963 2001 37 33 92.504333 in5 1 2 7 3 11 2014 2013 89 22 92.504333 com-4 1 2 7 4 0 778 2046 1326 40 -1 5 1 2 7 4 1 778 2056 120 30 96.165756 merce,5 1 2 7 4 2 911 2057 37 21 96.961128 as5 1 2 7 4 3 961 2046 224 33 93.224525 “commerce”5 1 2 7 4 4 1198 2047 28 33 96.603615 is5 1 2 7 4 5 1239 2048 134 32 96.707779 defined5 1 2 7 4 6 1384 2049 37 31 96.963242 in5 1 2 7 4 7 1432 2049 58 33 96.509010 thes 1 2 7 4 8 1503 2049 145 33 96.499756 Federal5 1 2 7 4 9 1660 2050 115 32 96.840569 Trades 1 2 7 4 10 1786 2050 229 34 96.501808 Commissions 1 2 7 4 11 2026 2052 78 33 96.255890 Act.3 1 2 8 0 0 770 2092 1334 199 -1 4 1 2 8 1 0 819 2092 1285 51 -1 5 1 2 8 1 1 819 2097 44 31 96.414619 In5 1 2 8 1 2 883 2097 58 32 97.004936 thes 1 2 8 1 3 961 2107 116 22 96.720222 courses 1 2 8 1 4 1098 2097 68 33 82.714340 ands 1 2 8 1 5 1186 2092 145 39 95.649529 conducts 1 2 8 1 6 1351 2099 39 38 96.994034 of5 1 2 8 1 7 1409 2100 92 31 96.291908 theirs 1 2 8 1 8 1520 2100 163 41 96.719185 business,5 1 2 8 1 9 1703 2100 59 32 96.972824 thes 1 2 8 1 10 1782 2101 77 33 96.002914 said5 1 2 8 1 11 1879 2103 225 40 96.002914 respondents4 1 2 8 2 0 771 2148 1333 48 -1 5 1 2 8 2 1 771 2148 88 33 96.607368 have5 1 2 8 2 2 877 2148 193 33 96.607368 advertised5 1 2 8 2 3 1088 2149 91 33 96.851845 theirs 1 2 8 2 4 1197 2149 130 34 96.659676 fabrics5 1 2 8 2 5 1343 2150 47 42 96.654663 by5 1 2 8 2 6 1407 2162 115 21 96.550896 means5 1 2 8 2 7 1540 2152 40 42 96.933289 of5 1 2 8 2 8 1597 2151 164 33 96.568207 circulars5 1 2 8 2 9 1779 2154 77 31 96.648514 sents 1 2 8 2 10 1873 2153 153 43 96.089661 through5 1 2 8 2 11 2044 2155 60 33 96.278008 thea 1 2 8 3 0 770 2198 1333 47 -1 5 1 2 8 3 1 770 2198 133 35 96.338470 United5 1 2 8 3 2 919 2198 115 35 96.338470 States5 1 2 8 3 3 1048 2199 102 33 96.469017 mails5 1 2 8 3 4 1163 2202 36 30 96.117294 to5 1 2 8 3 5 1214 2203 183 40 95.920914 numerous5 1 2 8 3 6 1413 2212 140 32 95.920914 persons5 1 2 8 3 7 1569 2202 37 33 96.995445 in5 1 2 8 3 8 1621 2202 59 33 96.607750 thes 1 2 8 3 9 1698 2202 96 34 96.633118 States 1 2 8 3 10 1810 2203 41 33 96.797333 of5 1 2 8 3 11 1867 2202 151 43 96.666565 Georgia5 1 2 8 3 12 2034 2205 69 33 96.376083 anda 1 2 8 4 0 770 2247 814 44 -1 5 1 2 8 4 1 770 2247 141 35 96.487625 various5 1 2 8 4 2 927 2250 98 32 96.548180 others 1 2 8 4 3 1045 2249 113 42 96.550209 States5 1 2 8 4 4 1177 2250 38 33 96.539055 of5 1 2 8 4 5 1232 2251 60 33 96.777122 thes 1 2 8 4 6 1308 2251 134 34 96.777817 United5 1 2 8 4 7 1460 2251 124 35 96.632439 States.3 1 2 9 0 0 769 2299 1333 236 -1 4 1 2 9 1 0 812 2299 1290 49 -1 5 1 2 9 1 1 812 2300 87 32 96.310974 Also5 1 2 9 1 2 917 2299 37 33 96.943665 in5 1 2 9 1 3 970 2300 61 32 96.984253 thes 1 2 9 1 4 1047 2311 117 22 96.707542 courses 1 2 9 1 5 1183 2301 67 32 96.446625 ands 1 2 9 1 6 1268 2302 147 33 96.908714 conducts 1 2 9 1 7 1434 2303 39 32 95.982330 of5 1 2 9 1 8 1489 2303 93 33 96.939644 theirs 1 2 9 1 9 1599 2303 162 42 96.907227 business,5 1 2 9 1 10 1781 2304 78 33 96.894524 said5 1 2 9 1 11 1878 2307 224 41 96.643028 respondents4 1 2 9 2 0 770 2351 1332 44 -1 5 1 2 9 2 1 770 2361 76 21 96.866608 now5 1 2 9 2 2 860 2361 109 35 96.636719 cause,5 1 2 9 2 3 982 2351 70 32 96.968040 ands 1 2 9 2 4 1065 2351 58 32 96.781113 for5 1 2 9 2 5 1135 2362 91 22 96.382141 some5 1 2 9 2 6 1238 2352 83 33 96.645760 times 1 2 9 2 7 1334 2352 67 33 96.160423 lasts 1 2 9 2 8 1414 2356 79 39 96.471985 past5 1 2 9 2 9 1505 2354 87 32 96.471985 have5 1 2 9 2 10 1606 2355 133 40 96.483467 caused,5 1 2 9 2 11 1753 2355 91 32 96.612679 theirs 1 2 9 2 12 1859 2355 129 34 96.298935 fabrics5 1 2 9 2 13 2002 2358 100 32 96.692673 when4 1 2 9 3 0 774 2398 1327 62 -1 5 1 2 9 3 1 774 2400 86 40 96.985222 sold,5 1 2 9 3 2 872 2403 36 29 96.987610 to5 1 2 9 3 3 919 2398 41 34 96.987610 be5 1 2 9 3 4 973 2400 146 41 96.888321 shipped5 1 2 9 3 5 1132 2401 92 33 95.660316 from5 1 2 9 3 6 1237 2402 90 32 96.893013 theirs 1 2 9 3 7 1339 2403 90 57 91.085236 places 1 2 9 3 8 1450 2442 3 2 0.000000 ;5 1 2 9 3 9 1450 2403 37 32 96.314972 of5 1 2 9 3 10 1499 2403 174 33 96.550758 business5 1 2 9 3 11 1664 2416 38 20 96.448570 in5 1 2 9 3 12 1713 2405 58 32 96.412514 thes 1 2 9 3 13 1785 2404 98 34 96.931320 States 1 2 9 3 14 1897 2406 39 32 96.827408 of5 1 2 9 3 15 1951 2407 150 42 95.840416 Georgia4 1 2 9 4 0 769 2425 1333 68 -1 5 1 2 9 4 1 769 2446 36 37 97.013588 to5 1 2 9 4 2 826 2425 202 68 94.570724 purchasers5 1 2 9 4 3 1048 2453 136 32 96.690224 thereof5 1 2 9 4 4 1202 2454 163 33 96.671616 located5 1 2 9 4 5 1368 2466 26 39 96.671616 in5 1 2 9 4 6 1414 2454 138 34 96.695129 various5 1 2 9 4 7 1573 2456 97 32 96.747490 others 1 2 9 4 8 1693 2455 114 34 96.279266 States5 1 2 9 4 9 1829 2457 39 32 97.012146 of5 1 2 9 4 10 1888 2457 59 34 96.882622 thes 1 2 9 4 11 1969 2458 133 35 97.008438 United4 1 2 9 5 0 771 2501 123 34 -1 5 1 2 9 5 1 771 2501 123 34 96.716492 States.3 1 2 10 0 0 768 2551 1334 144 -1 4 1 2 10 1 0 812 2551 1290 44 -1 5 1 2 10 1 1 812 2551 86 34 96.802711 Said5 1 2 10 1 2 915 2554 223 41 96.274460 respondents5 1 2 10 1 3 1156 2554 169 33 96.448555 maintains 1 2 10 1 4 1342 2557 69 31 95.915985 ands 1 2 10 1 5 1429 2560 37 28 95.915985 at5 1 2 10 1 6 1483 2557 47 32 94.312294 all5 1 2 10 1 7 1547 2557 99 33 96.242584 times5 1 2 10 1 8 1664 2554 196 37 96.652878 mentioned5 1 2 10 1 9 1877 2559 120 33 96.803902 herein5 1 2 10 1 10 2014 2561 88 32 96.690300 have4 1 2 10 2 0 768 2602 1333 44 -1 5 1 2 10 2 1 768 2602 223 44 96.479691 maintained,5 1 2 10 2 2 1009 2615 19 21 96.987305 a5 1 2 10 2 3 1045 2605 203 33 96.987305 substantial5 1 2 10 2 4 1265 2617 117 22 96.444473 courses 1 2 10 2 5 1399 2607 40 32 96.523560 of5 1 2 10 2 6 1453 2608 100 32 96.592094 trades 1 2 10 2 7 1569 2608 36 32 96.710808 in5 1 2 10 2 8 1622 2608 75 32 96.667542 said5 1 2 10 2 9 1715 2608 129 34 96.954010 fabrics5 1 2 10 2 10 1861 2609 37 33 96.867958 in5 1 2 10 2 11 1915 2621 186 23 96.415024 commerce4 1 2 10 3 0 775 2652 1230 43 -1 5 1 2 10 3 1 775 2662 37 21 96.504448 as5 1 2 10 3 2 829 2652 226 33 92.009323 “commerce”5 1 2 10 3 3 1071 2653 29 33 96.671989 is5 1 2 10 3 4 1117 2654 133 33 96.315369 defined5 1 2 10 3 5 1267 2655 37 32 96.995705 in5 1 2 10 3 6 1319 2656 59 32 96.752113 thes 1 2 10 3 7 1392 2657 146 32 96.529488 Federal5 1 2 10 3 8 1555 2658 115 32 96.847725 Trades 1 2 10 3 9 1685 2658 227 34 96.711823 Commissions 1 2 10 3 10 1926 2661 79 34 93.651024 Act.3 1 2 11 0 0 768 2704 1331 102 -1 4 1 2 11 1 0 811 2704 1288 49 -1 5 1 2 11 1 1 811 2704 82 32 95.819397 Par.5 1 2 11 1 2 918 2706 47 30 92.475014 14.5 1 2 11 1 3 989 2705 75 32 96.254379 Thes 1 2 11 1 4 1084 2705 76 33 95.949913 said5 1 2 11 1 5 1180 2707 223 41 96.620193 respondents5 1 2 11 1 6 1425 2708 37 32 96.128052 in5 1 2 11 1 7 1483 2709 58 32 96.694366 thes 1 2 11 1 8 1563 2719 116 22 96.600761 courses 1 2 11 1 9 1698 2710 44 33 96.566185 of5 1 2 11 1 10 1762 2710 92 34 96.509354 theirs 1 2 11 1 11 1876 2712 162 41 96.769287 business,5 1 2 11 1 12 2061 2723 38 22 96.989456 as4 1 2 11 2 0 768 2755 1331 51 -1 5 1 2 11 2 1 768 2755 185 40 96.678123 aforesaid,5 1 2 11 2 2 968 2755 87 32 97.010330 have5 1 2 11 2 3 1069 2756 98 32 96.544357 made5 1 2 11 2 4 1180 2758 131 31 96.699333 certain5 1 2 11 2 5 1325 2761 198 31 96.503868 statements5 1 2 11 2 6 1539 2759 84 32 96.928246 with5 1 2 11 2 7 1638 2764 131 38 96.837410 respects 1 2 11 2 8 1783 2764 37 30 96.837410 to5 1 2 11 2 9 1835 2762 57 32 96.497742 thes 1 2 11 2 10 1907 2762 138 44 96.764359 pricing5 1 2 11 2 11 2059 2761 40 35 97.011864 of2 1 3 0 0 0 1188 1288 71 22 -1 3 1 3 1 0 0 1188 1288 71 22 -1 4 1 3 1 1 0 1188 1288 71 22 -1 5 1 3 1 1 1 1188 1288 71 22 95.000000 GEORGIA FABRIC CORP., ET AL. 393 “389 : Decision and Order ‘fabrics in their advertising by mail. Among and. typical, but not all- _ inclusive of such statements, are'the following : 990 SELLOUT HVERYTHING MUST GO COST OR BELOW _. DACGRON & COTTON POPLIN 25 yd. pes. 5/10 pe. /assortment BELOW OUR COST 45”’ wide now only 4214¢ yd.

- Par. 15. The said tespondents i in the course of their business, as aforesaid; have inade further statements with respect to the pricing of other fabrics j in their advertising by mail. Among and typical, but not allinclusive of such statements are the following: 100% Cotton. Fancy Pique White & Col. 44! /45"" wide * * * * reg. $1. 00 yd. sale 68Ib¢ yd. .

Par. 16. By and through the use of the above quoted statements, and others of similar import not specifically set out herein, the said re- -Spondents have represented directly or by implication that certain _prices set forth in the advertisements were the “cost prices” or “below the cost prices” of the fabrics to the said respondents from their suppliers, and that certain other prices advertised were the prives that. such fabrics were sold or offered for sale by the said respondents, i in good faith, for a reasonably substantial period of time in the recent regular course of their business, and that the prices of the fabrics were reduced from the higher stated prices and the amounts of such reductions represented savings to the purchasers thereof. Par. 17. In truth and in fact the fabrics were not sold at the “cost. prices” or “below the cost prices” of the fabrics to the said respondents. from their suppliers and the “reg.” (regular) prices set out in the advertisements were not the prices at which the advertised fabrics were sold or offered for sale by the said respondents, in good ‘faith, for a reasonably substantial period of time in the recent regular course of their business, and the prices of the fabrics were not reduced from the higher prices; therefore, the amounts of such reductions were not as. represented.

Par. 18. The aforesaid acts and practices of respondents, as herein. alleged in Paragraphs Fourteen, Fifteen, Sixteen and Seventeen, were and are, all to the prejudice and injury of the public and of respond- | ents’ competitors and constituted, and now constitute, unfair and deceptive acts and practices and unfair methods of competition, in commerce, within the intent and meaning of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act.

Dectsion 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 494-841—73——_-26 394 _ FEDERAL TRADE. COMMISSION DECISIONS Decision and Order 81 EVT.C.

- copy of a draft of complaint. which the Atlanta Regional Office 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, the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939 and the Textile Fiber Products Identification 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 had 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 record for a period of thirty (30) days, now in further conformity with the procedure prescribed in Section 2.34(b) of its rules, the Commission hereby issues its complaint,-makes the following jurisdictional findings, and enters the following order:

1. Respondent Georgia Fabric Corporation, is a corporation orga- nized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Georgia. Its offices and principal place of business is located at 4440 Commerce Circle, S.W., Atlanta, Georgia. Respondent Elliott I. Reich is an officer of said corporation. He formulates, directs and controls the policies, acts and practices of the corporate respondent including those hereinafter referred to. The address of Elliott I. Reich is 108 West 39th Street, New York, New York. 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 Georgia Fabric Corporation, a corporation, its successors and assigns, and its officers, and Elliott I. Reich, individually and as an officer of Georgia Fabric Corporation, and respondents’ representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporation, subsidiary, division or other device, in connection with the introduction, manufacture for introduction, sale, advertising or offering for sale, in commerce, or the transportation or causing to be transported in commerce, or the importation into the .: GEORGIA: FABRIC CORP., -ET.-AL. 395 389 Decision and Order United States of any textile fiber product; or in connection with the Sale, offering for sale, advertising, delivery, transportation, or causing to be transported, of any textile fiber product which has been advertised or offered for sale, in commerce; or in connection with the sale, offering for sale, advertising, delivery, transportation or causing to be transported, after shipment in commerce, of any textile fiber product, whether in its original state or contained in other textile fiber products, as the terms “commerce” and “textile fiber product” are defined in the Textile Fiber. Products Identification Act, do forthwith . cease and desist from:

A. Misbranding textile fiber productsby: a 1. Falsely or deceptively stamping, tagging, labeling, j invoicing, advertising or otherwise identifying such products as to the name or amount of the constituent fibers contained therein.

2. Failing to affix a stamp, tag, label, or other means of identification to each such product showing in a clear, legible and conspicuous manner each element of information required to be disclosed by Section 4(b) of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act.

_ B. Removing or mutilating, or causing or participating in the removal or mutilation of, the stamp, tag, label or other identification required by the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act to be affixed to any textile fiber product, after such textile fiber product has been shipped in commerce, and prior to the time such textile fiber product is sold and delivered to the ultimate consumer without substituting therefor labels conforming to Section 4 of said Act and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder and in the manner prescribed by Section 5(b) of the Act. C. Failing to maintain and preserve, as required by Section 6(b) of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act, such records of the fiber content of textile fiber products as will show the information set forth on the stamps, tags, labels or other identification removed by respondents, together with the name or names of the person or persons from whom such textile fiber products were received, when substituting stamps, tags, labels or other identification pursuant to Section 5(b) of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act.

D. Advertising textile fiber products by disclosing or implying fiber content in any written advertisement which is used to aid, promote, or assist directly or indirectly in the sale or offering for sale of such textile fiber product, unless the same information as “Decision aiid Order ga NO.

‘that required to be shown on the stamp, tag, label or other identifi- ~ dation inder Section 4(b) (1) and (2), Textile Fiber Products Idetitification Act, is contained in the heading, body, or other part of stich written advertisement, except that the percentages of the * fibers present in the textile fiber product need not be stated. 7 tis further ordered, That respondents Georgia Fabrié Corporation, @ corporation, its succéssors and assigns, and its officers, and Hlliott I. Reich, individually and as an officer of Georgia Fabric Corporation, “and vesponidents’ Yepresetitatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporation, subsidiary, division, or other device, do forthwith cease and desist froin furnishing a false guaranty that any textile fiber product is not tiisbranded or falsely or deceptively in- ‘voiced or advertised under the provisions of the Textile Fiber Products ‘Identification Act.

Lt is further ordered, That respondents Georgia Fabric Corporation, _ & Corporation, its successoi's and assigns, and its officers, and Elliott I. “Reich, individually aid-asan officer of Georgia Fabric Corporation, and respondents’ tepresentatives, agents and employees, directly or “through: ‘any ‘corporation, subsidiary, division or other device, in connection with the introduction, or manufacture. for introduction, into commerce, ‘or the offering for sale, sale, transportation, distribution, delivery for shipment or shipment, in commerce, of wool products, as “commerce” and “wool product” are defined in the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939, do forthwith cease and desist from misbranding such products by :

Failing to securely affix to, or place on, each such product a stamp, tag, label, or other means of identification showing in a clear and conspicuous manner each element of information required to disclosed by Section 4(a)(2) of the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939.

It is further ordered, That respondents Georgia Fabric Corporation, a corporation, its successors and assigns, and its officers, and Elliott I. Reich, individually and as an officer of said corporation, and respondents’ representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporation, subsidiary, division, or other device, in connection with the offering for sale, sale or distribution of fabrics or any other articles of merchandise, in commerce, as “commerce” is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act, do forthwith cease and desist from: 1. Representing the price of any fabrics or any other articles of merchandise as being “reg.,” “regular,” “regularly,” “usually,” “normally,” or any other term of the like import, unless the price quoted is the actual bona fide price at which the described fabrics or any other articles of merchandise were openly and actively GEORGIA FABRIC CORP.,.BT AL. -: 397- 389 li. Decision .and.,Order offered by respondents to the purchasing public on a regular basis for a reasonably substantial period of time in the recent, regular course of business.

2. Representing any fabrics or any other articles of merchandise as being offered for sale at “Below Our Cost,” “Below Cost,” or’ other terminology of like meaning, unless such fabrics or any other articles of merchandise are being offered by respondents at below actual purchase i invoice cost.

__8, Misrepresenting in any manner, the amount of savings ayail-’ able to. purchasers of respondents’ fabrics or any other articles of merchandise or the amount by which the price of fabrics. or. any other. articles of merchandise have been usually and customarily ‘sold by respondents i in the recent regular course: of business or from the prices at which they have been usually and customarily sold at retail in the trade area where the representations are made. 4. Failing to maintain full and adequate records disclosing the facts upon which any pricing claims are based. It is further ordered, That respondents. notify the Commission at least thirty (30) days prior to any proposed change in the corporate: respondent, Georgia Fabric.Corporation, 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 t of the order.

lt is further ordered, That the individual respondent named herein promptly notify the Commission of the discontinuance of his present _ business or employment and of his affiliation with a new business or employment. Such notice shall include respondent’s current business address and a statement as to the nature of the business or employment in which he is engaged as well as a description of his duties and responsibilities.

It is further ordered, That the respondent corporation, Georgia Fabric Corporation, shall forthwith distribute a copy of the order to each of its operating divisions.

It is further ordered, That 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.

398: FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION: DECISIONS f ~ Complaint: 81 FEC.

iby5 1 3 1 2 2 1318 618 73 54 96.538948 THES 1 3 1 2 3 1406 604 159 71 82.677063 Marrer5 1 3 1 2 4 1577 623 21 25 92.411560 OF5 1 3 1 2 5 1621 627 18 21 70.487450 -5 1 3 1 2 6 2054 609 2 2 5.005028 .2 1 4 0 0 0 895 665 1080 110 -1 3 1 4 1 0 0 895 665 1080 110 -1 4 1 4 1 1 0 895 665 1080 110 -1 5 1 4 1 1 1 895 702 102 33 96.168373 THES 1 4 1 1 2 1018 665 280 110 94.373550 FIRESTONE5 1 4 1 1 3 1320 678 118 61 96.824135 TIRES 1 4 1 1 4 1459 708 31 32 92.432068 &5 1 4 1 1 5 1510 674 202 70 96.713448 RUBBER5 1 4 1 1 6 1732 692 243 52 96.503181 COMPANY2 1 5 0 0 0 749 770 1346 130 -1 3 1 5 1 0 0 749 770 1346 106 -1 4 1 5 1 1 0 774 770 1321 79 -1 5 1 5 1 1 1 774 790 114 56 94.658821 ORDER,5 1 5 1 1 2 900 796 71 39 91.881317 ETC.5 1 5 1 1 3 976 811 8 17 35.896255 35 1 5 1 1 4 997 797 42 36 35.896255 IN5 1 5 1 1 5 1050 793 131 35 96.318047 REGARDS 1 5 1 1 6 1189 800 45 41 95.286011 TO5 1 5 1 1 7 1245 782 71 45 95.781021 THES 1 5 1 1 8 1324 770 153 72 90.446754 ALLEGED5 1 5 1 1 9 1489 773 186 71 95.298233 VIOLATIONS 1 5 1 1 10 1688 792 43 33 95.074532 OF5 1 5 1 1 11 1743 804 72 22 96.044312 THES 1 5 1 1 12 1829 806 149 22 96.023277 FEDERAL5 1 5 1 1 13 1984 803 111 46 96.789185 TRADE4 1 5 1 2 0 749 832 834 68 -1 5 1 5 1 2 1 749 837 2 2 0.000000 ,5 1 5 1 2 2 1278 832 224 68 93.601486 COMMISSIONS 1 5 1 2 3 1516 852 67 38 96.527718 ACT2 1 6 0 0 0 909 899 1043 80 -1 3 1 6 1 0 0 909 899 1043 80 -1 4 1 6 1 1 0 909 899 1043 80 -1 5 1 6 1 1 1 909 902 115 56 96.046364 Dockets 1 6 1 1 2 1033 925 78 39 92.544838 8818.5 1 6 1 1 3 1117 900 185 62 85.411583 Complaint,5 1 6 1 1 4 1307 926 73 28 94.204498 June5 1 6 1 1 5 1395 922 43 38 96.949722 29,5 1 6 1 1 6 1447 899 259 80 42.213486 1970—Decision,5 1 6 1 1 7 1711 929 79 31 94.818115 Sept.5 1 6 1 1 8 1802 930 42 32 93.258354 22,5 1 6 1 1 9 1855 931 97 27 89.479332 1972.*2 1 7 0 0 0 769 962 1338 476 -1 3 1 7 1 0 0 769 962 1338 445 -1 4 1 7 1 1 0 769 962 1321 73 -1 5 1 7 1 1 1 769 962 101 64 94.541367 Orders 1 7 1 1 2 876 987 151 48 96.443993 requiring5 1 7 1 1 3 1039 999 41 29 95.875412 an5 1 7 1 1 4 1092 993 108 41 96.801880 Akron,5 1 7 1 1 5 1216 995 85 35 65.185013 Ohio,5 1 7 1 1 6 1312 980 228 55 96.090141 manufacturers 1 7 1 1 7 1552 996 32 32 96.264114 of5 1 7 1 1 8 1597 984 75 43 45.850693 tires5 1 7 1 1 9 1684 998 33 25 96.632080 to5 1 7 1 1 10 1730 1004 87 23 95.384819 ceases 1 7 1 1 11 1827 972 263 63 94.933189 misrepresenting4 1 7 1 2 0 820 1025 1273 59 -1 5 1 7 1 2 1 820 1026 75 45 57.165024 “thes 1 7 1 2 2 908 1025 211 45 27.899384 effectiveness5 1 7 1 2 3 1129 1030 38 31 85.772926 of5 1 7 1 2 4 1177 1027 206 40 75.058205 respondent’s5 1 7 1 2 5 1402 1038 116 37 96.884285 quality5 1 7 1 2 6 1534 1035 115 30 96.155853 controls 1 7 1 2 7 1666 1047 37 30 96.784500 or5 1 7 1 2 8 1720 1038 164 33 96.662628 inspections 1 7 1 2 9 1901 1038 165 46 93.294724 procedures5 1 7 1 2 10 2086 1050 7 24 90.853798 ;4 1 7 1 3 0 836 1063 1253 51 -1 5 1 7 1 3 1 836 1063 96 48 80.938065 using’5 1 7 1 3 2 931 1066 56 37 83.945099 ‘thes 1 7 1 3 3 997 1068 98 43 94.457748 words5 1 7 1 3 4 1108 1070 78 34 94.607178 “Thes 1 7 1 3 5 1197 1079 73 30 96.703453 safe5 1 7 1 3 6 1277 1079 84 31 95.562820 tire,”5 1 7 1 3 7 1374 1075 128 32 95.562820 without5 1 7 1 3 8 1510 1082 183 31 96.380699 disclosing5 1 7 1 3 9 1684 1090 31 29 96.215248 in5 1 7 1 3 10 1728 1083 79 27 96.215248 closes 1 7 1 3 11 1819 1085 188 29 96.356766 conjunction5 1 7 1 3 12 2020 1076 69 36 95.595108 that4 1 7 1 4 0 838 1117 1256 41 -1 5 1 7 1 4 1 838 1118 56 25 90.956284 tthe5 1 7 1 4 2 905 1117 101 32 96.397270 safety5 1 7 1 4 3 1017 1120 35 24 96.791588 of5 1 7 1 4 4 1063 1126 59 29 96.131485 any5 1 7 1 4 5 1132 1121 61 25 96.781380 tires 1 7 1 4 6 1206 1121 29 26 96.781380 is5 1 7 1 4 7 1246 1121 133 27 60.082081 affected:5 1 7 1 4 8 1385 1123 40 30 76.912186 by5 1 7 1 4 9 1438 1124 166 27 96.694672 conditions5 1 7 1 4 10 1616 1125 34 24 96.315727 of5 1 7 1 4 11 1663 1132 53 19 93.286942 uses 1 7 1 4 12 1729 1127 124 25 67.151489 such.as5 1 7 1 4 13 1865 1127 144 26 81.988663 inflation:5 1 7 1 4 14 2015 1134 79 24 81.988663 pres-4 1 7 1 5 0 813 1161 1275 36 -1 5 1 7 1 5 1 813 1165 110 26 54.832764 ‘sure,5 1 7 1 5 2 929 1161 113 26 96.360352 vehicles 1 7 1 5 3 1054 1162 126 31 93.287933 weight,5 1 7 1 5 4 1187 1163 72 31 87.132805 etc.5 1 7 1 5 5 1252 1157 12 44 54.341812 ;5 1 7 1 5 6 1264 1164 297 32 49.696579 :representing-that5 1 7 1 5 7 1574 1172 60 25 96.467255 any5 1 7 1 5 8 1642 1168 46 25 83.379181 of5 1 7 1 5 9 1695 1169 208 28 36.575565 respondent’s-5 1 7 1 5 10 1910 1170 178 25 96.221901 automobile4 1 7 1 6 0 838 1202 1250 40 -1 5 1 7 1 6 1 838 1202 77 34 63.238770 tires5 1 7 1 6 2 931 1203 76 34 85.908905 have5 1 7 1 6 3 1027 1210 60 25 95.825867 any5 1 7 1 6 4 1106 1199 102 40 95.825867 safety5 1 7 1 6 5 1228 1212 51 27 72.445023 or,5 1 7 1 6 6 1273 1207 215 34 52.622726 ‘performances 1 7 1 6 7 1509 1208 241 36 96.561775 characteristics5 1 7 1 6 8 1771 1216 34 20 96.555923 or5 1 7 1 6 9 1827 1217 51 29 96.434593 ares 1 7 1 6 10 1900 1212 133 30 96.506866 superiors 1 7 1 6 11 2056 1213 32 24 97.002319 in4 1 7 1 7 0 839 1235 1249 57 -1 5 1 7 1 7 1 839 1245 104 40 85.344299 quality5 1 7 1 7 2 955 1272 15 6 55.496445 ,5 1 7 1 7 3 973 1252 35 30 94.986908 or5 1 7 1 7 4 1026 1247 212 38 94.842079 performance.5 1 7 1 7 5 1248 1242 130 50 96.654076 without5 1 7 1 7 6 1396 1235 236 56 57.653122 substantiated,5 1 7 1 7 7 1648 1249 172 43 96.585167 competent,5 1 7 1 7 8 1843 1243 142 36 89.702599 scientific5 1 7 1 7 9 2006 1256 82 24 95.273750 tests.4 1 7 1 8 0 834 1277 1273 64 -1 5 1 7 1 8 1 834 1277 67 45 96.317612 Thes 1 7 1 8 2 913 1278 88 51 96.870972 orders 1 7 1 8 3 1010 1278 153 52 95.439865 dismisses5 1 7 1 8 4 1176 1287 51 48 96.980583 thes 1 7 1 8 5 1240 1286 131 47 85.179016 charges5 1 7 1 8 6 1375 1292 32 25 95.452377 in5 1 7 1 8 7 1419 1286 59 32 66.851776 the’5 1 7 1 8 8 1483 1285 160 56 94.790344 complaints 1 7 1 8 9 1657 1290 136 35 95.977386 relating5 1 7 1 8 10 1798 1296 31 24 96.787102 to5 1 7 1 8 11 1843 1297 50 23 96.890205 thes 1 7 1 8 12 1906 1293 184 47 96.205078 advertising5 1 7 1 8 13 2105 1306 2 2 13.147766 ;4 1 7 1 9 0 795 1323 790 56 -1 5 1 7 1 9 1 795 1326 83 28 57.105873 ‘of5 1 7 1 9 2 871 1322 11 42 19.880081 j5 1 7 1 9 3 875 1323 104 56 89.963257 prices.5 1 7 1 9 4 1217 1346 4 4 30.391815 :5 1 7 1 9 5 1582 1364 3 2 0.000000 ,4 1 7 1 10 0 781 1359 778 79 -1 5 1 7 1 10 1 781 1369 52 16 38.438919 oe5 1 7 1 10 2 1289 1386 2 2 0.000000 ~5 1 7 1 10 3 1331 1359 204 79 21.514870 Comerarnt2 1 8 0 0 0 755 1419 1361 1246 -1 3 1 8 1 0 0 757 1419 1359 432 -1 4 1 8 1 1 0 808 1419 1279 84 -1 5 1 8 1 1 1 808 1419 175 80 85.728455 Pursuant5 1 8 1 1 2 998 1458 36 29 96.596390 to5 1 8 1 1 3 1049 1455 61 33 96.812592 thes 1 8 1 1 4 1125 1430 200 72 95.119804 provisions5 1 8 1 1 5 1335 1433 42 58 96.951111 of5 1 8 1 1 6 1390 1458 61 35 91.275993 thes 1 8 1 1 7 1467 1432 150 60 96.603302 Federal5 1 8 1 1 8 1630 1455 116 38 95.352562 Trades 1 8 1 1 9 1764 1461 227 33 96.555374 Commissions 1 8 1 1 10 2008 1462 79 41 96.342674 Act,4 1 8 1 2 0 765 1484 1322 76 -1 5 1 8 1 2 1 765 1494 75 42 96.533615 ands 1 8 1 2 2 852 1503 46 43 96.533615 by5 1 8 1 2 3 915 1504 113 34 96.955017 virtues 1 8 1 2 4 1045 1506 40 32 96.894737 of5 1 8 1 2 5 1101 1507 63 34 94.103500 thes 1 8 1 2 6 1176 1508 186 43 93.891670 authority5 1 8 1 2 7 1372 1509 145 36 96.561951 vested5 1 8 1 2 8 1508 1521 37 21 96.743408 in5 1 8 1 2 9 1562 1509 38 33 67.688972 it.5 1 8 1 2 10 1609 1511 46 41 67.688972 by5 1 8 1 2 11 1672 1511 78 32 91.064827 said5 1 8 1 2 12 1765 1512 82 42 92.779999 Act,5 1 8 1 2 13 1863 1512 59 33 96.672333 thes 1 8 1 2 14 1939 1484 148 76 96.657257 Federal4 1 8 1 3 0 764 1537 1321 64 -1 5 1 8 1 3 1 764 1554 115 33 96.728706 Trades 1 8 1 3 2 893 1550 244 48 89.092346 Commission;5 1 8 1 3 3 1141 1554 132 47 96.082718 having5 1 8 1 3 4 1284 1566 121 26 86.997620 reasons 1 8 1 3 5 1417 1562 38 30 86.997620 ‘to5 1 8 1 3 6 1465 1560 131 39 93.298981 believes 1 8 1 3 7 1608 1561 149 34 80.672638 that:thes 1 8 1 3 8 1769 1537 180 59 96.467369 Firestone5 1 8 1 3 9 1961 1563 82 33 93.195122 Tires 1 8 1 3 10 2056 1566 29 30 93.195122 &4 1 8 1 4 0 764 1603 1352 66 -1 5 1 8 1 4 1 764 1603 150 35 96.372864 Rubber5 1 8 1 4 2 922 1605 188 45 95.321396 Company,5 1 8 1 4 3 1128 1619 20 21 97.018044 a5 1 8 1 4 4 1164 1605 232 64 95.896721 corporation,5 1 8 1 4 5 1414 1603 213 41 96.790535 hereinafter5 1 8 1 4 6 1643 1612 155 33 85.097229 referred5 1 8 1 4 7 1813 1617 37 28 96.101234 to5 1 8 1 4 8 1868 1624 38 21 93.254326 as5 1 8 1 4 9 1923 1607 193 49 67.348007 respond-.4 1 8 1 5 0 765 1656 1319 50 -1 5 1 8 1 5 1 765 1659 68 38 96.971329 ent,5 1 8 1 5 2 848 1653 64 37 96.711174 has5 1 8 1 5 3 928 1656 150 34 96.746124 violated5 1 8 1 5 4 1094 1659 78 32 96.961311 thes 1 8 1 5 5 1173 1659 193 42 96.816467 provisions5 1 8 1 5 6 1381 1662 43 32 96.647614 of5 1 8 1 5 7 1438 1662 78 32 96.750641 said5 1 8 1 5 8 1533 1662 78 41 96.494110 Act,5 1 8 1 5 9 1630 1663 69 32 96.044998 ands 1 8 1 5 10 1717 1663 29 32 96.044998 it5 1 8 1 5 11 1763 1663 193 43 96.714554 appearing5 1 8 1 5 12 1972 1668 35 28 96.791046 to5 1 8 1 5 13 2025 1665 59 31 96.864098 thea 1 8 1 6 0 757 1677 1327 94 -1 5 1 8 1 6 1 757 1677 235 76 91.383888 Commissions 1 8 1 6 2 1010 1709 78 31 96.423599 that5 1 8 1 6 3 1108 1720 19 21 95.638611 a5 1 8 1 6 4 1147 1706 208 65 96.794029 proceedings 1 8 1 6 5 1372 1712 47 41 96.841217 by5 1 8 1 6 6 1439 1712 30 32 96.248260 it5 1 8 1 6 7 1486 1713 40 32 96.395920 in5 1 8 1 6 8 1546 1717 130 38 95.828033 respects 1 8 1 6 9 1696 1714 136 32 95.828033 thereof5 1 8 1 6 10 1851 1714 115 33 95.994194 would5 1 8 1 6 11 1987 1715 68 32 95.995987 be5 1 8 1 6 12 2046 1726 38 21 96.015198 in4 1 8 1 7 0 762 1757 1321 76 -1 5 1 8 1 7 1 762 1757 59 32 96.746925 thes 1 8 1 7 2 837 1758 117 42 96.957939 public5 1 8 1 7 3 971 1758 155 43 96.685028 interest,5 1 8 1 7 4 1138 1760 154 43 96.743675 hereby5 1 8 1 7 5 1282 1773 106 21 96.987381 issues5 1 8 1 7 6 1405 1762 45 33 96.922516 its5 1 8 1 7 7 1468 1763 188 42 96.886642 complaints 1 8 1 7 8 1674 1764 131 69 95.384514 stating5 1 8 1 7 9 1824 1764 44 33 96.921638 its5 1 8 1 7 10 1885 1765 169 42 96.327110 charges5 1 8 1 7 11 2044 1777 39 20 96.630417 in4 1 8 1 8 0 762 1785 432 66 -1 5 1 8 1 8 1 762 1807 79 32 96.586899 that5 1 8 1 8 2 850 1812 131 39 96.278221 respects 1 8 1 8 3 993 1821 37 21 96.278221 as5 1 8 1 8 4 1042 1785 152 58 85.125076 follows:3 1 8 2 0 0 757 1858 1326 240 -1 4 1 8 2 1 0 805 1858 1278 50 -1 5 1 8 2 1 1 805 1858 212 44 35.666733 Paracrapy5 1 8 2 1 2 1036 1863 28 30 93.028717 1.5 1 8 2 1 3 1083 1862 221 41 96.816315 Respondents 1 8 2 1 4 1322 1863 60 33 96.377571 thes 1 8 2 1 5 1400 1863 179 33 96.714005 Firestone5 1 8 2 1 6 1597 1865 82 32 93.185867 Tires 1 8 2 1 7 1698 1866 29 31 93.185867 &5 1 8 2 1 8 1745 1866 139 32 96.362106 Rubber5 1 8 2 1 9 1900 1866 183 42 96.058266 Company4 1 8 2 2 0 762 1910 1320 50 -1 5 1 8 2 2 1 762 1907 30 34 96.444641 is5 1 8 2 2 2 807 1920 20 22 95.578094 a5 1 8 2 2 3 840 1910 221 42 95.578094 corporations 1 8 2 2 4 1075 1912 196 43 96.381302 organized,5 1 8 2 2 5 1287 1911 150 46 96.615250 existing5 1 8 2 2 6 1451 1916 70 32 96.911621 ands 1 8 2 2 7 1537 1915 106 43 96.992889 doing5 1 8 2 2 8 1657 1915 154 34 96.844315 business5 1 8 2 2 9 1826 1917 111 32 96.468079 under5 1 8 2 2 10 1950 1917 70 32 96.367172 ands 1 8 2 2 11 2034 1917 48 43 97.002846 by4 1 8 2 3 0 761 1959 1321 68 -1 5 1 8 2 3 1 761 1959 114 34 97.014816 virtues 1 8 2 3 2 890 1961 40 39 96.698334 of5 1 8 2 3 3 945 1962 59 32 96.545677 thes 1 8 2 3 4 1021 1962 83 34 96.946579 laws5 1 8 2 3 5 1119 1962 42 34 96.533035 of5 1 8 2 3 6 1177 1964 59 32 96.533035 thes 1 8 2 3 7 1254 1964 98 35 96.893318 States 1 8 2 3 8 1369 1965 40 33 97.012688 of5 1 8 2 3 9 1423 1965 106 43 96.406845 Ohio,5 1 8 2 3 10 1545 1966 87 33 96.868996 with5 1 8 2 3 11 1649 1966 45 33 96.448380 its5 1 8 2 3 12 1712 1962 173 65 96.631416 principals 1 8 2 3 13 1902 1968 92 32 72.319351 offices 1 8 2 3 14 2014 1968 68 33 96.947357 anda 1 8 2 4 0 762 2010 1321 51 -1 5 1 8 2 4 1 762 2010 96 43 96.859184 places 1 8 2 4 2 875 2012 42 32 97.015511 of5 1 8 2 4 3 933 2012 152 34 96.277023 business5 1 8 2 4 4 1104 2014 134 33 96.605026 located5 1 8 2 4 5 1255 2019 39 28 96.400276 at5 1 8 2 4 6 1314 2017 82 31 95.767410 12005 1 8 2 4 7 1416 2016 178 34 96.438690 Firestone5 1 8 2 4 8 1614 2018 212 41 96.597542 Parkway,5 1 8 2 4 9 1816 2029 38 21 97.014259 in5 1 8 2 4 10 1873 2018 59 32 97.014259 thes 1 8 2 4 11 1954 2019 71 50 96.356422 city5 1 8 2 4 12 2043 2019 40 32 96.840279 of4 1 8 2 5 0 757 2061 401 43 -1 5 1 8 2 5 1 757 2061 133 43 96.905937 Akron,5 1 8 2 5 2 898 2061 100 35 96.671783 States 1 8 2 5 3 1008 2064 40 32 97.009285 of5 1 8 2 5 4 1057 2064 101 34 96.862122 Ohio.3 1 8 3 0 0 757 2092 1324 170 -1 4 1 8 3 1 0 804 2092 1277 69 -1 5 1 8 3 1 1 804 2112 83 34 94.934830 Par.5 1 8 3 1 2 907 2115 28 31 95.711975 2.5 1 8 3 1 3 955 2114 248 42 95.804665 Respondents 1 8 3 1 4 1192 2127 31 22 95.804665 is5 1 8 3 1 5 1243 2127 85 31 96.327484 now,5 1 8 3 1 6 1346 2118 72 33 96.656479 ands 1 8 3 1 7 1435 2118 59 33 96.538666 for5 1 8 3 1 8 1510 2130 94 21 96.319023 some5 1 8 3 1 9 1621 2118 84 34 96.575089 times 1 8 3 1 10 1722 2092 69 59 86.026314 lasts 1 8 3 1 11 1808 2123 79 38 95.530243 past5 1 8 3 1 12 1906 2120 64 32 96.695518 has5 1 8 3 1 13 1988 2120 93 41 96.531242 been,4 1 8 3 2 0 759 2163 1321 49 -1 5 1 8 3 2 1 759 2163 182 43 96.802208 engaged5 1 8 3 2 2 931 2175 38 22 96.405075 in5 1 8 3 2 3 985 2166 60 31 96.502907 thes 1 8 3 2 4 1063 2167 251 42 96.610405 manufacture,5 1 8 3 2 5 1333 2168 226 44 96.208282 advertising,5 1 8 3 2 6 1576 2169 148 43 96.192177 offerings 1 8 3 2 7 1744 2169 60 34 96.849289 for5 1 8 3 2 8 1822 2170 79 42 96.787010 sale,5 1 8 3 2 9 1921 2170 70 33 96.667717 sales 1 8 3 2 10 2011 2172 69 31 96.993996 anda 1 8 3 3 0 757 2212 955 50 -1 5 1 8 3 3 1 757 2212 225 36 96.826721 distributions 1 8 3 3 2 990 2216 41 32 96.942062 of5 1 8 3 3 3 1041 2217 207 34 96.705826 automobiles 1 8 3 3 4 1256 2217 85 34 96.766792 tires5 1 8 3 3 5 1349 2220 72 32 96.429306 ands 1 8 3 3 6 1429 2220 102 32 96.429306 others 1 8 3 3 7 1540 2220 172 42 96.318794 products.3 1 8 4 0 0 755 2264 1326 401 -1 4 1 8 4 1 0 801 2264 1278 50 -1 5 1 8 4 1 1 801 2264 83 34 88.404533 Par.5 1 8 4 1 2 904 2268 27 30 95.982872 3.5 1 8 4 1 3 950 2267 45 32 96.869888 In5 1 8 4 1 4 1010 2267 60 32 96.997719 thes 1 8 4 1 5 1085 2278 120 23 96.710495 courses 1 8 4 1 6 1223 2269 69 33 96.528336 ands 1 8 4 1 7 1308 2270 147 32 96.364716 conducts 1 8 4 1 8 1471 2271 43 32 96.875145 of5 1 8 4 1 9 1529 2271 48 33 95.369080 its5 1 8 4 1 10 1593 2271 164 41 96.118965 business,5 1 8 4 1 11 1776 2271 206 43 96.629211 respondents 1 8 4 1 12 1999 2272 80 33 96.427490 sells4 1 8 4 2 0 758 2316 1323 49 -1 5 1 8 4 2 1 758 2316 207 33 96.702965 automobiles 1 8 4 2 2 976 2317 84 33 96.704308 tires5 1 8 4 2 3 1072 2319 72 32 96.819977 ands 1 8 4 2 4 1156 2319 101 34 96.397339 others 1 8 4 2 5 1270 2321 166 42 96.397339 products5 1 8 4 2 6 1447 2325 38 29 96.977638 to5 1 8 4 2 7 1499 2322 60 32 96.968597 thes 1 8 4 2 8 1573 2322 210 43 96.473686 purchasing5 1 8 4 2 9 1795 2322 118 42 96.340256 public5 1 8 4 2 10 1927 2323 154 42 96.768936 through4 1 8 4 3 0 757 2364 1321 51 -1 5 1 8 4 3 1 757 2364 47 35 95.895134 its5 1 8 4 3 2 818 2367 263 43 95.895134 wholly-owned5 1 8 4 3 3 1096 2373 109 30 96.996101 stores5 1 8 4 3 4 1221 2372 69 32 96.958221 ands 1 8 4 3 5 1305 2372 155 43 96.417389 through5 1 8 4 3 6 1474 2373 223 33 96.683792 distributors5 1 8 4 3 7 1713 2373 71 32 96.922127 ands 1 8 4 3 8 1801 2373 136 42 96.922127 jobbers5 1 8 4 3 9 1955 2374 57 33 93.305923 for5 1 8 4 3 10 2029 2385 49 22 92.668564 re-4 1 8 4 4 0 758 2416 1323 51 -1 5 1 8 4 4 1 758 2416 72 33 96.888557 sales 1 8 4 4 2 839 2419 36 30 96.559883 to5 1 8 4 4 3 885 2418 155 33 96.559883 retailers5 1 8 4 4 4 1051 2420 77 32 96.775024 who5 1 8 4 4 5 1137 2420 62 33 96.769463 sells 1 8 4 4 6 1209 2423 38 30 96.727112 to5 1 8 4 4 7 1255 2421 59 33 96.727112 thes 1 8 4 4 8 1322 2422 213 43 96.362091 purchasing5 1 8 4 4 9 1543 2423 127 42 93.294785 public.5 1 8 4 4 10 1681 2423 248 42 91.718498 Respondent’s5 1 8 4 4 11 1939 2424 142 43 93.235352 wholly-4 1 8 4 5 0 757 2469 1322 49 -1 5 1 8 4 5 1 757 2469 120 32 96.224693 owned5 1 8 4 5 2 893 2469 101 33 96.652298 retails 1 8 4 5 3 1008 2471 137 42 94.432327 outlets,5 1 8 4 5 4 1159 2471 224 35 94.432327 distributors5 1 8 4 5 5 1402 2475 67 31 96.513374 ands 1 8 4 5 6 1486 2474 137 43 96.600189 jobbers5 1 8 4 5 7 1638 2486 60 20 96.561897 ares 1 8 4 5 8 1713 2475 137 33 96.237968 located5 1 8 4 5 9 1864 2475 215 43 96.229393 throughout4 1 8 4 6 0 755 2519 1323 49 -1 5 1 8 4 6 1 755 2519 60 32 96.782005 thes 1 8 4 6 2 824 2519 132 35 96.532860 United5 1 8 4 6 3 966 2520 124 34 96.485458 States.5 1 8 4 6 4 1103 2523 45 31 96.887840 In5 1 8 4 6 5 1156 2523 61 32 96.887840 thes 1 8 4 6 6 1228 2533 116 23 96.919426 courses 1 8 4 6 7 1354 2524 40 33 96.951126 of5 1 8 4 6 8 1403 2524 46 33 96.721268 its5 1 8 4 6 9 1460 2525 153 33 96.525383 business5 1 8 4 6 10 1623 2536 39 22 96.944046 as5 1 8 4 6 11 1672 2525 187 42 96.971802 aforesaid,5 1 8 4 6 12 1870 2527 208 41 96.470825 respondent4 1 8 4 7 0 757 2569 1319 49 -1 5 1 8 4 7 1 757 2569 95 42 97.002029 ships5 1 8 4 7 2 868 2569 45 34 96.604156 its5 1 8 4 7 3 927 2572 208 33 96.594749 automobiles 1 8 4 7 4 1150 2573 84 33 96.561203 tires5 1 8 4 7 5 1251 2575 68 32 96.254669 ands 1 8 4 7 6 1336 2575 99 33 96.693108 others 1 8 4 7 7 1450 2577 164 41 96.559608 products5 1 8 4 7 8 1633 2578 93 30 96.559608 from5 1 8 4 7 9 1741 2577 46 31 96.841202 its5 1 8 4 7 10 1804 2576 138 34 93.234383 various5 1 8 4 7 11 1960 2589 116 22 92.202408 manu-4 1 8 4 8 0 758 2620 1320 45 -1 5 1 8 4 8 1 758 2620 177 45 91.365196 factuting5 1 8 4 8 2 950 2622 115 42 96.603508 plants5 1 8 4 8 3 1080 2623 71 33 96.683563 ands 1 8 4 8 4 1167 2626 213 33 80.520477 warehouses5 1 8 4 8 5 1396 2627 135 33 96.889801 located5 1 8 4 8 6 1549 2627 37 32 94.629700 in5 1 8 4 8 7 1603 2639 19 21 94.629700 a5 1 8 4 8 8 1640 2627 143 33 96.630211 numbers 1 8 4 8 9 1798 2628 43 32 96.688042 of5 1 8 4 8 10 1855 2631 106 30 96.920921 states5 1 8 4 8 11 1979 2632 35 29 96.908936 to5 1 8 4 8 12 2032 2629 46 33 96.872658 its2 1 9 0 0 0 763 2677 192 9 -1 3 1 9 1 0 0 763 2677 192 9 -1 4 1 9 1 1 0 763 2677 192 9 -1 5 1 9 1 1 1 763 2677 192 9 95.000000 2 1 10 0 0 0 791 2708 1149 37 -1 3 1 10 1 0 0 791 2708 1149 37 -1 4 1 10 1 1 0 791 2708 1149 37 -1 5 1 10 1 1 1 791 2708 145 26 92.151810 *Petitions 1 10 1 1 2 946 2710 31 24 95.814896 to5 1 10 1 1 3 985 2710 109 26 95.862473 reviews 1 10 1 1 4 1102 2712 69 25 96.386208 filed5 1 10 1 1 5 1178 2713 40 28 96.983070 by5 1 10 1 1 6 1227 2713 179 30 95.989670 respondents 1 10 1 1 7 1416 2713 60 27 96.089485 Oct.5 1 10 1 1 8 1488 2714 24 31 96.654686 5,5 1 10 1 1 9 1524 2715 76 30 93.300201 1972,5 1 10 1 1 10 1612 2714 133 26 47.844994 U.S.C.A.5 1 10 1 1 11 1756 2715 52 25 96.969704 6th5 1 10 1 1 12 1819 2714 121 27 96.576569 Circuit. ‘FIRESTONE TIRE AND RUBBER CO. 399:

398 Complaint retail outlets, distributors: and jobbers located in various other States of the United States and in the District of Columbia. Respondent maintains, and at all times mentioned herein thas maintained, a sub- stantial course of trade in said products in commerce, as “commerce” is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act. Par. 4. To promote the sale of its automobile tires and other products, respondent prepares, or causes to be prepared, advertisments which it publishes or causes to be published,.or Places in the hands. of: others for publication, in. newspapers, magazines and. other media throughout the United States.

» Among and typical, but not all inclusive, of such advertisements are. the following: ”

(a) Gigantic July 4th Offer. 10 Day Offer Now thru Sat. July 2. TIRE JAMBOREE Low, low prices on our: popular high quality nylon cord tire * *.* the Firestone Safety Champion. ® , ' Jamboree Prices Start at $16 Plus $1.61 per tire Fed. Excise tax, sales tax and . trade-in tire with recappable cord body. 6.00-13 tubeless blackwall. [Advertisement includes listing of other sizes of Safety Champion tires with price listed for each.] (b) Spectacular July Tire OFFER 12 Big Days Now thru July 30 Low, low prices on our most popular tire! Firestone Deluxe Champions. Prices start at $18 plus $1.88 Fed. excise tax, sales tax and trade-in tire with recappable cord body. 6.00—18 tubeless blackwall.

[Advertisement includes listing of other sizes of Deluxe Champions with price listed for each. ] (c) Now thru Sept. 3 SAVE BIG! BUY NOW AT DISCOUNT PRICES. FIRESTONE Pre-Labor Day TIRE SALE Prices slashed on FIRESTONE Safety Champions Sale Prices Start at $16 Plus $1.61 Fed. excise tax and trade-in tire off your car. , [Advertisement includes listing of other sizes of Safety Champion tires with price listed for each.] 400 FEDERAL, TRADE COMMISSION: DECISIONS Your choice of 2. fine quality FIRESTONE Nylon Cord Tires Any Size: One, Low Price! Firestone Nylonaire Any size listed $12 Firestone Safety Champion Any size listed $20 [Advertisement contains listing a: sizes. offered under oach price, category.]> bh coran Boot THE SAFE TIRE FIRESTONE When you buy: a . Firestone Tire—no matter” how much or how little you pay—you get a safe tire. Firestone tires-are:custom:: built one by one, By skilled craftsmen. And’ they’re personally. inspected for:an extra margin of safety. If these tires don’t pass all of the exacting Firestone. inspections, they don’t get out.

Firestone—The Safe Tire, At 60,000 Firestone Safe Tire Centers. At no more cost than ordinary tires.

-(£), * * * Like the original Super Sports - ‘Wide Oval. Fire. It came, straight out of Firestone racing research. :

“It’s built lower,: wider. ‘Nearly two inches. wider than. regglar tires. To. corner better, run cooler, stop 25% quicker. . : . Pan. 5. By and through the foregoing s statements and representations as set forth in Paragraph Four hereof, respondent. represented, . di-: - rectly or by implication, that:

1. As to the advertisements identified as (a)—(c) : the tires advertised were being offered at prices which were significantly reduced from the actual bona fide prices at which those tires had been sold to the public at retail by respondent in the recent regular course of its business prior to the publication of the advertisement and purchasers would thereby realize bona fide savings in the amount of such reduction. 2. As to the advertisement identified as (d) : the tires listed in each price grouping were being offered at a price which was significantly reduced from the actual] bona fide price at which each of the tires listed, including the smallest size, had been sold to the public at retail by respondent in the recent regular course of its business prior to the publication of the advertisement and purchasers of each size tire would realize bona fide savings in the amount of such reduction. 3. As to the advertisement identified as (e): a purchaser of a tire bearing the brand name “Firestone” is assured of receiving a tire which will be free from any defects in materials or workmanship or any other manufacturing defects.

4. Further as to the advertisement identified as (e) : a consumer purchasing tires bearing the brand name “Firestone” will receive tires which will be safe under all conditions of use. FIRESTONE.5 1 1 1 1 2 1219 469 88 23 90.503113 TIRES 1 1 1 1 3 1330 449 68 58 90.503113 ANDS 1 1 1 1 4 1425 468 154 25 62.047852 RUBBER5 1 1 1 1 5 1589 459 81 34 41.142040 CO.)5 1 1 1 1 6 1694 470 9 21 35.495079 ©5 1 1 1 1 7 1880 461 105 36 27.546181 AOL4 1 1 1 2 0 650 532 748 42 -1 5 1 1 1 2 1 650 532 94 37 26.951019 3985 1 1 1 2 2 1230 540 168 34 95.674454 Complaint3 1 1 2 0 0 648 615 1354 348 -1 4 1 1 2 1 0 694 615 1287 44 -1 5 1 1 2 1 1 694 617 28 30 82.540794 5.5 1 1 2 1 2 745 615 52 32 95.855507 As5 1 1 2 1 3 817 618 38 30 96.091095 to5 1 1 2 1 4 877 606 59 43 96.091095 thes 1 1 2 1 5 958 609 265 40 66.077805 advertisements 1 1 2 1 6 1245 612 177 37 96.388832 identified5 1 1 2 1 7 1444 627 39 27 92.825417 as5 1 1 2 1 8 1510 616 76 43 63.921734 (£):5 1 1 2 1 9 1608 617 208 42 91.046448 respondents 1 1 2 1 10 1837 617 70 33 88.819824 had5 1 1 2 1 11 1929 628 52 22 84.904701 es-4 1 1 2 2 0 651 665 1331 45 -1 5 1 1 2 2 1 651 656 171 43 95.505562 tablished5 1 1 2 2 2 836 666 153 42 91.473671 through5 1 1 2 2 3 1003 667 169 41 91.473671 adequate5 1 1 2 2 4 1184 666 166 34 96.620178 scientific5 1 1 2 2 5 1363 670 84 30 96.948509 tests5 1 1 2 2 6 1459 667 80 42 96.964165 that5 1 1 2 2 7 1553 678 68 32 96.811859 any5 1 1 2 2 8 1635 678 60 22 96.950439 cars 1 1 2 2 9 1708 668 183 42 91.604683 equipped5 1 1 2 2 10 1894 668 88 33 91.604683 with4 1 1 2 3 0 650 716 1329 45 -1 5 1 1 2 3 1 650 716 178 33 96.258583 Firestone5 1 1 2 3 2 844 716 113 47 96.572044 Super5 1 1 2 3 3 975 717 124 42 96.700027 Sports5 1 1 2 3 4 1115 718 103 34 96.289925 Wide5 1 1 2 3 5 1235 718 90 34 96.516647 Oval5 1 1 2 3 6 1341 718 84 38 96.329720 tires5 1 1 2 3 7 1442 718 100 33 96.934891 could5 1 1 2 3 8 1560 718 41 32 96.386063 be5 1 1 2 3 9 1617 721 146 40 96.386063 stopped5 1 1 2 3 10 1780 721 47 31 70.287827 25:5 1 1 2 3 11 1839 723 140 42 81.998962 percent4 1 1 2 4 0 649 767 1335 42 -1 5 1 1 2 4 1 649 767 140 42 93.481041 quicker5 1 1 2 4 2 798 760 115 40 93.481041 under5 1 1 2 4 3 925 764 133 45 91.259499 typical5 1 1 2 4 4 1072 770 86 31 79.579193 road:5 1 1 2 4 5 1174 770 70 31 79.579193 ands 1 1 2 4 6 1260 769 150 32 96.898422 weather5 1 1 2 4 7 1418 768 199 33 97.002136 conditions5 1 1 2 4 8 1633 770 59 31 97.001602 for5 1 1 2 4 9 1706 770 59 33 96.948837 thes 1 1 2 4 10 1780 770 125 33 96.985062 usable5 1 1 2 4 11 1912 770 72 33 95.845825 life4 1 1 2 5 0 650 816 1352 47 -1 5 1 1 2 5 1 650 817 40 32 96.213501 of5 1 1 2 5 2 714 817 65 32 86.487877 thé:5 1 1 2 5 3 797 816 151 44 96.337875 originals 1 1 2 5 4 972 819 101 32 95.065163 tread5 1 1 2 5 5 1096 818 41 33 95.065163 of5 1 1 2 5 6 1162 818 85 34 96.115364 such5 1 1 2 5 7 1270 818 84 33 96.115364 tires5 1 1 2 5 8 1378 819 100 32 96.696587 when5 1 1 2 5 9 1499 819 187 44 96.113556 compared5 1 1 2 5 10 1711 819 85 33 96.862495 with5 1 1 2 5 11 1820 821 59 32 93.266144 thes 1 1 2 5 12 1901 830 101 33 36.860485 per-.4 1 1 2 6 0 651 867 1332 47 -1 5 1 1 2 6 1 651 867 174 34 96.439476 formance5 1 1 2 6 2 835 868 40 33 96.950218 of5 1 1 2 6 3 883 869 61 32 96.840942 thes 1 1 2 6 4 952 879 92 22 96.434456 same5 1 1 2 6 5 1054 869 132 34 96.164474 vehicles 1 1 2 6 6 1196 869 111 33 96.906075 under5 1 1 2 6 7 1318 870 58 32 96.720703 thes 1 1 2 6 8 1387 880 92 23 96.346504 same5 1 1 2 6 9 1490 869 194 34 96.346504 conditions5 1 1 2 6 10 1693 871 101 33 96.386276 when5 1 1 2 6 11 1806 871 177 43 96.386276 equipped.4 1 1 2 7 0 648 918 1115 45 -1 5 1 1 2 7 1 648 918 85 33 96.751930 with5 1 1 2 7 2 747 927 68 34 93.279633 any5 1 1 2 7 3 827 919 289 33 91.533035 manufacturer’s5 1 1 2 7 4 1129 920 85 32 96.980927 tires5 1 1 2 7 5 1227 916 40 37 96.796173 of5 1 1 2 7 6 1282 932 20 21 93.369682 a5 1 1 2 7 7 1310 920 198 43 93.369682 particulars 1 1 2 7 8 1522 920 241 34 96.648567 construction.3 1 1 3 0 0 689 969 509 43 -1 4 1 1 3 1 0 689 969 509 43 -1 5 1 1 3 1 1 689 969 84 33 57.855659 Pak.5 1 1 3 1 2 784 971 29 31 93.559845 6.5 1 1 3 1 3 824 970 45 32 93.559845 In5 1 1 3 1 4 877 970 100 32 96.212425 truth5 1 1 3 1 5 985 970 89 33 96.831329 ands 1 1 3 1 6 1065 981 37 21 96.221603 in5 1 1 3 1 7 1113 969 85 43 96.381477 fact,3 1 1 4 0 0 644 988 1360 318 -1 4 1 1 4 1 0 691 988 1288 83 -1 5 1 1 4 1 1 691 1021 27 31 92.036896 1.5 1 1 4 1 2 733 1020 75 33 96.358116 Thes 1 1 4 1 3 823 1020 194 34 96.244537 advertised5 1 1 4 1 4 1032 1020 84 35 96.630943 tires5 1 1 4 1 5 1132 1033 88 21 96.484238 were5 1 1 4 1 6 1235 1025 69 29 78.629028 not5 1 1 4 1 7 1312 1021 104 44 78.629028 beings 1 1 4 1 8 1432 988 133 83 96.881279 offered5 1 1 4 1 9 1577 1026 38 29 94.202385 at5 1 1 4 1 10 1628 1022 114 43 94.202385 prices5 1 1 4 1 11 1757 1023 119 33 92.863670 which:5 1 1 4 1 12 1885 1024 94 32 94.361816 were4 1 1 4 2 0 648 1070 1333 46 -1 5 1 1 4 2 1 648 1070 233 44 95.040825 significantly5 1 1 4 2 2 896 1070 147 34 96.043381 reduced5 1 1 4 2 3 1060 1073 97 32 94.539368 from5 1 1 4 2 4 1169 1073 60 31 93.297318 thes 1 1 4 2 5 1246 1072 219 34 3.157654 actualbona5 1 1 4 2 6 1483 1073 67 33 96.951523 fide5 1 1 4 2 7 1567 1073 111 43 93.996048 prices5 1 1 4 2 8 1695 1077 37 29 93.996048 at5 1 1 4 2 9 1749 1074 113 33 96.839302 which5 1 1 4 2 10 1879 1075 102 32 96.787773 those4 1 1 4 3 0 646 1121 1330 46 -1 5 1 1 4 3 1 646 1121 83 32 95.921486 tires5 1 1 4 3 2 742 1121 73 33 96.831985 had5 1 1 4 3 3 826 1121 85 49 95.372040 been5 1 1 4 3 4 927 1115 76 40 96.852951 sold5 1 1 4 3 5 1016 1125 37 30 96.271179 to5 1 1 4 3 6 1068 1123 67 32 96.271179 thes 1 1 4 3 7 1143 1118 121 47 96.088768 public5 1 1 4 3 8 1277 1127 37 29 96.677650 at5 1 1 4 3 9 1328 1124 102 31 96.609619 retails 1 1 4 3 10 1447 1124 44 42 96.912994 by5 1 1 4 3 11 1505 1124 234 43 96.508217 respondents 1 1 4 3 12 1730 1135 42 22 96.356445 in5 1 1 4 3 13 1784 1125 60 33 96.356445 thes 1 1 4 3 14 1860 1127 116 31 93.684723 recent4 1 1 4 4 0 646 1172 1358 45 -1 5 1 1 4 4 1 646 1172 147 45 96.693489 regular5 1 1 4 4 2 802 1168 118 37 96.579987 courses 1 1 4 4 3 936 1173 41 32 96.602615 of5 1 1 4 4 4 995 1172 46 34 96.408463 its5 1 1 4 4 5 1060 1173 154 33 80.593216 business.5 1 1 4 4 6 1233 1174 97 43 86.381332 prior5 1 1 4 4 7 1347 1178 38 28 96.983589 to5 1 1 4 4 8 1402 1175 61 32 97.010620 thes 1 1 4 4 9 1482 1172 215 45 96.685951 publications 1 1 4 4 10 1715 1174 40 34 96.956841 of5 1 1 4 4 11 1773 1175 61 35 93.291985 thes 1 1 4 4 12 1853 1175 123 34 77.425140 adver-5 1 1 4 4 13 2002 1192 2 2 0.000000 -4 1 1 4 5 0 644 1221 1335 70 -1 5 1 1 4 5 1 644 1213 176 50 93.120544 tisements5 1 1 4 5 2 841 1223 68 32 95.234810 ands 1 1 4 5 3 929 1224 206 41 95.234810 purchasers5 1 1 4 5 4 1156 1225 63 51 96.061317 did5 1 1 4 5 5 1239 1228 62 29 96.262520 not5 1 1 4 5 6 1321 1225 143 43 96.987099 thereby5 1 1 4 5 7 1487 1224 124 35 96.925591 realizes 1 1 4 5 8 1631 1226 92 63 75.018517 bona5 1 1 4 5 9 1744 1225 79 34 59.953648 fide.5 1 1 4 5 10 1825 1224 154 67 95.130959 savings4 1 1 4 6 0 644 1273 304 33 -1 5 1 1 4 6 1 644 1271 38 51 96.731941 in5 1 1 4 6 2 691 1273 82 32 96.731941 such5 1 1 4 6 3 782 1277 166 29 96.824448 amounts.3 1 1 5 0 0 642 1300 1347 359 -1 4 1 1 5 1 0 676 1300 1299 75 -1 5 1 1 5 1 1 676 1325 39 31 53.824074 ‘2:5 1 1 5 1 2 730 1316 73 40 96.758659 Thes 1 1 5 1 3 813 1323 89 33 94.995247 tires5 1 1 5 1 4 909 1324 125 44 96.916252 listed5 1 1 5 1 5 1027 1336 35 29 96.924088 in5 1 1 5 1 6 1075 1325 83 33 96.864967 each5 1 1 5 1 7 1170 1325 97 43 96.975937 prices 1 1 5 1 8 1278 1326 177 43 94.750450 groupings 1 1 5 1 9 1467 1336 87 23 94.750450 were5 1 1 5 1 10 1567 1331 60 29 96.492577 not5 1 1 5 1 11 1638 1325 106 45 96.250992 beings 1 1 5 1 12 1757 1300 128 75 91.764885 offered5 1 1 5 1 13 1900 1332 37 29 90.085770 at5 1 1 5 1 14 1952 1334 23 27 65.378448 a,4 1 1 5 2 0 643 1374 1333 48 -1 5 1 1 5 2 1 643 1373 95 41 96.566818 prices 1 1 5 2 2 752 1374 113 33 96.947166 which5 1 1 5 2 3 880 1382 68 26 96.740471 was5 1 1 5 2 4 961 1371 237 47 96.953819 significantly5 1 1 5 2 5 1213 1375 147 35 86.305305 reduced5 1 1 5 2 6 1377 1378 92 32 96.904495 from5 1 1 5 2 7 1483 1378 61 32 96.723846 thes 1 1 5 2 8 1560 1380 118 36 85.012733 actual.5 1 1 5 2 9 1690 1380 88 31 85.012733 bona5 1 1 5 2 10 1793 1380 69 32 93.571175 fide5 1 1 5 2 11 1877 1380 99 42 96.527359 price4 1 1 5 3 0 643 1425 1330 45 -1 5 1 1 5 3 1 643 1428 37 28 95.483299 at5 1 1 5 3 2 694 1425 113 32 96.369537 which5 1 1 5 3 3 821 1425 82 33 96.706718 each5 1 1 5 3 4 917 1426 40 32 96.939011 of5 1 1 5 3 5 970 1426 59 32 95.986565 thes 1 1 5 3 6 1042 1426 85 33 96.296165 tires5 1 1 5 3 7 1139 1428 117 41 96.948509 listed,5 1 1 5 3 8 1271 1428 180 42 96.495087 including5 1 1 5 3 9 1464 1429 60 32 92.737053 thes 1 1 5 3 10 1540 1429 152 33 92.737053 smallest5 1 1 5 3 11 1708 1429 77 41 96.419533 size,5 1 1 5 3 12 1801 1431 70 32 96.643494 had5 1 1 5 3 13 1886 1431 87 32 77.527298 been4 1 1 5 4 0 643 1449 1346 84 -1 5 1 1 5 4 1 643 1470 76 38 96.158043 sold5 1 1 5 4 2 731 1479 39 29 96.158043 to5 1 1 5 4 3 781 1476 60 32 96.949455 thes 1 1 5 4 4 855 1468 120 65 96.625946 public5 1 1 5 4 5 988 1481 37 28 96.198883 at5 1 1 5 4 6 1039 1477 102 33 96.580002 retails 1 1 5 4 7 1155 1478 47 42 96.975510 by5 1 1 5 4 8 1218 1449 199 76 94.875992 respondents 1 1 5 4 9 1435 1479 13 33 72.807838 i5 1 1 5 4 10 1440 1490 38 21 95.611511 in5 1 1 5 4 11 1493 1480 59 32 96.903992 thes 1 1 5 4 12 1567 1484 113 28 95.852242 recent5 1 1 5 4 13 1697 1481 143 41 96.629829 regular5 1 1 5 4 14 1852 1489 137 38 36.829029 course’4 1 1 5 5 0 642 1525 1330 59 -1 5 1 1 5 5 1 642 1526 41 31 96.745811 of5 1 1 5 5 2 694 1525 47 33 96.745811 its5 1 1 5 5 3 755 1526 153 33 96.391159 business5 1 1 5 5 4 922 1527 98 57 96.963623 prior5 1 1 5 5 5 1033 1531 40 29 96.735939 to5 1 1 5 5 6 1084 1521 61 39 96.738213 thes 1 1 5 5 7 1161 1529 215 42 96.536552 publications 1 1 5 5 8 1391 1530 45 32 96.709717 of5 1 1 5 5 9 1445 1530 59 33 96.709717 thes 1 1 5 5 10 1520 1526 266 37 94.890167 advertisements 1 1 5 5 11 1801 1532 70 32 91.539230 ands 1 1 5 5 12 1886 1530 86 45 91.789879 pur-4 1 1 5 6 0 642 1576 1329 47 -1 5 1 1 5 6 1 642 1576 134 41 96.573853 chasers5 1 1 5 6 2 792 1577 41 31 96.961296 of5 1 1 5 6 3 850 1578 82 32 96.747383 each5 1 1 5 6 4 950 1578 69 32 96.746284 sizes 1 1 5 6 5 1036 1578 67 33 96.896820 tires 1 1 5 6 6 1121 1579 116 33 96.388206 would5 1 1 5 6 7 1255 1583 62 29 96.184303 not5 1 1 5 6 8 1335 1574 123 39 95.850639 realizes 1 1 5 6 9 1477 1575 89 39 96.448959 bona5 1 1 5 6 10 1584 1581 73 50 96.909004 fide5 1 1 5 6 11 1672 1581 142 42 96.902069 savings5 1 1 5 6 12 1830 1582 36 32 96.902069 in5 1 1 5 6 13 1885 1584 86 31 96.458405 such4 1 1 5 7 0 643 1630 183 29 -1 5 1 1 5 7 1 643 1630 183 29 90.179642 amounts.5 1 1 5 7 2 815 1626 12 47 40.311298 °3 1 1 6 0 0 635 1652 1335 375 -1 4 1 1 6 1 0 684 1652 1286 86 -1 5 1 1 6 1 1 684 1678 29 31 89.661758 3.5 1 1 6 1 2 735 1677 35 32 79.193741 A5 1 1 6 1 3 784 1673 186 65 96.979301 purchasers 1 1 6 1 4 985 1679 40 31 96.658386 of5 1 1 6 1 5 1039 1690 20 21 96.961128 a5 1 1 6 1 6 1075 1679 67 32 96.928925 tires 1 1 6 1 7 1157 1652 144 70 96.944336 bearings 1 1 6 1 8 1315 1681 59 32 96.809166 thes 1 1 6 1 9 1387 1681 113 32 96.409843 brands 1 1 6 1 10 1514 1692 100 21 96.144890 names 1 1 6 1 11 1628 1682 244 33 96.144890 “Firestone”5 1 1 6 1 12 1864 1694 28 22 96.296745 is5 1 1 6 1 13 1906 1686 64 30 96.968513 nota 1 1 6 2 0 640 1728 1327 47 -1 5 1 1 6 2 1 640 1728 139 32 96.417816 assured5 1 1 6 2 2 791 1728 41 32 96.912613 of5 1 1 6 2 3 846 1728 171 43 96.825150 receiving5 1 1 6 2 4 1032 1740 20 21 95.388924 a5 1 1 6 2 5 1064 1730 69 32 95.388924 tires 1 1 6 2 6 1147 1730 114 33 96.901779 which5 1 1 6 2 7 1275 1731 71 32 96.790138 will5 1 1 6 2 8 1362 1732 40 32 96.937172 be5 1 1 6 2 9 1418 1732 73 32 96.084236 free5 1 1 6 2 10 1506 1733 93 32 96.603035 from5 1 1 6 2 11 1615 1744 68 31 96.063522 any5 1 1 6 2 12 1699 1734 154 32 96.932861 defects5 1 1 6 2 13 1846 1744 34 22 93.031441 in5 1 1 6 2 14 1895 1746 72 21 92.018616 ma-4 1 1 6 3 0 638 1778 1330 49 -1 5 1 1 6 3 1 638 1778 119 32 96.810341 terials5 1 1 6 3 2 769 1789 39 21 96.439575 or5 1 1 6 3 3 820 1780 255 42 96.439575 workmanship5 1 1 6 3 4 1090 1792 38 22 96.773468 or5 1 1 6 3 5 1141 1792 68 32 96.878731 any5 1 1 6 3 6 1222 1782 97 37 96.748451 others 1 1 6 3 7 1331 1783 285 43 96.400444 manufacturing5 1 1 6 3 8 1630 1784 139 32 96.677299 defects.5 1 1 6 3 9 1784 1785 184 42 96.590355 Although4 1 1 6 4 0 640 1830 1330 48 -1 5 1 1 6 4 1 640 1830 206 40 96.173584 respondents 1 1 6 4 2 862 1841 79 31 96.456886 may5 1 1 6 4 3 958 1832 147 31 96.798515 exercises 1 1 6 4 4 1123 1832 66 32 96.521164 dues 1 1 6 4 5 1206 1843 77 22 96.333298 cares 1 1 6 4 6 1300 1833 36 31 96.692703 in5 1 1 6 4 7 1352 1834 60 32 96.281410 thes 1 1 6 4 8 1429 1845 116 21 96.722916 courses 1 1 6 4 9 1562 1836 39 31 96.616386 of5 1 1 6 4 10 1617 1836 286 42 96.512459 manufacturing5 1 1 6 4 11 1921 1836 49 33 96.676010 its4 1 1 6 5 0 639 1878 1329 49 -1 5 1 1 6 5 1 639 1878 101 47 96.411728 tires,5 1 1 6 5 2 758 1874 185 57 95.977036 respondents 1 1 6 5 3 973 1885 130 29 87.534035 ‘cannot5 1 1 6 5 4 1125 1893 115 23 96.712280 assures 1 1 6 5 5 1261 1884 77 32 96.978760 that5 1 1 6 5 6 1357 1884 83 33 96.965584 tires5 1 1 6 5 7 1462 1885 202 42 96.753166 containing5 1 1 6 5 8 1683 1885 133 33 96.503761 defects5 1 1 6 5 9 1836 1887 37 31 93.022163 in5 1 1 6 5 10 1894 1898 74 21 92.279617 ma-4 1 1 6 6 0 635 1929 1331 49 -1 5 1 1 6 6 1 635 1929 120 33 96.779381 terials5 1 1 6 6 2 768 1941 38 22 96.779381 or5 1 1 6 6 3 820 1932 256 44 96.740639 workmanship5 1 1 6 6 4 1090 1944 41 22 96.355766 or5 1 1 6 6 5 1145 1934 99 32 96.299309 others 1 1 6 6 6 1258 1935 284 43 96.661476 manufacturing5 1 1 6 6 7 1556 1936 129 33 86.973999 defects5 1 1 6 6 8 1702 1937 70 32 96.353180 will5 1 1 6 6 9 1787 1941 62 28 96.175621 not5 1 1 6 6 10 1864 1938 102 33 96.175621 reach4 1 1 6 7 0 636 1980 650 47 -1 5 1 1 6 7 1 636 1980 59 32 96.610245 thes 1 1 6 7 2 703 1981 111 33 96.803146 hands5 1 1 6 7 3 823 1982 40 32 96.854332 of5 1 1 6 7 4 871 1983 58 31 96.756477 thes 1 1 6 7 5 940 1983 211 44 96.756477 purchasing5 1 1 6 7 6 1161 1985 125 41 96.407303 public.3 1 1 7 0 0 631 2019 1336 514 -1 4 1 1 7 1 0 677 2019 1290 62 -1 5 1 1 7 1 1 677 2034 30 29 85.821854 4.5 1 1 7 1 2 723 2031 182 48 96.593025 Although5 1 1 7 1 3 919 2034 84 32 96.629097 tires5 1 1 7 1 4 1016 2034 146 44 96.573524 bearings 1 1 7 1 5 1174 2036 60 32 96.540787 thes 1 1 7 1 6 1249 2037 110 32 96.630287 brands 1 1 7 1 7 1375 2049 99 21 95.812927 names 1 1 7 1 8 1489 2019 220 52 21.927216 “Birestone”5 1 1 7 1 9 1725 2050 81 31 95.186432 may5 1 1 7 1 10 1821 2043 87 29 95.825798 meets 1 1 7 1 11 1925 2052 42 20 95.825798 or4 1 1 7 2 0 636 2082 1328 50 -1 5 1 1 7 2 1 636 2082 121 34 96.477478 exceeds 1 1 7 2 2 776 2083 194 42 96.477478 applicable5 1 1 7 2 3 987 2088 260 39 96.765427 governmental5 1 1 7 2 4 1266 2088 68 32 96.843285 ands 1 1 7 2 5 1353 2088 161 43 96.952377 industry5 1 1 7 2 6 1534 2089 113 43 95.970413 safety5 1 1 7 2 7 1667 2090 194 41 96.807724 standards,5 1 1 7 2 8 1880 2091 84 33 96.760201 such4 1 1 7 3 0 637 2132 1329 52 -1 5 1 1 7 3 1 637 2132 81 34 95.533585 tires5 1 1 7 3 2 730 2133 71 33 95.533585 will5 1 1 7 3 3 814 2138 61 29 96.763191 not5 1 1 7 3 4 885 2136 42 31 96.762329 be5 1 1 7 3 5 937 2136 77 32 96.702072 safe5 1 1 7 3 6 1024 2136 111 33 96.391388 under5 1 1 7 3 7 1147 2138 49 32 83.124634 all5 1 1 7 3 8 1208 2138 194 33 96.559471 conditions5 1 1 7 3 9 1414 2140 39 32 96.603508 of5 1 1 7 3 10 1465 2151 69 22 96.741531 use.5 1 1 7 3 11 1547 2141 74 32 96.727859 Thes 1 1 7 3 12 1634 2140 114 43 96.727859 safety5 1 1 7 3 13 1763 2142 39 31 96.961136 of5 1 1 7 3 14 1816 2152 67 32 96.962433 any5 1 1 7 3 15 1895 2141 71 33 96.445152 tire4 1 1 7 4 0 635 2184 1328 43 -1 5 1 1 7 4 1 635 2183 30 32 95.370979 is5 1 1 7 4 2 680 2184 146 34 95.370979 affected5 1 1 7 4 3 841 2185 48 42 96.771957 by5 1 1 7 4 4 904 2186 60 32 96.740242 thes 1 1 7 4 5 982 2187 193 34 96.844711 conditions5 1 1 7 4 6 1192 2189 110 32 96.768120 under5 1 1 7 4 7 1320 2190 112 32 96.833275 which5 1 1 7 4 8 1450 2190 28 33 95.602493 it5 1 1 7 4 9 1497 2191 30 32 96.664078 is5 1 1 7 4 10 1546 2193 80 31 96.971275 used5 1 1 7 4 11 1645 2192 83 32 96.709297 such5 1 1 7 4 12 1747 2203 37 22 96.986732 as5 1 1 7 4 13 1803 2193 160 32 96.342010 inflation4 1 1 7 5 0 636 2235 1329 46 -1 5 1 1 7 5 1 636 2244 156 31 96.715408 pressures 1 1 7 5 2 805 2235 69 33 96.733078 ands 1 1 7 5 3 885 2236 131 33 96.874199 vehicles 1 1 7 5 4 1027 2238 140 42 96.153236 weight,5 1 1 7 5 5 1178 2238 64 33 96.986496 but5 1 1 7 5 6 1254 2240 206 41 95.965813 respondents 1 1 7 5 7 1471 2241 116 33 96.341309 makes5 1 1 7 5 8 1597 2253 47 21 96.441559 no5 1 1 7 5 9 1655 2241 207 34 96.353294 disclosures 1 1 7 5 10 1853 2253 37 22 93.306137 in5 1 1 7 5 11 1903 2243 62 33 92.648605 ad-4 1 1 7 6 0 634 2285 1329 47 -1 5 1 1 7 6 1 634 2285 235 34 92.452446 vertisements5 1 1 7 6 2 886 2287 188 44 96.690765 regarding5 1 1 7 6 3 1090 2289 59 32 96.676224 thes 1 1 7 6 4 1165 2289 115 43 96.537102 safety5 1 1 7 6 5 1296 2290 40 33 96.703247 of5 1 1 7 6 6 1352 2290 46 33 96.954681 its5 1 1 7 6 7 1414 2290 82 34 96.921722 tires5 1 1 7 6 8 1513 2303 40 21 96.236855 or5 1 1 7 6 9 1566 2292 59 32 96.236855 thes 1 1 7 6 10 1641 2292 170 34 96.932617 existence5 1 1 7 6 11 1825 2293 39 33 97.008873 of5 1 1 7 6 12 1878 2294 85 33 96.481987 such4 1 1 7 7 0 633 2334 1329 51 -1 5 1 1 7 7 1 633 2328 205 41 96.826691 limitations5 1 1 7 7 2 859 2349 44 21 96.877655 on5 1 1 7 7 3 923 2339 60 32 96.633301 thes 1 1 7 7 4 1003 2339 115 43 96.647682 safety5 1 1 7 7 5 1139 2341 39 32 96.640388 of5 1 1 7 7 6 1200 2341 46 32 96.507927 its5 1 1 7 7 7 1265 2341 93 33 93.287308 tires.5 1 1 7 7 8 1382 2343 249 42 91.892357 Respondent’s5 1 1 7 7 9 1654 2343 128 33 96.735344 failures 1 1 7 7 10 1803 2348 36 28 96.322311 to5 1 1 7 7 11 1860 2346 102 31 96.322311 make4 1 1 7 8 0 633 2387 1331 50 -1 5 1 1 7 8 1 633 2387 82 32 96.496460 such5 1 1 7 8 2 734 2387 186 34 96.738953 disclosures 1 1 7 8 3 940 2391 167 32 96.956863 enhances5 1 1 7 8 4 1126 2391 61 32 96.676018 thes 1 1 7 8 5 1207 2393 157 42 96.404541 capacity5 1 1 7 8 6 1386 2394 69 32 96.171227 ands 1 1 7 8 7 1476 2395 168 42 96.597961 tendency5 1 1 7 8 8 1666 2395 39 32 93.290207 of5 1 1 7 8 9 1726 2395 238 42 50.952927 respondent’s4 1 1 7 9 0 632 2437 1329 51 -1 5 1 1 7 9 1 632 2437 279 36 96.035110 advertisements5 1 1 7 9 2 932 2443 36 29 96.139587 to5 1 1 7 9 3 989 2441 145 34 96.511200 misleads 1 1 7 9 4 1156 2443 69 32 96.207794 ands 1 1 7 9 5 1248 2443 134 33 96.207794 deceives 1 1 7 9 6 1403 2445 214 43 96.716408 prospective5 1 1 7 9 7 1639 2446 203 42 96.639526 purchasers5 1 1 7 9 8 1864 2458 37 22 96.454483 as5 1 1 7 9 9 1923 2451 38 29 96.454483 to4 1 1 7 10 0 631 2488 577 45 -1 5 1 1 7 10 1 631 2488 58 32 97.011963 thes 1 1 7 10 2 700 2489 112 43 96.999992 safety5 1 1 7 10 3 821 2491 40 32 93.159180 of5 1 1 7 10 4 871 2492 245 41 90.820175 respondent’s5 1 1 7 10 5 1116 2493 92 33 96.252182 tires.3 1 1 8 0 0 629 2539 1333 152 -1 4 1 1 8 1 0 658 2539 1304 50 -1 5 1 1 8 1 1 658 2542 44 30 34.666023 5.5 1 1 8 1 2 725 2539 222 43 96.838562 Respondents 1 1 8 1 3 963 2542 69 33 96.837708 had5 1 1 8 1 4 1048 2547 62 28 96.837708 not5 1 1 8 1 5 1125 2545 207 33 96.122459 established5 1 1 8 1 6 1347 2546 152 42 96.674675 through5 1 1 8 1 7 1517 2548 165 41 96.724930 adequate5 1 1 8 1 8 1697 2548 164 33 96.904922 scientific5 1 1 8 1 9 1876 2553 86 29 96.979759 tests4 1 1 8 2 0 629 2590 1334 50 -1 5 1 1 8 2 1 629 2590 78 32 96.298752 that5 1 1 8 2 2 726 2601 67 32 96.375450 any5 1 1 8 2 3 811 2602 59 22 96.917313 cars 1 1 8 2 4 887 2593 171 42 96.660416 equipped5 1 1 8 2 5 1075 2588 87 38 96.764549 with5 1 1 8 2 6 1180 2596 178 33 96.620644 Firestone5 1 1 8 2 7 1368 2596 121 43 96.542236 Super5 1 1 8 2 8 1508 2598 123 42 96.542236 Sports5 1 1 8 2 9 1648 2598 103 35 96.662018 Wide5 1 1 8 2 10 1767 2599 91 34 96.974480 Oval5 1 1 8 2 11 1875 2600 88 33 94.970169 tires.4 1 1 8 3 0 631 2641 1327 50 -1 5 1 1 8 3 1 631 2641 100 33 96.431335 could5 1 1 8 3 2 747 2642 41 32 97.011452 be5 1 1 8 3 3 805 2644 147 42 96.613541 stopped5 1 1 8 3 4 968 2646 40 30 96.934517 255 1 1 8 3 5 1027 2649 141 37 96.381546 percent5 1 1 8 3 6 1185 2646 139 42 93.351929 quicker5 1 1 8 3 7 1340 2647 111 33 96.724648 under5 1 1 8 3 8 1467 2649 131 42 96.461487 typical5 1 1 8 3 9 1616 2650 86 31 95.976471 roads 1 1 8 3 10 1720 2650 70 33 95.976471 ands 1 1 8 3 11 1808 2652 150 31 96.454941 weather3 1 1 9 0 0 610 2692 1348 49 -1 4 1 1 9 1 0 610 2692 1348 49 -1 5 1 1 9 1 1 610 2692 212 33 60.724285 ‘conditions5 1 1 9 1 2 838 2694 57 32 96.999672 for5 1 1 9 1 3 910 2694 58 32 96.999672 thes 1 1 9 1 4 983 2695 118 33 96.970741 usable5 1 1 9 1 5 1116 2696 65 33 96.828545 life5 1 1 9 1 6 1196 2697 40 32 96.869202 of5 1 1 9 1 7 1249 2698 60 32 96.936134 thes 1 1 9 1 8 1324 2699 150 42 96.518982 originals 1 1 9 1 9 1491 2701 97 33 97.019432 tread5 1 1 9 1 10 1605 2701 40 31 97.007248 of5 1 1 9 1 11 1661 2702 82 32 96.464813 such5 1 1 9 1 12 1758 2701 83 33 96.160294 tires5 1 1 9 1 13 1858 2703 100 31 96.314476 when - 402°. ~~ ~FREDERAT“TRADE. COMMISSION «DECISIONS . Complaint ‘81 .T.C..

compared with the performance of the'same vehicle under -the same conditions ‘when: equipped with - any manufacturer’s tires: of. a.-particular construction. ‘ Therefore, the statements and representations as set. forth in Para- _ graphs Four and Five hereof were, and are, false, misleading | and déceptive.

Par. 7. In the course and conduct of its. business, respondent has. engaged in the additional unfair and deceptive acts and practices, as follows:

-. Respondent: has published, or caused to be published, numerous.advertisements containing offers to sell tires at the prices ‘specified therein. Said advertisements contained no statements or representations, direct or by implication, that the advertised tires would. be sold at the advertised prices only upon request or other specific response to the advertised offer. Notwithstanding the general. nature of said advertised offer, respondent, through its wholly-owned. retail outlets, during the time that such advertised offers were in effect, frequently sold the advertised tires to purchasers at prices which were substantially in excess of the advertised prices while selling such tires to. other purchasers at the advertised prices. _ coy ey Such acts and practices on respondent’s part were, and are, unfair and deceptive acts and practices.

Par. 8. In the course and conduct of its business as aforesaid, respondent has engaged in the following unfair and deceptive acts and practices.

Among the tire names used by respondent to designate its various lines of tires is the name “Safety Champion.” By and through the use of such name, respondent represents, directly or by implication, that the tires so designated have unique construction or performance features which render them safer than other tires. In truth and in fact, respondent’s tires designated by the name “Safety Champion” do not have any unique construction or performance features which render them safer than other tires. There are other tires available to consumers, including other of respondent’s tires, which are as safe as those designated “Safety Champion.” Therefore, the use of the name “Safety Champion” as aforesaid is misleading and deceptive.

Pan. 9. In the course and conduct of its business, and at all times mentioned herein, respondent has been in substantial competition, in commerce, with corporations, firms and individuals engaged in the sale of automobile tires and other products of the same general kind and nature as those sold by respondent.

FIRESTONE TIRE AND: RUBBER CO: . 403 | 398 ' . Complaint.

Par. 10. The use by respondent of the aforesaid false, misleading _and deceptive statements, representations and practices has had, and now has, the capacity and tendency to mislead members of the purchasing public into the erroneous and mistaken belief that said statements and representations. were and are true and into the purchase of substantial quantities of respondent’s products by reason of said erroneous and mistaken belief.

Par. 11. The aforesaid acts and practices of respondent, as herein alleged, were and are all to the prejudice and injury of the public and of respondent’s competitors and constituted, and now constitute, unfair methods of competition in commerce and unfair and deceptive acts and practices in commerce in violation of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act. _ _ Mr. Robert J. Hughes and Mr, Larry P. Weinberg supporting the _ complaint.

Mr. Hammond FE. Chaffete, Mr. Fred H. Bartlit, Jr., Mr. Thomas A. Gottschalk and Mr. James M. Amend, of Kirkland, Ellis, Hodson, Chaffete & Masters, Chicago, Tllinois. Mr. John F. Floberg, Mr. Anthony J. Destro, Mr. Harold L. Henderson, Akron, Ohio, for respondent. | Mr. Victor H. Kramer and Mr. L. Geoffrey Cowan, Washington, D.C. for intervenor, Students Opposing Unfair Practices, Inc. Mr. Gilbert H. Weil, of Weil, Lee & Bergin, New York, New York, for intervenor, Association of National Advertisers, Inc. Inrrrat. Deciston sy Enwarp Creet, Hrarinc EXAMINER AUGUST 17, 1971 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT - The Federal Trade Commission issued its complaint in this proceeding on June 29, 1970, charging respondent the Firestone Tire & Rubber Company with violations of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act. It was alleged in the complaint that respondent had represented that the prices of its tires were significantly reduced from the customary or regular price; that these tires were free from defects; that they were safe under all conditions of use; and that they would stop a vehicle 25 percent quicker under typical road and weather conditions than would other tires. It was further alleged that the advertised tires were not offered at prices which were significantly reduced from the regular price; that respondent could not assure purchasers that tires containing defects would not be sold; that respondent's tires were not safe under all conditions of use; and that respondent had not 404 FEDERAL ‘TRADE’ COMMISSION’ DECISIONS Initial ‘Decision 81 F.L.C.

established through adequateé scientific tests that any car equipped with. its tires could be stepped 25 percent quicker under typical road and weather conditions than it would if equipped with other tires. It was also alleged that respondent had sold the advertised tires to-some purchasers at prices which were substantially higher than such tires were sold to other purchasers. In ‘its answer, filed September 8, 1970, ‘Tespondent denied the principal allegations of the complaint. Two: prehearing” éonfererices were held before hearings began and these conferences resulted in: stipulations between the parties that substantially réducéd the length of the hearings. Prior to the commencement of hearings, the Commission had ordered that. Students Opposing’ Unfair Practices, Inc. (heréinafter referred: to as “SOUP”), be permitted to intervene for the limited purposes of : “ay presenting, at the conclusion of complaint ‘counisel’s case-in-chief, relevant, material, and non-cumulative evidence on the issue of whether the pro- Posed order to cease'and ‘desist adequately protects the publi¢ interest + (2) presenting, with. respect: to said issue, briefs and oral arguniént in. such manner. and ‘to such extent as the examiner may deem reasonable; and ; (8) exercising, with respect to. said. issue, stieh discovery. rights as. the examner shall deéii reasonable and necessary.

Following this order, the hearing examiner granted, in part, ‘a motion to intervene filed by the Association of National Advertisers, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as “ANA”) and ordered that that organization * * * be permitted to intervene for the limited purpose of presenting relevant, material, and non-cumulative evidence on the issue of whether the proposed order to cease and desist adequately protects the public interest. This evidence may be offered at the conclusion of the reception of respondent’s evidence in defense of the case-in-chief presented against it.

By agreement of the parties, both limited intervenors were permitted to cross-examine all witnesses and to object to the introduction of evidence as though they were, in fact, parties to the proceeding. Both of them presented evidence and filed proposed findings of fact on the matters permitted by their limited intervention. Hearings in this matter were held in Washington, D.C., beginning on March 9, 1971, and’ ending April 22, 1971. Additional evidence was received by order and the record was closed for reception of evidence on May 20, 1971. The abbreviations used herein are:

Comp.—Complaint.

Ans.—Answer to complaint.

CX—Commission Exhibit.

RX—Respondent Exhibit.

Tr.—Transcript of testimony and of prehearing conferences. SOUP Ex.—Exhibit of intervenor SOUP.

ANA Ex.—Exhibit of intervenor ANA.

- FIRESTONE TIRE AND RUBBER: CO. 405 398 Initial .Decision This proceeding is before the hearing examiner for final consideration upon the complaint, answer, testimony and other evidence, and proposed findings of fact and conclusions filed by counsel for respondent, counsel supporting the complaint, counsel for intervenor SOUP, and counsel for intervenor ANA. Many of the proposals of the parties and the intervenors are adopted and used herein either in whole or in part. It is believed that the order contained herein clearly informs the parties of the disposition of their proposals. Consideration has been given to all of the proposed findings of fact and conclusions, replies thereto, and briefs; and all proposed findings of fact and conclusions -not hereinafter specifically found or concluded are rejected as being inaccurate or as not being necessary or material; and the hearing examiner, having considered the entire record herein, makes the following findings of fact and conclusions drawn therefrom, and issues the following order: ‘ FINDINGS OF FACT - 1. Respondent the Firestone Tire & Rubber Company is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Ohio, with its principal office and place of business located at 1200 Firestone Parkway, in the city of Akron, State of Ohio. 2. Respondent is now, and for some time last. past has been, engaged in the manufacture, advertising, offering for sale, sale, and distribution of automobile tires and other products.

8. In the course and conduct of its business, respondent sells automobile tires and other products to the purchasing public through its wholly-owned stores and through distributors and jobbers for resale to retailers who sell to the purchasing public. Respondent’s whollyowned retail outlets, distributors, and jobbers are located throughout the United States. In the course of its business as aforesaid, respondent ships its automobile tires and other products from its various manufacturing plants and warehouses located in a number of states to its retail outlets, distributors, and jobbers located in various other States of the United States and in the District of Columbia. Respondent maintains and at all times mentioned herein has maintained a substantial course of trade in said products in commerce, as “commerce” is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act.

4. To promote the sale of its automobile tires and other products, respondent prepares or causes to be prepared advertisements which it publishes, causes to be published, or places in the hands of others for publication in newspapers, magazines, and other media throughout the United States.

406 - _ FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ‘DECISIONS Initial Decision. 81 ETC:

Among’ such advertisements were the following: @) Gigantic July 4th Offer. 10 Day Offer N Ow thru Sat. J uly 2 2. ‘ “TIRE z AMB ORDER Low, low ‘prices: on our popular5 1 3 1 1 7 1358 837 73 33 96.712540 high5 1 3 1 1 8 1447 837 116 64 96.081787 quality5 1 3 1 1 9 1579 836 98 65 93.303802 nylon5 1 3 1 1 10 1686 843 69 49 95.271706 cords 1 3 1 1 11 1767 835 64 60 96.558975 tires 1 3 1 1 12 1851 844 20 16 83.254189 *5 1 3 1 1 13 1886 844 61 16 0.000000 *°%5 1 3 1 1 14 1956 840 49 30 92.195839 thes 1 3 1 1 15 2021 845 83 25 87.647118 Fire-4 1 3 1 2 0 778 870 509 39 -1 5 1 3 1 2 1 778 877 92 25 96.196449 stones 1 3 1 2 2 872 875 108 34 63.979988 Safety:5 1 3 1 2 3 983 870 185 39 76.375961 Champion.:5 1 3 1 2 4 1251 886 36 17 31.471466 a3 1 3 2 0 0 778 896 1323 110 -1 4 1 3 2 1 0 793 896 1308 74 -1 5 1 3 2 1 1 793 931 4 3 0.000000 .5 1 3 2 1 2 813 919 161 29 69.126816 Jamboree:5 1 3 2 1 3 985 921 113 30 69.126816 Prices5 1 3 2 1 4 1092 915 11 40 26.231133 |5 1 3 2 1 5 1105 897 87 61 96.319885 Starts 1 3 2 1 6 1199 901 50 47 66.526192 at.5 1 3 2 1 7 1256 897 63 57 75.616554 $16.5 1 3 2 1 8 1325 925 80 32 92.245003 Plus:5 1 3 2 1 9 1413 923 44 32 90.040672 $1,5 1 3 2 1 10 1455 899 41 52 66.777191 615 1 3 2 1 11 1506 921 64 40 73.790703 ‘per.5 1 3 2 1 12 1572 896 71 57 79.314392 ‘tires 1 3 2 1 13 1654 915 73 47 94.879387 Fed.5 1 3 2 1 14 1737 899 115 64 53.568413 Excise5 1 3 2 1 15 1867 923 64 40 95.869911 tax,5 1 3 2 1 16 1946 923 87 47 36.452637 sales5 1 3 2 1 17 2048 905 53 60 96.203537 tax4 1 3 2 2 0 778 946 1129 67 -1 5 1 3 2 2 1 778 946 60 40 95.758827 ands 1 3 2 2 2 847 949 128 55 96.264473 trade-in5 1 3 2 2 3 984 959 62 41 96.850632 tire.5 1 3 2 2 4 1047 960 80 47 95.184288 with:5 1 3 2 2 5 1133 962 180 47 34.522842 recappable.5 1 3 2 2 6 1315 963 75 46 87.149849 cords 1 3 2 2 7 1394 964 84 49 40.412807 body.5 1 3 2 2 8 1480 967 115 36 75.264801 6.00-135 1 3 2 2 9 1602 964 123 46 92.742783 tubeless5 1 3 2 2 10 1743 979 2 5 14.054520 }5 1 3 2 2 11 1743 965 164 46 46.127773 blackwall.3 1 3 3 0 0 776 997 1325 116 -1 4 1 3 3 1 0 801 997 1300 98 -1 5 1 3 3 1 1 801 1036 11 3 55.226227 _5 1 3 3 1 2 829 997 295 64 0.000000 [Advertisements 1 3 3 1 3 1134 1019 154 36 96.438225 includes5 1 3 3 1 4 1303 1009 128 54 79.834641 listing.5 1 3 3 1 5 1440 1022 41 32 96.934029 of5 1 3 3 1 6 1495 1022 111 66 58.539082 other.5 1 3 3 1 7 1610 1022 88 33 95.287682 sizes5 1 3 3 1 8 1711 1022 40 33 95.287682 of5 1 3 3 1 9 1736 1092 2 2 73.592125 t5 1 3 3 1 10 1771 1023 119 63 96.712105 Safety5 1 3 3 1 11 1907 1004 194 91 96.784973 Champion4 1 3 3 2 0 776 1066 580 47 -1 5 1 3 3 2 1 776 1066 85 34 96.957390 tires5 1 3 3 2 2 869 1067 90 34 96.785645 with5 1 3 3 2 3 962 1068 101 42 43.718987 prices 1 3 3 2 4 1062 1068 107 34 43.718987 listed5 1 3 3 2 5 1177 1070 63 34 82.451447 for5 1 3 3 2 6 1246 1071 110 42 82.451447 each.]3 1 3 4 0 0 774 1121 1325 177 -1 4 1 3 4 1 0 782 1121 1317 56 -1 5 1 3 4 1 1 782 1121 94 46 45.285458 By5 1 3 4 1 2 879 1121 215 56 49.353806 ‘Spectacular:5 1 3 4 1 3 1093 1137 82 32 79.647255 ‘July:5 1 3 4 1 4 1193 1135 88 30 38.464981 Tire!’5 1 3 4 1 5 1285 1127 128 39 95.817276 OFFERS 1 3 4 1 6 1435 1142 44 24 95.242058 12°5 1 3 4 1 7 1490 1140 72 32 94.526367 Big:5 1 3 4 1 8 1570 1142 94 30 43.717033 Days’5 1 3 4 1 9 1666 1121 82 47 61.776508 ‘Now5 1 3 4 1 10 1769 1142 72 27 91.856659 thru5 1 3 4 1 11 1863 1144 70 30 90.978363 July5 1 3 4 1 12 1955 1145 42 25 91.027275 30.5 1 3 4 1 13 2016 1145 83 29 95.668747 Low;4 1 3 4 2 0 775 1152 1324 63 -1 5 1 3 4 2 1 775 1152 59 52 93.848244 lows 1 3 4 2 2 838 1178 109 30 71.673706 ‘prices:5 1 3 4 2 3 956 1179 41 26 71.673706 on5 1 3 4 2 4 1009 1187 58 19 84.164383 our!5 1 3 4 2 5 1078 1181 86 34 80.584900 most:5 1 3 4 2 6 1170 1176 125 38 96.752731 popular5 1 3 4 2 7 1310 1183 77 26 54.585857 tire!5 1 3 4 2 8 1394 1183 162 31 85.204773 Firestone5 1 3 4 2 9 1572 1180 113 34 96.463539 Deluxe5 1 3 4 2 10 1702 1185 185 30 81.277496 Champions,5 1 3 4 2 11 1905 1187 107 25 84.275932 Prices:5 1 3 4 2 12 2020 1187 79 25 84.275932 start4 1 3 4 3 0 774 1213 1325 71 -1 5 1 3 4 3 1 774 1220 35 25 93.237350 at5 1 3 4 3 2 825 1220 143 37 83.259964 $18-plus.5 1 3 4 3 3 972 1221 87 36 92.373528 $1.385 1 3 4 3 4 1078 1213 79 44 79.137909 Fed..5 1 3 4 3 5 1156 1225 107 33 88.792412 -excise5 1 3 4 3 6 1282 1226 59 32 96.541550 tax,5 1 3 4 3 7 1360 1226 79 34 96.714561 sales5 1 3 4 3 8 1450 1226 74 34 57.327354 tax5 1 3 4 3 9 1526 1227 221 34 57.327354 -and.trade-in.5 1 3 4 3 10 1756 1227 70 36 78.167000 tire:5 1 3 4 3 11 1834 1228 73 32 79.521889 with5 1 3 4 3 12 1927 1229 172 55 77.872818 recappable4 1 3 4 4 0 774 1251 977 57 -1 5 1 3 4 4 1 774 1261 71 43 88.936302 cords 1 3 4 4 2 852 1263 120 40 47.909168 body,.6.5 1 3 4 4 3 973 1255 92 49 88.970718 00-135 1 3 4 4 4 1068 1251 133 51 93.997955 tubeless5 1 3 4 4 5 1208 1267 178 41 52.194881 blackwall...5 1 3 4 4 6 1496 1293 33 5 9.021141 _5 1 3 4 4 7 1747 1285 4 3 71.875626 :3 1 3 5 0 0 778 1293 1320 121 -1 4 1 3 5 1 0 822 1293 1276 94 -1 5 1 3 5 1 1 822 1294 300 84 93.899551 [Advertisements 1 3 5 1 2 1129 1305 154 48 94.588158 includes5 1 3 5 1 3 1295 1304 127 60 96.845688 listings 1 3 5 1 4 1429 1301 40 54 96.970566 of5 1 3 5 1 5 1474 1296 98 83 94.783524 others 1 3 5 1 6 1589 1293 24 94 41.320549 s5 1 3 5 1 7 1592 1322 86 33 96.251137 sizes5 1 3 5 1 8 1690 1298 40 58 95.965065 of5 1 3 5 1 9 1740 1294 135 71 96.986229 Deluxe5 1 3 5 1 10 1887 1310 211 56 96.543930 Champions4 1 3 5 2 0 778 1367 774 47 -1 5 1 3 5 2 1 778 1367 82 48 96.992210 with5 1 3 5 2 2 868 1368 94 42 96.455666 prices 1 3 5 2 3 971 1369 105 41 92.639297 listed5 1 3 5 2 4 1084 1370 176 48 38.461411 foreach.]5 1 3 5 2 5 1329 1410 4 2 38.461411 -5 1 3 5 2 6 1445 1395 155 19 0.275650 bhi,2 1 4 0 0 0 815 1426 1143 419 -1 3 1 4 1 0 0 815 1426 1143 419 -1 4 1 4 1 1 0 815 1426 1143 69 -1 5 1 4 1 1 1 815 1437 10 30 93.152817 (5 1 4 1 1 2 829 1437 30 47 77.296265 e)5 1 4 1 1 3 883 1438 73 25 96.669510 Now5 1 4 1 1 4 965 1439 70 48 78.818436 thru5 1 4 1 1 5 1047 1426 80 68 75.720032 Sept.5 1 4 1 1 6 1135 1440 17 48 89.805420 85 1 4 1 1 7 1159 1439 102 55 68.863953 SAVES 1 4 1 1 8 1270 1440 85 55 96.589638 BIG!5 1 4 1 1 9 1349 1441 97 30 71.449989 !BUYS 1 4 1 1 10 1454 1442 30 42 89.691895 Ni5 1 4 1 1 11 1483 1441 61 38 78.749969 Ow5 1 4 1 1 12 1552 1442 52 44 95.377632 AT5 1 4 1 1 13 1614 1442 196 40 95.922028 DISCOUNTS 1 4 1 1 14 1819 1443 139 25 96.845551 PRICES4 1 4 1 2 0 1319 1491 242 63 -1 5 1 4 1 2 1 1319 1491 242 63 65.251724 FIRESTONE,4 1 4 1 3 0 1288 1562 274 68 -1 5 1 4 1 3 1 1288 1566 5 13 0.000000 pre-Labor Day TIRE SALE Prices slashed on FIRESTONE Safety Champions Sale Prices Start at $16 Plus $1.61 Fed. excise tax and trade-in tire off your car, [Advertisement includes listing of other sizes of Safety Champion tires with price listed for each. ] (d) Your choice of 2 fine quality FIRESTONE Nylon Cord Tires Any Size One Low Price! Firestone Nylonaire Any size listed $12 Firestone Safety Champion Any size listed $20.

[Advertisement contains listing of sizes offered under each price category. | (e) THH SAFE TIRE FIRESTONE. When you buy a Firestone Tire—no matter how much or how little you pay—you get a safe tire. Firestone tires are custom-built one by one. By skilled craftsmen. And they’re personally inspected for an extra margin of safety. If these tires don’t pass all of the exacting Firestone inspections, they don’t get out.

* * * * * * * FIRESTONE TIRE AND RUBBER. CO... 407. :

398 , \ Initial Decision Firestone—The Safe Tire, At 60,000 Firestone.Safe Tire Centers. At no more cost than ordinary tires. .

(f).* * * Like: the original Super Sports Wide Oval Tire. It. came straight out.of Firestone racing research. Se, ;

It’s built lower, wider. Nearly two inches wider than regular tires. To corner better, run cooler, stop 25% quicker. - ’ a (All of the foregoing facts were admitted in the answer.) ; _ 5, It-is.found that by and through the foregoing statements and representations as set forth in the preceding finding, respondent represented, directly or by implication, that: . oo a: _ (1) As to the advertisements identified as (a)—(c): the tires advertised were being offered at. prices which were significantly reduced from the. actual bona fide prices at which those tires had been sold to the public.at retail by respondent in the recent regular course of its business prior to the publication of the advertisement and purchasers. would thereby realize bona fide savings in, the amount of such reduction. (2) As to the advertisement identified as (d): the tires listed in. each price grouping were being offered at a price which was significantly. reduced from the.actual bona fide price at which each of the tires listed, including the smallest size, had been sold to the public at. retail by respondent in the recent regular course of its business prior to the publication of the advertisement and purchasers of each size tire would realize bona fide savings in the amount of such reduction. (3) As to the advertisement identified as (e) : a purchaser of a tire bearing the brand name “Firestone” is assured of receiving a tire which will be free from any defects in materials or workmanship or any other manufacturing defects.

(4) Further as to the advertisement identified as (e) : a consumer purchasing tires bearing the brand name “Firestone” will receive tires. which will be safe under all conditions of use. (5) As to the advertisement identified as (f) : respondent had established that any car equipped with Firestone Super Sports Wide Oval tires could be stopped 25 percent quicker under typical road and. weather conditions for the usable life of the original tread of such tires. when compared with the performance of the same vehicle under the same conditions when equipped with any manufacturer’s tires of a. particular construction.

These findings of the meaning of the advertisements are the constructions that are alleged in the complaint except that the words. “through adequate scientific tests” are deleted from subpart 5 of Paragraph 5 of the complaint are the constructions the hearing examiner. places on them.

4QS8 FEDERAL. TRADE .COMMISSION ‘DECISIONS Initial Decision - ' 81 FTG, The Pricing Issue %®. Copies of these advertisements were received into evidence in the form of five newspaper advertising mats. T:wo.different advertis- ‘ing mats were introduced for the “Any Size One Low Price!” advertisement, Finding 4(d), supra (CX 9). These five advertising mats are stipulated by and between counsel -to be the price advertisements | rélied upon and selected from a large number of respondent’s newspaper advertising mats provided to: Commission personnel during the precomplaint investigation (CX '9; Tr.'90-92). The fact of the actual - publication of each promotion was expressly not waived by respondent (CX 9, 15). The parties stipulated that either copies of published advertisements or affidavits from newspaper employees would ‘be suflicient evidence and proof of the publication | (or nonpublication) : of these or other advertisements (CX 9). So 7, The evidence indicates ‘that three regions—Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Baltimore, Maryland; and Washington, D.C.—were typical of respondent’s other regions throughout the nation and that ithe . practices found to be present in those regions should be regarded .as the practices then engaged in by respondent in the other regions throughout the nation (Tr..99; CX 10-C). During the precomplaint investigation, Commission personnel reviewed and copied certain sales slips from three wholly-owned outlets of respondent located at the following addresses:

(a) 18th & K Streets, N.W., Washington, D.C. (b) 2001 North Howard Street, Baltimore, Maryland. (c) 82nd & Market Streets, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Counsel supporting the complaint selected certain of these sales slips for use as evidence in this proceeding (CX 15; Tr. 102, 104). To avoid burdening the record, the parties stipulated that certain machine tabulations, or printouts, containing information appearing on the sales slips selected by counsel supporting the complaint would be received into evidence. The information extracted from the sales slips was arranged in several different “schedules” to facilitate comparison of the information with the four price advertisements relied upon by counsel supporting the complaint. The parties further stipulated that these schedules accurately set forth the lines (or brands), sizes, sidewall colors, and prices of some tires sold on certain indicated dates by the three respondent stores (CX 15). 8. A. The parties stipulated that the factual issues regarding the four price advertisements are, (1) Did “July 4th Jamboree,” “July Tire Offer,” and “Any Size One Low Price!” advertisements represent that the advertised prices _ FIRESTONE TIRE AND RUBBER CO. 409 598 Initial Decision offered reductions or savings from the prices. at which the tires advertised were regularly sold ? (2) Are the selected sales slips fairly representative of respondent’s sales in a) Baltimore, Maryland, b). , Washington, D. C., and c) Philadelphia, Pennsylvania ? (8) Are the selected sales slips fairly representative of respondent’ sales of the lines and sizes of tires advertised ? (4) Are the selected sales slips representative of ‘respondent’s sales. with respect, to the prices at which tires were sold during a) the time periods covered by the four price. advertisements and ‘b)' the time: periods when no advertised prices for the same tires were in effect? (5) Do the selected sales slips show that (when: various commercial and other negotiated discounts are considered) the’ prices pub-lished in the four price advertisements were significantly reduced from the prices actually charged i in time periods when no advertised prices for the same tires were in éffect ? ' '(6): Do-the selected ‘sales: slips ‘show that. the prices’ published in the four price advertisements: were honored by respondent? (CX 1). B. As is:more specifically found herein, the answer to each of these: stipulated. issues is in:the affirmative except that only three of the four price advertisements are in issue. There is‘no evidence that the advertisement alleged in paragraph 4(d) of the complaint was published in the areas involved during the time periods in issue. .. - Advertising Periods in Issue 5 1 4 1 1 2 675 1898 26 29 78.636856 9.5 1 4 1 1 3 727 1896 145 33 95.887230 Counsels 1 4 1 1 4 889 1897 209 42 95.887230 supporting5 1 4 1 1 5 1113 1898 59 32 96.445129 thes 1 4 1 1 6 1187 1898 189 41 96.842865 complaints 1 4 1 1 7 1393 1899 202 31 96.305519 introduced5 1 4 1 1 8 1612 1899 75 32 95.655083 into5 1 4 1 1 9 1702 1898 159 33 93.291534 evidences 1 4 1 1 10 1877 1909 78 31 71.533997 cop-5 1 4 1 1 11 1991 1910 23 9 15.143494 —-2 1 5 0 0 0 629 1947 1329 805 -1 3 1 5 1 0 0 631 1947 1327 301 -1 4 1 5 1 1 0 635 1947 1323 58 -1 5 1 5 1 1 1 635 1945 46 33 85.509857 ies5 1 5 1 1 2 701 1947 39 31 96.484322 of5 1 5 1 1 3 760 1947 65 32 96.264000 five5 1 5 1 1 4 846 1959 200 30 96.270287 newspapers 1 5 1 1 5 1064 1949 216 56 95.462227 advertising5 1 5 1 1 6 1301 1953 88 28 95.897308 mats5 1 5 1 1 7 1411 1950 36 31 95.718681 in5 1 5 1 1 8 1469 1950 202 32 96.105530 connections 1 5 1 1 9 1690 1950 84 32 96.662270 with5 1 5 1 1 10 1795 1950 59 42 96.982895 thes 1 5 1 1 11 1876 1950 82 31 96.897247 four4 1 5 1 2 0 633 1985 1324 62 -1 5 1 5 1 2 1 633 1992 98 46 96.966644 prices 1 5 1 2 2 745 1998 281 37 96.858742 advertisements5 1 5 1 2 3 1045 2000 231 42 96.871078 challenged5 1 5 1 2 4 1263 2012 41 20 96.824654 in5 1 5 1 2 5 1322 2001 59 32 96.445625 thes 1 5 1 2 6 1401 1992 197 50 96.661880 complaint.5 1 5 1 2 7 1621 2001 103 32 96.595184 Prior5 1 5 1 2 8 1744 2004 35 29 96.595184 to5 1 5 1 2 9 1799 1985 158 62 96.542397 hearing,4 1 5 1 3 0 632 2025 1325 69 -1 5 1 5 1 3 1 632 2049 207 40 90.763077 respondents 1 5 1 3 2 856 2049 151 33 91.186859 notified5 1 5 1 3 3 1019 2052 135 41 93.313416 counsels 1 5 1 3 4 1175 2052 208 42 95.793983 supporting5 1 5 1 3 5 1403 2053 58 31 96.141464 thes 1 5 1 3 6 1482 2052 189 42 96.835648 complaints 1 5 1 3 7 1691 2052 78 31 96.645149 that5 1 5 1 3 8 1790 2052 30 32 96.645149 it5 1 5 1 3 9 1837 2025 120 59 93.965797 would4 1 5 1 4 0 632 2097 1323 53 -1 5 1 5 1 4 1 632 2103 60 28 96.855110 not5 1 5 1 4 2 709 2100 164 40 96.824318 stipulate5 1 5 1 4 3 889 2101 76 32 96.854057 that5 1 5 1 4 4 984 2102 81 34 96.169212 each5 1 5 1 4 5 1083 2102 40 32 96.377251 of5 1 5 1 4 6 1140 2102 94 32 96.552422 these5 1 5 1 4 7 1252 2106 88 28 96.668983 mats5 1 5 1 4 8 1359 2114 68 21 96.995216 was5 1 5 1 4 9 1446 2103 151 42 96.995216 actually5 1 5 1 4 10 1616 2103 182 48 97.009308 published5 1 5 1 4 11 1817 2100 45 41 96.969032 in5 1 5 1 4 12 1873 2097 82 53 96.415703 each4 1 5 1 5 0 631 2145 1322 73 -1 5 1 5 1 5 1 631 2150 40 32 97.008774 of5 1 5 1 5 2 685 2151 57 31 96.873947 thes 1 5 1 5 3 757 2151 95 32 95.968185 three5 1 5 1 5 4 866 2151 95 33 96.973549 cities5 1 5 1 5 5 978 2152 92 33 96.618034 from5 1 5 1 5 6 1084 2153 112 32 96.685104 which5 1 5 1 5 7 1212 2154 86 32 96.978973 sales5 1 5 1 5 8 1313 2154 84 43 96.724281 slips5 1 5 1 5 9 1414 2166 86 31 96.807846 were5 1 5 1 5 10 1516 2149 154 38 96.811661 selected.5 1 5 1 5 11 1687 2154 112 32 96.794876 Proofs 1 5 1 5 12 1814 2154 39 32 96.650299 of5 1 5 1 5 13 1869 2145 84 73 93.093575 pub-4 1 5 1 6 0 631 2200 1017 48 -1 5 1 5 1 6 1 631 2200 140 33 96.792282 lications 1 5 1 6 2 781 2213 69 21 96.650505 was5 1 5 1 6 3 860 2203 174 42 96.718498 expressly5 1 5 1 6 4 1045 2205 157 31 96.591446 reserved5 1 5 1 6 5 1213 2204 57 32 96.602005 for5 1 5 1 6 6 1279 2205 145 44 96.713776 hearings 1 5 1 6 7 1440 2195 85 51 10.517540 (CX5 1 5 1 6 8 1536 2208 29 38 10.517540 9,5 1 5 1 6 9 1577 2205 71 43 96.274620 15).3 1 5 2 0 0 629 2251 1328 249 -1 4 1 5 2 1 0 675 2251 1282 45 -1 5 1 5 2 1 1 675 2253 47 30 96.810776 10.5 1 5 2 1 2 747 2251 146 34 96.876404 Counsels 1 5 2 1 3 905 2253 209 42 96.784836 supporting5 1 5 2 1 4 1126 2254 58 32 96.620369 thes 1 5 2 1 5 1198 2255 187 41 96.620369 complaints 1 5 2 1 6 1399 2256 202 44 96.378220 introduced5 1 5 2 1 7 1615 2266 44 21 96.378220 no5 1 5 2 1 8 1673 2251 159 48 96.523972 evidences 1 5 2 1 9 1845 2255 38 32 97.009995 of5 1 5 2 1 10 1897 2256 60 31 97.005127 thea 1 5 2 2 0 631 2296 1324 54 -1 5 1 5 2 2 1 631 2302 211 41 96.517693 publications 1 5 2 2 2 861 2304 38 31 96.842590 of5 1 5 2 2 3 918 2315 67 30 96.594147 any5 1 5 2 2 4 1001 2304 42 32 96.594147 of5 1 5 2 2 5 1060 2305 59 32 97.015877 thes 1 5 2 2 6 1137 2305 66 32 96.793716 five5 1 5 2 2 7 1221 2316 200 31 96.486557 newspapers 1 5 2 2 8 1438 2300 214 48 96.645027 advertising5 1 5 2 2 9 1671 2296 88 54 96.232552 mats5 1 5 2 2 10 1775 2303 48 35 94.787331 on5 1 5 2 2 11 1842 2306 113 32 94.787331 which4 1 5 2 3 0 630 2347 1325 52 -1 5 1 5 2 3 1 630 2353 42 32 96.989586 he5 1 5 2 3 2 694 2348 115 38 96.665443 relied.5 1 5 2 3 3 834 2355 221 40 95.969482 Respondents 1 5 2 3 4 1077 2347 189 50 96.864067 stipulated5 1 5 2 3 5 1288 2357 78 32 96.543900 that5 1 5 2 3 6 1387 2348 97 41 96.565247 three5 1 5 2 3 7 1507 2358 40 31 96.870125 of5 1 5 2 3 8 1568 2358 59 31 96.921227 thes 1 5 2 3 9 1650 2357 66 32 96.832268 five5 1 5 2 3 10 1738 2347 217 52 96.333458 advertising4 1 5 2 4 0 630 2405 1322 42 -1 5 1 5 2 4 1 630 2407 87 29 96.920876 mats5 1 5 2 4 2 730 2405 71 32 95.679604 had5 1 5 2 4 3 816 2405 83 32 95.679604 been5 1 5 2 4 4 915 2406 206 41 96.925629 published5 1 5 2 4 5 1114 2418 36 25 96.958847 in5 1 5 2 4 6 1163 2407 60 33 96.990608 thes 1 5 2 4 7 1239 2407 95 33 96.731796 cities5 1 5 2 4 8 1351 2408 174 32 96.390923 indicated5 1 5 2 4 9 1541 2409 108 32 96.886124 below5 1 5 2 4 10 1665 2408 69 43 96.692917 ands 1 5 2 4 11 1751 2419 88 21 93.291824 were5 1 5 2 4 12 1855 2408 97 47 92.686691 effec-4 1 5 2 5 0 629 2444 1245 68 -1 5 1 5 2 5 1 629 2450 71 36 96.993172 tives 1 5 2 5 2 718 2455 57 32 97.001190 for5 1 5 2 5 3 791 2456 59 32 97.000900 thes 1 5 2 5 4 866 2455 83 33 96.976730 times 1 5 2 5 5 967 2457 139 40 96.420822 periods5 1 5 2 5 6 1124 2458 117 33 96.749977 shown5 1 5 2 5 7 1267 2459 73 41 96.531425 (Tr.5 1 5 2 5 8 1361 2461 161 40 96.048973 1215-16;5 1 5 2 5 9 1545 2460 66 33 96.725403 CX5 1 5 2 5 10 1631 2462 36 38 96.429726 9;5 1 5 2 5 11 1688 2444 57 68 95.596771 Tr.5 1 5 2 5 12 1766 2459 108 41 93.041412 890)5 1 5 2 5 13 1855 2455 22 51 10.591743 :3 1 5 3 0 0 709 2506 910 246 -1 4 1 5 3 1 0 716 2506 407 42 -1 5 1 5 3 1 1 716 2506 106 42 85.818901 “July5 1 5 3 1 2 832 2508 60 31 95.072639 4th5 1 5 3 1 3 928 2508 157 33 87.555328 Jamboree5 1 5 3 1 4 1095 2509 28 32 75.159714 :”4 1 5 3 2 0 709 2557 894 48 -1 5 1 5 3 2 1 709 2557 231 42 93.179031 Washington5 1 5 3 2 2 951 2571 6 19 92.782974 :5 1 5 3 2 3 994 2558 67 33 96.994209 June5 1 5 3 2 4 1070 2562 51 38 95.795685 22,5 1 5 3 2 5 1133 2562 81 30 95.795685 19665 1 5 3 2 6 1223 2560 151 45 96.184113 through5 1 5 3 2 7 1386 2561 85 41 96.805748 July5 1 5 3 2 8 1481 2563 30 38 95.818398 2,5 1 5 3 2 9 1523 2563 80 30 95.818398 19664 1 5 3 3 0 712 2606 907 49 -1 5 1 5 3 3 1 712 2608 244 42 89.401192 Philadelphia5 1 5 3 3 2 967 2621 7 20 89.401192 :5 1 5 3 3 3 985 2611 92 44 95.903236 June5 1 5 3 3 4 1086 2613 50 37 95.903236 22,5 1 5 3 3 5 1149 2613 80 30 96.732979 19665 1 5 3 3 6 1240 2611 150 42 96.432297 through5 1 5 3 3 7 1402 2613 84 40 96.236496 July5 1 5 3 3 8 1496 2606 30 46 96.236496 2,5 1 5 3 3 9 1538 2615 81 40 96.240135 19664 1 5 3 4 0 712 2656 853 48 -1 5 1 5 3 4 1 712 2659 189 33 76.717751 Baltimore5 1 5 3 4 2 911 2671 6 21 76.717751 :5 1 5 3 4 3 929 2662 91 32 82.962997 June5 1 5 3 4 4 1030 2663 51 39 96.477287 22,5 1 5 3 4 5 1094 2664 80 30 96.843178 19665 1 5 3 4 6 1185 2662 151 42 96.645226 through5 1 5 3 4 7 1346 2664 86 40 96.913452 July5 1 5 3 4 8 1443 2665 29 39 95.588455 2,5 1 5 3 4 9 1484 2656 81 39 95.588455 19664 1 5 3 5 0 712 2708 343 44 -1 5 1 5 3 5 1 712 2710 105 42 96.172455 “July5 1 5 3 5 2 836 2710 71 33 84.410522 Fires 1 5 3 5 3 924 2704 85 53 90.188179 Offers 1 5 3 5 4 1027 2713 28 31 82.571701 :”2 1 6 0 0 0 729 2767 319 32 -1 3 1 6 1 0 0 729 2767 319 32 -1 4 1 6 1 1 0 729 2767 319 32 -1 5 1 6 1 1 1 729 2767 282 32 45.200439 494-S41—73-—_275 1 6 1 1 2 1046 2782 2 2 29.528381 ~ 410 FEDERAL TRADE. COMMISSION ‘DECISIONS Initial Decision 81 BTC:

Washington: July 17, 1966 through July 30, 1966 Philadelphia: July 18, 1966 through J uly 30, 1966 *Pre-Labor Day Sale :” 7 Baltimore: September-1, 1966 through September 3, 1966. These periods hereinafter are referred to as the advertising periods in issue; the prices advertised during these periods are referred to as the advertised prices in issue..

11. From the face of the advertising mats (CX 9), it-is apparent that the advertisements were prepared for possible publication during the following time periods: ;

“July 4th Jamboree:” June 22, 1966 through July 2, 1966 _ “July Tire Offer :” J ruly 17, 1966 through July 30,1966 “Pre-Labor Day. Sale: :” not later than September 3 3, 1966. The “Pre-Labor: Day Sale”. advertisement appeared in. Baltimore newspapers only on September 1, 1966 (RX 18; Tr. 890-91). : 12. Pursuant to: the: stipulation of the parties (CX.9), it is established by the uncontested ‘affidavits of employees of the major: metro-: politan newspapers in Washington, D.C., Baltimore, and: Philadelphia that the “July Tire Offer” advertisement was not published‘in Baltimore during: the period July 17, 1966, through July: 30, 1966; the “Pre-Labor Day Sale” advertisement was not published in Washington, D.C., during the period August 17, 1966, through September 3, 1966, and was not published in Philadelphia during the period August 17, 1966, through September 38, 1966; the “Any Size One Low Price!” advertising mats were not published i in Washington during November and December 1966 nor in Baltimore during November and. December 1966 nor in Philadelphia during November and December 1966 (RX 17;CX9).

13. The “Any Size One Low Price!” advertisement, Finding 4(d), supra, was therefore not published in any of the three cities from which _ sales slips were selected during the time period at issue, and the representation made in it is not in issue.

14. The prices advertised in the “July 4th Jamboree,” “July Tire Offer,” and “Pre-Labor Day Sale” advertisements were reduced at least 10 percent from the retail exchange prices published by respondent in the printed price lists then in effect for the tires advertised (Tr. 1236; CX 13). In 1966, as well as today, “exchange” prices were the prices to be charged by respondent stores to retail customers who traded in a recappable cord body with each new tire purchased (Tr. 973-74; CX 13). Exchange prices are lower than list prices for the same tires and are the lowest published retail prices to be charged FIRESTONE TIRE AND RUBBER CO. 411 ” , ‘ 398. Initial Decision individual consumers, provided a recappable cord body is traded in (Tr. 972-73; CX 13, 15).

15. In 1966, by advertising prices which were reduced by at least: 10 percent from its printed retail prices, respondent offered substantial price reductions or savings to retail customers. 16. Apart from respondent’s printed price lists (CX 18), counsel supporting the complaint’s only evidence of respondent’s retail prices before, during, and after the advertising periods identified in Finding 10 are the sales slips listed in the following schedules: (1) Schedule F, pp. 1-9 (CX 15, pp. 50-58) is a listing of information from selected sales slips reflecting all purchases of Deluxe Champion tires which are relied upon by complaint counsel (CX 15, p. 3). (2) Schedule G (CX 15, pp. 71-77) isa listing of information from | selected sales slips reflecting all purchases of Safety Champion tires which are relied upon by complaint counsel during a period approximately 60 days prior to through 90 days following the dates on which the “July 4th Jamboree” advertisement was published (CX 15, p. 3). (8) Schedule I (CX.15, pp. 86-87) is a listing of information from _- selected sales slips reflecting all purchases of Safety Champion tires from respondent’s Baltimore store, which are relied upon by counsel supporting the complaint during a period approximately 90 days prior to through 90 days following the date on which the “Pre-Labor Day Sale” was published (CX 15, p. 8).

17. Mr. Thomas Donahoe, a certified public accountant and a partner in Price Waterhouse & Co. (Tr. 1223), testified regarding an analysis made by him of the sales slips selected by counsel supporting the complaint. He correctly determined that there were a total of 357 different sales slips listed in the three schedules of sales slips identified in the preceding finding, excluding the Baltimore store’s sales slips reflecting purchases of Deluxe Champion tires (Tr. 1232-33; RX 46, pp: 2,59).

18. Pursuant to stipulation (CX 9), it is established that price advertisements were published on behalf of the three stores and were effective during the time periods and for the lines of tires indicated: Washington, D.C.

Safety Champion, May 18-May 28, 1966 (RX 36, 37) ; August 28- September 3, 1966 (RX 39, 40) Deluxe Champion, May 26-May 28, 1966 (RX 37); June 12- June 21, 1966 (white sidewall only) (RX 4, 38) Philadelphia, Penn.

Safety Champion, May 18-May 31, 1966 (RX 42, 48) ; August 22— September 3, 1966 (RX 44) 412 | FEDERAL. TRADE. COMMISSION DECISIONS Initial. Decision 81 F-L.C.

Deluwe Champion, June 12—June 21,1966 (RX 3). Baltimore, Md.

Safety Champion, May 9-May 28, 1966 (RX 41) ro, The effective dates for the June 12 through 21,1966, Deluxe’ Champion promotion in Philadelphia. and Washington and the May. Safety Champion. promotion. in: Baltimore are: confirmed also by other evi- dence (RX 26).

19. All the sizes and sidewall: colors of Deluxe Champion and Sasoty Champion tires appearing on the’ sales slips relied upon:by counsel supporting the complaint appear also in the advertisements for those lines identified in the preceding finding. The prices advertised :in those advertisements were approximately 10: percent lower than respond: ent’s published exchange prices (CX 1p. 15; RX 3,4, 36-44; 7Tn 973— v4).

20. Through affidavits of four employees: from the three stores; i it is established'that: eighteen ‘customers identified:on the 357.selected:sales Slips had been charged less than exchange: prices ‘because they. ‘were’ employed by a commercial, wholesale, or national. account: or. they were employed by vespondent or they enjoyed a special relationship to a respondent employee (RX 19, 20, 21, 22). Two of these affidavits also established that five other customers had received lower prices because.they ordered tires during a period when advertised prices were in effect (RX 20, 22). Three affidavits established. that.five. other customers could not be located and were therefore unavailable (RX 19, 20, 22).

Two of the four employees who had prepared affidavits testified and confirmed that their affidavits were accurate (Tr. 893-94, 909). Counsel supporting the complaint waived cross-examination of the other. two employees who submitted affidavits.

The information established by these four affidavits is summarized inthe following table:

Number and type of Number of employees’ Number Number of customers relatives or friends ordering tire customers during sale unavailable Washington ween ee ee een eee 1 Commercial___....:------------------------- . 1 2 1 National__..........-.-------------.----- Later ene ene teen eee e Baltiinote. -- 2 Firestone__......-..------------------ en eee eee eee 1 Philadelphia. 1 Firestone. -. 2 Relatives -- 2 7 Commerci 1 Friendv..___._-------------------------------------- 1 Wholesale_-___-..-..--.----------- ---- =e n eetee eee ee eeeeeeeeeeeenee 2 National. -.- Total. ...---------- 15 3 5 5 “FIRESTONE TIRE: AND RUBBER. CO. °413 398 Initial Decision 21. Mr. Donahoe submitted as his report worksheets and bar graphs summarizing his worksheets that categorized the sales slips which he reviewed in the following manner (RX 46; Tr. 1228-29) : (1) All sales slips referred to in the four store employees’ affidavits (RX 19-22) were classified according to whether they were referred to as employee discounts, customer unavailable for contact, and miscellaneous.

(2) Next, the other sales slips were classified according to whether the prices charged before or after advertising periods in issue were at least 10 percent-higher than the advertised prices in issue. (3) Next, the remaining sales slips were classified according to . whether the prices charged were advertised prices during advertising periods in issue or during advertising periods not in issue (RX 49, 3, 4, 36,44).

(4): “The remaining sales slips were classified as the “remainder.” Mr. Donahoe’s classification of the sales slips, on his worksheets j is © accurate.

22. Of the 357 sales slips, 208 reflected prices charged retail customers before or after the advertising periods in issue, which prices were at least 10 percent higher than the advertised prices. in issue; 104 reflected purchases at advertised prices during both the advertising periods in issue and other advertising periods not in issue; 28 were ' referred to in the store employees’ affidavits, one showed on its face that a retail customer received a special price as a reward for his honesty in returning the tires put on his car by mistake; and the 16 that remained reflect either a) prices which were lower than exchange prices and were charged to customers before or after the advertising periods in issue or b) prices which were higher than the advertised prices in issue and were charged to customers during: advertising periods in issue (RX 46, p. 2). 23. Of the 357 selected sales slips, it is established that there were: 154 from the Washington store, 160 from the Philadelphia store, and. 43 from the Baltimore store (RX 46, p.3).

Of the 154 Washington sales slips, 99 reflected retail purchases that were at prices at least 10 percent higher than the advertised prices in issue and that occurred either before or after the advertising periods in issue; 48 were at advertised prices during the periods in which advertised prices were in effect; five were referred to in the affidavits; and two remained that reflected a) purchases at prices lower than exchange prices during nonadvertising periods or b)~ purchases at prices greater than advertised prices during advertising periods in issue (RX 46, p.3).

- 414 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION DECISIONS Initial. Decision 81 E.T.C.

Of the 160 Philadelphia sales slips, 84-reflected purchases that were at prices at least. 10 percent higher than the advertised prices.in issue and that occurred either before or after advertising periods in issue; 44 were at advertised prices during periods in which advertised prices were in effect; 21 were covered by affidavits; and the 11 that remained reflected a). purchases at prices lower than the exchange prices-during nonadvertising periods or b) purchases at prices greater than advertised prices during advertising periods in issue (RX 46, p. 38). ' Of the 43 Baltimore sales slips, 25 reflected purchases that were at prices at least. 10. percent higher than the advertised prices in issue and that occurred either, before or after advertising periods i in issue; 12 were at advertised prices or lower during periods in which advertised. prices: were in effect; three were referred to in an. affidavit; and three remained that reflected a) purchases at prices lower than exchange prices during nonadvertising periods or b) purchases at prices greater than advertised prices during advertising periods in issue (RX 46,p.3).

24. As to the three stores, the 357 sales slips, covering purchases of tires for a 6-month period, generally showed that the advertised prices in issue were reduced by at least 10 percent from the prices actually charged. in time periods when no advertised prices for the same tires were in effect.

Although these stores were generous in allowing discounts to friends and others, they had a going retail price that was substantially higher than the sale price.

Through the process of elimination, it is concluded from the stipulation of the i issues that the charge of violation of law by respondent for charging substantially higher prices to some purchasers than to others has been abandoned (CX 1).

The foregoing findings, regarding details of advertising and sales, are based on the proposals submitted by respondent. It is concluded that the alleged pricing misrepresentations have not been established by the evidence and the charges in the complaint relative to pricing should be and are dismissed.

The Safety Issue 25. The other issue in this case may be characterized as the safety issue. In several advertisements respondent referred to “The safe tire,” used the brand name Safety Champion, and made representations that its tires were free from defects and that they would “Stop 25% quicker.” Examples of these representations are set out in Finding 4.

. FIRESTONE TIRE AND RUBBER CO. 415 — 398 . Initial Decision 26. The respondent offered in evidence a survey which it had had prepared by an expert, consultant that was designed to discover whether “The safe tire” advertising stated or implied to readers that a purchaser of “Firestone” brand tires was assured 6f receiving tires free from any defects and was assured of receiving tires that would be safe under all conditions of use, including overloading and improper © inflation. The survey was designed and conducted in a professional and competent manner, and the results.are shown in RX.53..In this survey, a number of prospective tire buyers were shown an advertisement, which is attached to RX. 53, headed “The Safe Tire. Firestone” ‘that makes various claims regarding the safety of this tire. The majority of those interviewed (52.7 percent) thought the advertisement said that respondent did all it could to use the best procedures to inale its tires safe and as free as possible from defects.: : Of those interviewed, 30.2 percent understood’ the advertisement to say that-“almost all” of ‘respondent's tires were safe under normal conditions or that “each model” of respondent’s tires at least met minimum Government safety standards.

Of those interviewed, 15.3 percent thought the advertisement; said that respondent’s tires were absdlutely safe or absolutely free from defects.

Respondent contends that these and other results of the survey establish that no significant segment of the average tire-buying public would actually purchase its tires by construing “The safe tire” text as alleged in the complaint. It is doubted that only 15 percent of the purchasing public would construe the statement as did those responding in the survey because it is clear that the statement says and implies that the tires are safe and free from defects, but even if the percentage is correct, this 15 percent of the purchasing public is entitled to be told the truth regarding the safety of the tires offered to them. “Firestone” brand tires were not free from all defects in materials, workmanship, or other manufacturing defects during the years 1967 and 1968. There is no contention that respondent does not exercise due care in the manufacture of its tires, but in the present state of the art, tires cannot be manufactured without some of them being defective. Also, they cannot be thoroughly tested without destroying them ~ (CX 3; Tr. 265-71, 292, 346).

There is an additional advertisement which states: The Test of a Tire Before we sell a single tire each of our designs is thoroughly tested on indoor testing machines that put the tire through tortuous tests of strength and safety far exceeding any driving conditions you will ever encounter. 416 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ‘DECISIONS Initial Decision 81 F.T.C.

In addition, these tire designs are proven at our own outdoor test tract at Ft. ‘Stoekton, ‘Texas, over roads simulating. the most difficult t types: of terrain to be found in any part. of the country. : 7 And. finally, ‘before any design is put in production we test under actual dayto-day driving conditions on. fleets of passenger cars, taxis and commercial fleets which pile up high mileage in short periods of time. All of these tests result in providing you ‘with an extra margin of safety in any Firestone tire you buy. : :

So, tire safety standards aren’t new to US. All Firestone tires have met or exceeded the new testing requirements for years, The Safe Tire.

When you buy a Firestone tire—no matter how much or how little you pay— you get a safe tire. That's the only way we know how to make a tire. (CX 14-D) There is evidence ‘that: respondent's tires meet or exceed current Gov- _ ernment safety standards but the safe use of a'tire is.aiffected by several. conditions which should be revealed in. connection with safety claims in order to make such claims correct: The safety of tires is affected by factors such as inflation pressure, overloading, and wear. Although it may be difficult to mention such matters in advertising which. promotes safety claims; nevertheless, an advertisement proclaiming safety is not complete unless this is done. Respondent’s advertising did not make references to such factors and respondent did not reveal that Safety Champion is the brand name of a second-line tire, which is two steps below a premium grade tire (CX 2).

Many other tire manufacturers have used the word “safety” in brand: names of second- and third-line tires. Other tires, including other of respondent’s tires, are as safe as respondent's Safety Champion brand tires (CX 6).

27. The brand name Safety Champion was discontinued in 1969 (Tr. 1001, 1055); and the phrase “Stop 25% quicker” has not been used by respondent since September 20, 1968 (CX 4). Advertising space was purchased for “The safe tire” ad in the following publications which were circulated throughout the United States on the dates shown:

Publication Date of Publication Newsweek December 25, 1967 Saturday Evening Post February 10, 1968 Look March 15, 1968 Life March 22, 1968 Saturday Evening Post March 23, 1968 Playboy May 1968 Saturday Evening Post - May 18, 1968 (CX8, 4) FIRESTONE TIRE AND RUBBER CO. .. 4N7.

398 — Initial: Decision The complaint alleges that the tire brand Safety Champion: constituted a representation that'such tires had unique construction or performance features which rendered’ them safer than other tires} that the tires so designated did not have any unique construction or per formance features that render ed them safer. than other tires; and that there were other tires available that were as.safe as those designated Safety Champion. Counsel supporting the complaint contends that the literal meaning of the term “Safety Champion” is that it. is supreme over all competitors, unexcelled, and first rate: Counsel ‘supporting the complaint cites a dictionary for this definition and argues that it is reasonable to infer that this term represents. that the. tires were supreme overall’ ‘competitors as to. safety. While it is believed that this may be literally true, the common acceptance of the term would more likely be the same as it would be for the term “The safe tire.” , One study which respondent had had prepared indicates that the term did ‘not ‘dédesignate. a safer tire’ than other tires with similar brand names, such as Safety All -Weather, Safety-Traction Tread, Grip Safe, Super Safety 800, and Safety Master (RX 52). It is thus found that the term “Safety Champion” means that the tire is safe, but it does not indicate that the tire is ‘safer than all other tires. Respondent contends that the Commission has approved the use of the brand name Safety Champion because in respondent’s efforts to comply with the Tire Advertising Guides issued by the Commission May 20, 1958, respondent on September 18, 1958, submitted proposed tire names to ‘the Commission for approval as conforming to the Tire Advertising Guides. The names submitted were: “Premium Quality” (premium level) “500” (premium level) “Supreme Champion” (original equipment) “Safety Champion” (second level) “Champion” (third level).

(CX 2) On September 24, 1958, respondent made the following representation to the Commission :

We also wish to conform in writing our statements of this morning with respect to the safety characteristics of the tire proposed to be called Safety Champion; that under normal driving conditions, including driving at maximum legal limits on super highways, this tire has exclusive Firestone construction features and will give excellent performance from a safety standpoint. and on October 1, 1958, a Commission staff opinion was communicated to respondent, stating :

418 © FEDERAL TRADE’ COMMISSION . DECISIONS Initial Decision 81 FLO.

With respect to the ‘proposed designation ‘Safety Champion’ ‘as. descriptive of the second level ‘tire, we would interpose. no objection, provided, ofcourse, the tire so designated is safe under the. conditions outlined in your. letter. (OX. 2) ‘Although the FTC staff did not question. the use of the brand name Safety Champion, except as it. indicated, the above statement did not indicate approval by the Commission of the safe characteristics of the Safety Champion brand tire. . :

Respondent also contends that because a Commission opinion i in a formal case referred to respondent’s revising its tire designations.in a “manner acceptable to the Bureau of Consultation” that this constituted. approval by the Commission. It is found herein, however, that in that proceeding, the Commission did not directly consider the possible deception of the use of the word “safety. ” 28. Another part of this issue is the quicker stopping claim that was made. It is undisputed. that the tires advertised as stopping 25 percent quicker would, in fact, stop 25 percent quicker than would. ordinary tires on glare ice. There i is no evidence that tests were made on. any other surface, but.there is evidence that these test results do not show that these tires would stop a vehicle 25 percent quicker on other surfaces (Tr. 273-337). These tires, that were so advertised, were. wide oval tires. with wider tread than ordinary tires. The charge in the complaint is not that the tires will not stop 25 percent quicker but that Respondent had not established through adequate scientific tests that any car equipped with Firestone Super Sports Wide Oval tires could be stopped 25% quicker under typical road and weather conditions for the usable life of the original tread of such tires when compared with the performance of the same vehicle under the same conditions when equipped with any manufacturer's tires of a particular construction.

Since this issue is related to the safe use of tires and since we are dealing here with the safety of human life, it would seem that the claim of stopping quicker should be described completely and accurately and should be supported factually.

29. It is found that respondent’s tires are not safe under all conditions of use; that they are not free from defects; and that respondent has not established that any of its tires would stop a vehicle 25 percent quicker under typical road and weather conditions than would other tires.

30. In the course and conduct of its business, and at all times mentioned herein, respondent has been in substantial competition, in commerce, with corporations, firms, and individuals engaged in the sale of automobile tires and other products of the same general kind and nature as those sold by respondent (answer). FIRESTONE TIRE AND RUBBER CO. _ 419 398 Initial Decision The Intervenors’ Evidence ' The two organizations that were granted limited intervention are - sometimes referred to as intervenors and the following findings of fact ure based on the evidence which they offered and upon their proposed findings of fact. ° ;

This evidence-was received to aid the Commission in determining the kind of order which should issue in this case in the event an order, except one of dismissal, should be issued. , -, 31. Students Opposing Unfair Practices, Inc. (SOUP), the first _ intervenor in this case, is a nonprofit organization incorporated in the District of Columbia whose members are law students. SOUP’s interest in this proceeding was to offer evidence and urge the issuance of an ~ order, that it considered to be in the interest of the public. (Amended » Motion:of SOUP, Inc., to Intervene, etc.) SOUP presented a number of exhibits and the oral testimony of three witnesses who were Darrell B. Lucas, Ph: D., a licensed psychologist, professor of marketing at New York University, and co-author of standard texts on advertising; Douglas F. Greer, Ph. D., assistant professor of Economics at the University of Maryland; and Harvey Louis Paul Resnik, M.D., clinical professor of psychiatry at the George Washington University School of Medicine and chief of the Center for Suicide Prevention of the National Institute of Mental Health.

32. Dr. Lucas testified that, since nearly all advertising makes its. contact at an inappropriate time and place for purchase, all useful advertising impressions must have some effect on memory until thereis an occasion to buy; and in general, most advertising impressions: fade rapidly in the minds of readers, but the memory of some advertisements remains in the minds of some readers for more than a year after the campaign has ended. Vivid individual advertisements and especially whole advertising campaigns may leave a significant lasting impression (Tr. 412, 419-20, 516-17).

33. He stated further that as a result of advertising, consumers may remember the claimed virtues of the advertised product long after conscious memory of the advertisements are forgotten (Tr. 531, 851-52, 867). Advertising copywriters endeavor to write advertisements which will cause people to buy the product and not necessarily to remember the specific advertisement. As a consequence, unconscious memory impels purchase, even though the purchaser does not consciously remember the specific advertisement (Tr. 417). 34. National advertisers engaged in national advertising campaigns: expect their advertising to continue to pay off in sales for one or two years after the end of the campaign (Tr. 414) ; and the memory of the 420 FEDERAL TRADE, COMMISSION. DECISIONS Initial. Decision 81 F.T. Cc.

persons exposed to the advertising, both conscious and unconscious, is the means by which the impact of the campaign can continue beyond the time of actual exposure: (Tr. 416-47). There has:been only limited use of pay-out planning because there has been a lack of adequate date showing the effects of past: advertising (Tr. 485-86). 35. There is no survey or test in the record attempting to determine the extent:to which any of the specific advertisements or claims at issue herein were or are remembered. by persons who read them: 36. Some economists consider advertising outlays.a form of capital investment that depreciates through time and there is widespread _ agreement among economists ‘that advertising, has: cumulative, or lagged, effects on sales: (SOUP Ex:.4; Tr: 576, 1527-28, 419). 87. Econometricians have: developed: economic. theories concerning, the lagged effects of advertising, as well as:techniques for estimating and measuring those effects (SOUP Ex. 4, p.1; Tr. 1528). - 38.. Employing these techniques, Dr. Greer estimated that the lagged effect of all of respondent’s tire and tube advertising in 1968. ‘was approximately: 35 percent in-1969; 12 percent in. 1970; 4 percent.in - 1971; and 1.5 percent in 1972. If 1967 advertising: is’ included, this. last figure i is increased to 2 percent.: (SOUP Ex. 4; Tr. 597-99, 608-09). ‘He stated that these estimates provide rough approximations of the goodwill created by respondent’s advertising in 1967 and 1968 that continue to generate sales in the years indicated (Tr. 597-609; SOUP Ex. 4, p. 15). In his opinion, it was not possible, with the information and techniques available to him, to measure quantitatively the lagged effect of a specific advertising campaign for a specific line of tires (Tr. 607).

39. Dr. Resnik, chief of the Center for Suicide Prevention of the National Institute of Mental Health (Tr. 828), testified that on the basis of his clinical experience as a psychiatrist, specializing in suicidology and high-risk-taking patients, an undetermined but relatively small proportion of the car-driving population may be classified as high-risk takers and that this class of drivers tends to use equipment up to and beyond the limits of what it believes to be its safety (Tr. 838-89). In Dr. Resnik’s opinion, those high-risk takers using respondent’s tires who believed the advertising that the tires are safe and stop 25 percent quicker could be expected to drive less carefully. In addition, Dr. Resnik testified that an undetermined number of persons who might be classified as average-risk takers who read and believed that respondent’s wide oval tires were safe and would stop 25 percent quicker could also be expected to drive less carefully (Tr. 836-37 ). 40. The Association of National Advertisers, Inc. (ANA), the second intervenor in this case, is a trade association comprised of approxi- FIRESTONE TIRE AND RUBBER CO. 421 398 Initial Decision mately 500 concerns. Membership is confined to manufacturers and. others who advertise on a regional or national basis. It is a leading professional body that is concerned with the study and improvement of the practice of-advertising (Motion. of ANA to intervene). ANA offered the following evidence:

41, Alfred Kuehn, Ph. D., an econometrician, is presently engaged in research consultation, primarily i in the marketing area but also with a significant amount of work in computer systems and research operations as head of Management Science Associates, Inc., and Market Science Associates (Tr. 1527). He is also involved in the construction and utilization of econometric models (Tr. 1483). Dr. Kuehn testified that he has studied, analyzed, and estimated lagged effects of advertising outlays, and his total research experience establishes that the direct delayed advertising effect is very small compared to the repeat purchase or habit effect, being on the order of zero to 50:percent a month in most cases, and probably seldom over 75 percent a month, which*translates into an annual delayed effect ranging from zero to approximately 3 percent, but generally under 1 percent (Tr. 1520-21, 1717, 1720-21). His investigations and studies of lagged advertising effects show them to be so small compared to the effect of other variables that he frequently no longer even includes lagged advertising as a variable factor in his market analysis and predictive models and studies (Tr. 1523).

42. Dr. Kuehn does not agree with the validity of the premises employed by Dr. Greer in measuring the lagged effects of respondents advertising. He testified that Dr. Greer measured “habit” or repeat purchase probabilities as distinguished from lagged or cumulative effects of advertising (Tr. 1506-07 ). In Dr. Kuehn’s opinion, there are other factors, in addition to and much more important than advertising, that would induce a purchaser, originally persuaded through advertising, to repeat his purchase of the advertised product in subsequent years (Tr. 1716). Dr. Greer, on the other hand, is of the opinion, at least in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that respondent’s tire advertising has played the major role in persuading its customers to repeat their purchases of respondent’s tires (Tr. 1183). 43. ANA produced evidence through three other witnesses to the effect that the great bulk of advertising claims is rapidly forgotten. Two of these witnesses, Messrs. Charles D. Jacobson and Ernest A. Rockey, testified essentially on the basis of their experience with the testing of retention of advertising by members of the public, and the third, Edward G. Gerbic, testified on’ the basis of his experience as an executive having responsibility for the advertising programs and 422 | _—«- FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION. DECISIONS Initial Decision 81 F. Tr. C. 2.

budgets of several leading advertisers and from his general knowledge and. experience as a man active in the affairs of the. advertising: industry, . .

44, Mr. Rockey had been employed 21 years by Gallup & Robinson, ‘Incorporated, first, as an interviewing supervisor, then in their coding operation. where. he supervised the coding criteria. Later he served in the analytical department, which studied the reasons for the performance of the data that evolved. At present. hei is in client contact, service, and sales work (Tr.. 1443-44), 45. Mr. Rockey presented evidence compiled from certain data of his employer, Gallup & Robinson, to the effect: first, that the claims made in magazine and television: advertisements do not continue to register with the vast majority of persons. presumably exposed. to them,. even after so short-a period: as one. day following that exposure ;.and: second, that there are wide-variations in the, degrees. to which such advertising claims do continue: to register with members of the public even: for: one day after exposure. to them,’ ‘such variations being manifest: among product categories, as well as among. different advertisers within, the same product category, and also among different advertisements of the same advertiser (Tr. 1454, 1457-58). .

46. Since 1949, Gallup & Robinson has been engaged i in the testing of advertising to evaluate how well magazine ads and television commercials are retained, after exposure, among the people who watched the television program or read the magazine in which such advertising appeared (Tr. 1444). (The procedure used by Gallup & Robinson in such testing is described at pages i-iii of ANA Exhibit 7 and at Tr. 1445-50, 1471-74.) 47. At.the request of ANA, Gallup & Robinson, through Mr: Rockey, prepared an analysis of data it had built up ver the years from such: . testing. Gallup & Robinson was asked to examine the data on ads and commercials to ascertain the extent of uniformity with which the main idea of commercials or magazine advertisements is retained by members of the public. To do that it chose five product categories for which it had information regarding both magazine and television advertising. These included items bearing different prices and representing both products and services. The five categories were tires, automobiles, - men’s after-shave lotion and cologne, television receivers, and insurance. The rationale behind this selection was: a) tires, knowing the basis for the hearing; b) automobiles, because Gallup & Robinson gets a great deal of research information in both magazines and television for that category; c) men’s after-shave lotion and cologne, because it is a low-priced item and also because Gallup & Robinson had informa- ‘FIRESTONE: TIRE AND RUBBER CO... = 423 308 |: Initial Decision tion.regarding such products in both magazines and television ;.d) tele~ vision: receivers (not stated) ; onde) insurance, because it. is.a:service,: and one for: which it had at least some information in. both: magazines. and television.. It made every effort to get a widespread number. of, products and services in-order-to obtain as representative a sample. of. product and service categories:as it could for purposes of the:investiga- : tion. It took all the ads and commercials it had tested in: those. cate-: gories, during the 2-year period of 1969 and 1970, with the exception: that for after-shave lotion and cologne it. went back an additional, year. in order to build up enough ads or commercials and with:the further. _ exception that for television commercials-of tires it went back to. the fall of 1967.to get results on 27 different commercials. The data. utilized included the number of readers or viewers questioned’ and: how well the featured idea in the ad or commercial registered with those people or was retained by them at the time when they were interviewed, which was essentially one day later (Tr. 1451-64; ANA Ex: 7)... 48. The results of the Gallup & Robinson andiysis, ofits: s-data, which is reported in ANA Exhibit 7, were that: .

(1).As-to the extent:to which the featured. idea in such advertisements was retained by readers or viewers one day after exposure.to it: : The highest registration for any single advertisement was 39:5, percent. for an automobile magazine advertisement. The lowest was zero percent for insurance advertisements for both magazine and television, and zero percent for television commercials for tires and automobiles. The highest of the product category averages for continued registration of the featured idea was 9.6 percent for after-shave/cologne television commercials; the lowest was 2.6 percent for insurance magazine advertisements. Advertising for tires averaged an 8.2 percent retention among magazine readers and a 5.5 percent retention among television program viewers the day following their exposure to the respective magazines or television programs. Stated differently, the rate of communication among total readers of magazine advertisements for tires was a 24-hour registration of the featured ideas in the advertisements upon 1,048 readers out of a total 12,786 and upon 300 television viewers out of 5,462. Another set of charts illustrates that 9 out of 54 magazine advertisements for tires continued to register their featured. ideas ‘with 12 percent or more of the magazine readers. 21 of the 54 so registered with 4.0 to 7.9 percent of the readers, 13 with zero to 3.9 percent; and 23-out of 27 television commercials for tires so registered with less than 12 percent of the program viewers, 13 of which so registered with zero to 3.9 percent of them.

(2) As to the lack of uniformity of retained registration of featured ideas of advertising among product categories, the highest average re- Initial. Decision 81 FC.

tention was 9.6 percent of television viewers of: after-shave/cologne advertising, the lowest 2.6 percent of magazine readers for insurance advertisements. Among different advertisers within the same product . category: ‘The range of registration of featured. idea, spread . (disregarding those brands for which only a single advertisement, was studied) from’an avearge. for tire advertisements of 2.9 to 19.1. percent and for tire television commercials from 1. 3 to 11.0 percent. Among tire advertisements featuring the same product claim: (7.¢., “polyglas/fi-. berglas”) the range was from 2.2:to 12.6 percent, with an average of 8.3.percent. To the same point, television commercials for tires featuring the same claim concept (“traction”) ranged from 1.5 to 9.8. percent,” with an average of:6.2 percent. Among advertisements of the same ad-. vertisers: Discrepancies among the advertisements for the same brand of tires as, in one case, a low of 9.5 percent and a high of 29.4 percent _ with an average of 19.1 percent; in another, a low of 2.6 percent with a. high of 26.8 percerit‘and an average of 9:1 percent; and in, still another, zero to 13.8 percent with’an average of 5:4-percent. . (3) As to the results reported for product. categories other than tires, they: are essentially the same as those for tires with respect to. substan- . tiating.a) theshort duration of registration of featured ideas in maga-: zine and. television: advertisements:and b) the lack of any uniform time pattern for the retention of the registration of such advertising claims within the short term of its duration. ;

49. Mr. Jacobson based his testimony upon many years of intensive experience with:field:'research operations into matters involving public memory and retention of advertising claims. After experience with other firms, he joined Daniel Starch & Staff, Incorporated, in 1969. Its operations take into account the factors of human memory and retention of advertising (Tr. 1876-78). The Starch company has been doing suchresearch for more than 40 years (Tr. 1377). _. 50. In addition to Mr. Jacobson’s own research experience, his busi- “ness and professional activities have required that he keep up with and be aware of studies, reports, records, and activities of other workers in the field that touch upon memory for advertising. Based upon his experience and activities, he expressed his opinion “that the most general situation, by far the most common situation, is that advertising is not retained over.any considerable period of time.” (Tr. 1384). 51. He also testified about the results of specific research conducted by the Starch company, a considerable part of the report of which he himself wrote and the rest of which he was familiar, including the underlying records and data upon which it was based. That study, conducted in Atlanta, Geor gia, in the spring of 1969, demonstrated that of FIRESTONE TIRE AND RUBBER CO. 425 398". Initial Decision the people interviewed within 2 or 214 hours of the airing of a commercial, and who had viewed that channel within the half hour in which the commercial appeared, only 32 percent on the average reported remem- _ bering. they. had seen that commercial. To the further question “What brand was: advertised ?”-only- half of:them (16-percent) were-able to identify the correct brand (8 percent. didn’t know ;8 percent named an incorrect brand) (Tr. 1379-1432).

52. Mr. Jacobson’s testimony also embraced the subjects of “unconscious memory” and “prolonged advertising payoff.” He testified to research in those areas, concluding: “The largest part of the evidence from those penetration studies was that the retention of specific things or retention of things which were traceable to specific pieces of advertising or specific campaigns by far the largest part of this is very small’; that the trace, the amount that can be traced to specific campaigns, ig very small. That what is in consumers’ minds from advertising, most often, disappears very, very rapidly.” (Tr. 1409-10B). ne 08..Mr, Gerbichadbeen-vice:president and director of marketing'and had been in charge of all advertising, merchandising, and product development for Johnson & Johnson. All told he had had some 30 years experience in advertising, marketing, and management with various . firms (Tr. 1760). Mr. Gerbic stated that in his opinion it would not be correct to say that as a general rule advertising claims persist in the | memory of the public for a substantial period of time after the advertiser has ceased making those representations:(Tr. 17 65). Mr. Gerbic agrees with Dr. Lucas that in order for advertising tobe profitable it must leave some impression on the recipient’s memory until he has an occasion to buy, but Mr. Gerbic said that in actual practice advertisers consider it “pretty hazardous to spend money to buy consumer advertising at the wrong time and at the wrong place and in the wrong way.” (Tr. 1769-70).

54. Mr. Gerbic also said that some advertising is the exception to the general rule, in that it does command a more persistent memory following its termination, but he pointed out the inability to assign any particular criteria or reasons for such exceptions, by saying: “Well, I think in the very nature of things it is possible for one to remember something that made a deep impression on him years ago and, for no good reason, a reason which I don’t think he begins to understand why he would remember.” Such instances, however, do not represent any substantial ratio of the total advertising claims that were made during the same period as they ran. (Tr. 1768).

494-841—73——-28 426 FEDERAL.,.TRADE. COMMISSION DECISIONS _ ' Initial Decision | 81 FTC.

The Remedy From the conclusions reached above, it is clear that'a ‘cease and desist order should be: entered prohibiting the unexplained or unlimited use of safety claims.

--Intervenor SOUP has urged an order, in the event a cease and desist order is issued at all, that: would require ‘notification. to buyers that the representations regarding the safety features of the tires had been found to be false and that'25 percent of the advertising of safety features during the followi ing year should’ disclose the nature of the findings in this case.

~The respondent and: the intervenor ANA oppose their issuance of: a. corrective or restitutional order: first, on the ground that the Commission . lacks‘the authority to issue such an order; and second, it argues that even if the Commission had such authority, the facts in this case do not warrant its issuance. “Although, the question of the Commission’ S. aus, thority: ‘to issue this type ‘of ordér has’ ‘een. thoroughly briefed i in this” case, the Commission has séttled the’ question by the issuance of two recent orders. The Commission ‘has provisionally entered an order in ITT Continental Baking Co., Inc., File No. 7 12-3447, under’ consent. order procedure that would require | ‘that for one year, one- fourth of all advertising of a bread would be required to declare that the product is not a reducing aid. Even more recently in Curtis Publishing Company, et, al:, Docket No: 8800 [78 F.T.C. 1472], the Comimission clearly held that it had authority to order restitutionary relief and to restore “the competitive status guo which was disrupted by the deceptive practice.” Thus, the remaining question is whether such an order is necessary or desirable i in this case.

Although this isa matter of judgment, it appéars that such an order. is not necessary or desirable in this case for the following reasons: (1) There has been a considerable lapse of time since the advertising occurred.

(2) There is no reason to believe that many of the tires advertised as safe have enough tread left on them for the owners to believe they are safe.

(8) The evidence shows that the residual effect of the advertising wil] be slight indeed by the end of this year even if the evidence offered by SOUP i is viewed in the most: favorable light. (4) Many of the respondent’s competitors have made safety claims through the use of brand names similar to “Safety Champion” and are under no cease and desist order of any kind. The prohibitions of the following order are, in substance, the same as those proposed in the attachment to the complaint that relate to the / FIRESTONE, TIRE AND RUBBER CO. 427 von 398. . . “Initial Decision safety of tires or other products except that there is no requirement that the tests referred to in Paragraph 5 of this order be scientific tests. It is believed that they could be road tests or other practical tests. competently observed and recorded.

CONCLUSIONS The use by respondent of the aforesaid false, misleading, and deceptive statements, representations, and practicés relating to. ‘the safety of its.tires has had and now has the capacity and tendency to mislead members of the purchasing public into the erroneous and mistaken belief.that said statements and representations were and are true.and into the. purchase of substantial quantities of respondent’s products by rea- _ son of said erroneous and-mistaken belief. The acts and practices of re- | spondent were and are all tothe prejudice and injury of the public and of respondent’s competitors;.and they constituted and now. constitute unfair methods:of competition in commerce and. unfair and deceptive actsand practices in commerce in violation.of Section 5-of the Federal Trade, Commission Act.

ORDER vi; t is ordered, That + respondent the Firestone Tire & Rubber Company, a corporation, and its officers, agents, representatives and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the advertising, offering for sale, sale, or distribution of automobile tires or any other product, in commerce, as “commerce” is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act, do forthwith cease and desist from:

1. Representing, directly or by implication, that every purchaser of tires bearing the brand name “Firestone,” or any other brand name, is assured of receiving tires free from defects in ma- ‘terials or workmanship or other manufacturing defects. 2. Misrepresenting, in any manner, the effectiveness of respond- ~ ent’s quality control or inspection procedures. 3. Using the words “Safety Champion,” “The safe tire,” or any other word or phrase of similar import or meaning to describe or designate respondent’s tires or otherwise. representing, directly or by implication, that respondents tires will be safe under all con- - ditions of use.

4, Making any represeritation, directly or by implication, regarding the safety of respondent’s tires without disclosing clearly and conspicuously and in close conjunction with such representation that the safety of any tire is affected by conditions of use, such as Dissenting Statement, SI ETC.

inflation pressure, vehicle weight, wear, and ‘other operating conditions.

5. Representing, directly or by implication, that any of respondent’s consumer’ products have any safety or performance characteristics or .are superior in quality or performance to other products unless each.‘such characteristic: is fully: and: Gompletely substantiated by competent tests, and the results are available’ for: inspection. .

Tt is further ordered, That the charges in the complaint relating: to the advertising of prices be; and they hereby are dismissed. It is further ordered, That respondent déliver a. copy of this order to: each of its operating departments, divisions, and subsidiaries engaged __in the advertising, offering for sale, sale, or distribution to.the public ‘at retail of automobile tires or other merchandise and to the manager of each present and every future retail outlet owned and operated by respondent.

Lt-is-further ordered, 'That: respondent: notify the Commission at: least thirty (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 i in the corporation that may affect the compliance obligations arising out of the order. Sepsrate STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER JONES DISSENTING TO THE: Orprr Enrerep IN Tuts Case In my view, this Commission has a duty to provide the public: with its analysis of the testimony and documentation offered by both intervenors on the corrective advertising issue, indicate its views as to those portions of the record which it is believed are applicable or inapplicable, adequate or inadequate, or insufficiently established or incomplete. Failure to do so can only becloud rather than illuminate. the Commission’s position with respect to the types of cases or fact’. situations which it believes would warrant the application of this remedy as well as the types of testimony and documentation which it: will require in order to form a conclusion. as to the need for the appli-. cation of this remedy in appropriate cases. The need for this type of careful Commission analysis is particu-larly important with respect to the issue of corrective advertising in view of the ten formal complaints approved by a majority of the Commission in which this remedy is currently being sought and the three consent orders which that same Commission majority accepted and in which the respondent agreed to engage in such corrective ad-- FIRESTONE TIRE AND RUBBER CO. 429 398 Dissenting Statement, ‘vertising. The public surely has a right at some point to know whether. ‘and in what circumstances the Commission believes corrective adver- ‘tising may be warranted. The Firestone case presents the Commission - ‘with its first opportunity to articulate.on the public record just what ‘its position with respect to this remedy is in the context of a formal record in the light of the particular facts presented. It does not. do. for -& quasi-judicial body like the Commission, in my judgment, to avoid ‘this responsibility on some rationale that we should gain more expevrience before committing ourselves. Presumably that degree of expe- ‘rience existed at the time we asserted our reason to believe that such rr) remedy. might be warranted and necessary. A major function of the Commission and its adjudicatory proceed- ‘ings is to provide guidance to the public as to the standards of conduct ‘which it is believed are required by law, the sanctions which may attach to violations of these standards of conduct andthe circum- ‘stances-under which such. sanctions will be imposed. Even negative ‘decisions, those in which orders are noé issued, can ‘provide useful ‘vehicles for providing this guidance as both Chairman Kirkpatrick -and Commissioner: Dennison have recognized -in their Pfizer and _ Sterling opinions. The effectiveness of the Commission arid the willing: ness of the public to adhere to its rulings and precedents is directly ‘proportionate in my judgment to the credibility which attaches to ‘its actions, to the consistency and fairness with which it acts and ‘to the clarity of the guidance which its actions provide to the public ‘concerned with the issues which it confronts. It may be of some value to the parties and to the public, therefore, for me to present my analysis of this record together with the conclu- ‘sions which I believe can appropriately be drawn from it in its present ‘shape as well as to indicate the areas in the record which I believe ‘could well have been supplemented in order to provide as complete a ‘picture asis possible under what I understand is the current state ‘of the art of the impact of these Firestone advertisements on consumers.

The evidence in the record offered by the intervenors SOUP and -ANA with respect to the issue as to the need for corrective advertising ‘in the instant case covers essentially three major points: (1) the extent ‘to which an advertised message as a whole or any portion of it can be ‘recalled by a consumer; (2) ‘the process by which information communicated by an advertisement is integrated by the listener in affecting subsequent purchase decisions; and (3) the impact of advertising on repeat purchases of the advertised product. Each of these points will be considered seriatim, 430° FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION DECISIONS.

Dissenting Statement . gt.

A. The Recall of Advertised [Messages ‘There was a generel agresment: ‘among: the witnesses offered | by both intervenors that the length of: time: during which specific advertising messages or themes can be recalled by consumers is in the area of ' days, weeks or months, but that certain types of advertising messages have: a potentiality for longer recall periods.t : Dr. Darrell B. Lucas, a psychologist and professor of marketing at New York University, called as a witness by SOUP, after agreeing generally with these estimates of short recall periods also testified’ as to various other research studies suggesting the need to qualify‘any _ general conclusions as to absolute short’ recall periods for all types: of advertising messages. In this connection, Dr. Lucas ‘pointed to research findings indicating that after the initial precipitous drop in: recall, subsequent forgetting was ‘a much slower process. (Tr: 466—. 478) 2 He also noted that the typical short recall of advertisements: was affected by the repeated exposure of the consumer to the ad and. also by the type of advertising copy, some of which by making a strong initial impression can extend a consumer’s recall time frame. (Tr, 418 y 517, 520-521, 544.) ' None of the witnesses, however, were able. to apply the existing empirical data respecting recall of ads to the particular advertisements challenged here so as to make any definitive conclusion as to whether they were of a type likely to create lasting impressions in the 1Mr. Jacobson and Mr. Rockey, ANA witnesses employed by organizations involved in the measurement of consumer recall, testified that a large portion of consumers cannot recall having seen an advertisement or its central theme within a few days or, weeks following exposure to the advertisement. This short recall was revealed in tests involving advertisements of tires as well as other product categories. (Tr. 1451-64, ANAX, 7.) 2This research, originated by Ebenhause on the forgetting of learned material, was summed up by Dr. Lucas in the following colloquy with SOUP’s counsel: . . Q. * * * the passage of time is important in forgetting? A. That is right, except that forgetting is a much slower process in the later stages. . Q. So, it falls off rapidly to a small number and that small number may hang on for: some time? A. To a base number, yes, which is usually less than half of the original. : Q. And you don’t know how long that would hang on with regard to any particular type of advertisement ? A. I don’t think I have ever run into evidence or been. approached with a question before, so I never formulated any kind of opinion. (Tr. 478.) I conclude, therefore, that the evidence in this record demonstrates that as a generat principle only a small proportion of consumers can consciously recall specific ads. However, the record contains additional testimony that whether a consumer is able to remember the specific ad may have little bearing on whether consumers exposed to an ad have nevertheless derived information from it which affects their later purchasing decisions irrespective of their conscious recall of the specific ad. Accordingly, this portion. of the evidence on specific recall cannot be determinative of the issue of the adequacy of the relief required in this case. Instead it must be considered in the context of other evidence in the record on the role which an advertising message plays in influcxcing consumers’ purchasing decisions relating to the advertised product. - FIRESTONE TIRE AND RUBBER CO. 431 398 , Dissenting Statement.

minds of consumers or to be forgotten after relatively short. periods of time. 8 B. Relationship of Advertisements to Subsequent E Pur chasing Decisions The witnesses offered by. both SOUP and ANA generally agreed that advertisements seek to penetrate the memory of the consumer so that-at some later time they will trigger or increase the likelihood of a purchase by that consumer of the advertised: products.* Advertising thus is designed to have an impact after the initial exposure and after the campaign has ended. (Tr. 414.) As Dr. Lucas stated, and as corroborated by AN A’s witness, Mr. Gerbic:

[Slince all regular advertising reaches the prospective consumer at a‘time and:place ‘not appropriate for. making’ ai ‘purchase or,response, it must leayé. ‘some impression. on his‘memory until there is an occasion to buy. (Tr. 412, 1769: y ; The manner in which the advertising message leaves an impression on the consumer’s mind and ultimately inffuences the consumer purchase is a complex process. ‘Dr. Lucas described this process in terms of the role of unconscious memory in impelling or relating the advertising message to. the consumer’s subsequent purchasing decision. (SOUP Ex. 11; Tr. 416-417, 528, 1409.) In other words, according to Dr. Lucas, the impact of an advertisement on consumer memory may not be reflected in terms of conscious recall of the particular advertised claim but in terms of the consumer’s general attitude towards the product. As Dr. Lucas put it, “I used a broad definition of memory which includes present disposition and attitudes * * *” (Tr. 528.) Dr. Lucas elaborated these processes in terms of consumer behavior ¢ as. follows:

I think it is important to point out that when we talk about the memory of an advertisement campaign in the conscious sense, that advertising creative 3The record thus contains no precise evidence as to whether there may be some consumers who were exposed to Firestone’s deceptive claims four years ago who may still have some recall of those claims. The’ state of the art is apparently not sufficiently advanced to permit firm opinions as to the likely impact of specific advertisements on their audiences.

4In addition to the initial advertising influencing later purchases, we must also consider the possible impact of those initial advertising impressions on the way in which the product is used. If a consumer purchasing Firestone tires was impressed by the specific safety claims at issue in this case, his assessment of their safety might influence his. Willingness to assume risks on the usage of those tires. While no evidence was offered to. show that Firestone tire purchasers exposed to the ads in question actually did use less precaution than would normally be warranted, SOUP presented a witness, Dr. Resnik, a psychiatrist and Chief of the Center for Suicide Prevention of the National Institute of Mental Health, who indicated that there may be some small proportion of individuals in the population who could be expected to drive less carefully as a result of the claims in. the ads.in question.

432 — FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION DECISIONS - Dissenting Statement —__ 81 F.L.C.

people are told to write advértisements which cause people to buy the product, not | to remember the specific advertisement, not necessarily to remember it. The element of unconscious memory, then would mean presumably ‘that an advertising impression may impel someone to buy or to be.more inclined to buy the advertised product without ‘his consciously remembering the advertisement. So unconscious memory, both of. specific: advertisements and of ideas, necessarily is involved in the later behavior of the consumer in the marketplace, presumably as evidenced by. -his being ‘more inclined ‘towards the advertising product. (Tr. 417, emphasis.added.) . : ;

‘ANA witnesses Dr. Kuebn and Mr. ‘J acobson eines that specific recall of an advertising message does not set’ out: the'sole metes and bounds of the procéss by which advertising impressions are made and ultimately rélated to. purchase decisions: They both “testified, for example, that advertising creates increased brand identification. ‘and favorable product impressions in the consumer’s mind. which. are. designed ' toinfluence his purchasing decisions favorably towards the advertised product. (Tr. 1726, 1412.) Both ‘Dr. Lucas and Mr. Jacobson, while. expressing their.expert opinions on the existence of this relationship - between-advertising and. favorable brand ‘impression agreed: upon ‘the difficulties of pinpointing: empirically traceable effects of past: advertising on subsequent purchasizig decisions. (Tr. 481+2,'491-3, 1410.). A fair summary of the testimony. of all witnesses on this. general advertisement-sales purchase relationship is that advertisers and researchers agree that advertisements are effective in triggering purchases of the advertised product by the consumer. They agree that any specific recall of the ad or of any of its claims is relatively short-lived being of a magnitude of weeks or months at best. They also agreed that the information taken from an advertisement by its audience is not necessarily stored (retained) in the memory of the consumer in its original form as a claim in an advertisement. Rather it is more likely to be integrated either in the form of a positive association with the product or as information about the product quite disembodied from the advertising claim: which was the original vehicle for its penetration of the consumer’s memory. Finally, it was agreed:that there is today very little research and virtually no empirical studies which can establish or demonstrate the actual way in which information gleaned from an advertisement which initially penetrated a consumer’s memory operates to trigger in that consumer an intent to purchase the advertised product. The record here and the state of the art generally give no insight into how long a piece of information in this more generalized form of favorable product association in a consumer’s memory storage bank can operate to trigger or influence consumer action. Finally, the witnesses all agreed that advertising is designed to influence purchases and that it has been shown empirically FIRESTONE TIRE AND RUBBER CO. 433 — 398 : Dissenting Statement that it is effective in doing: this even though the way in which it: performs this task—the communication process within the consumer’s conscious or unconscious memory—is not. yet fully understood. C. The Operation of the Repeat Purchase Phenomenon ; The witnesses called by both intervenors were in substantial Bgree- — - ment: that advertising influenced or had a carry- over effect on later sales not only as a function of the consumer’s absorption of the information communicated in the advertisement but also as a function of | what was referred. to as the repeat, purchase phenomenon. ‘According to ANA ‘witness, Dr. Kuehn, it is well known that a substantial number of purchasers of a particular brand will tend.to re: peat their purchase ‘of that brand. (Tr. 1521.) The role which advertising plays inthis repeat purchase pattern was. summarized by Dr. Kuehn in the following three points: - 1.. Advertising affects the percentage of repeat buyers with the qualification that there are many other probably more important ‘variables operating here. (Tr. 1726.) 2. Advertising contributes to enforcing and reinforeing habitual brand choice. (Tr. 1728-29, 1757-58.) 3. A substantial amount of advertising contributes to and is specifically designed to contribute to brand identification, and habitual brand choice will be higher, the greater the brand identification. (Tr. 1727-28, 1757-58.) Intervenor SOUP sought to. demonstrate and quantify this carryover effect of advertising in a systematic fashion through its witness Dr. Greer, an econometrician at the University of Maryland. Dr. Greer presented empirical estimates based on an econometric model which he had constructed designed to measure the sales impact in 19¥%1 due to consumer memory of Firestone’s 1968 advertising.® Dr. Greer’s estimates indicate that approximately two percent of the purchases of Firestone tires in 1972 can be directly attributed to the influence of Firestone’s advertising in 1968. (SOUP Ex. 4, Tr. 597-99.) Through Dr. Kuehn, ANA presented testimony that indicated that Dr. Greer’s empirical estimates were primarily measurements of the carryover due to the repeat purchase phenomena and did not, therefore, demonstrate a direct link between the initial advertising and repeat purchases.

5 While the econometric data presented by Dr. Greer indicates that there may be carryover impact on Firestone sales due to Firestone’s advertising, the data does not address the form in which the deceptive ads found herein have been integrated by the consumer in his memory and thus does not provide a basis on which to judge the likely effect of corrective advertisements in relieving any misconceptions due to those ads. A484 “FEDERAL TRADE. COMMISSION DECISIONS Dissenting Statement. - 81 F.T.C.

I believe that ANA’s contentions in. this respect are valid, although I do not believe they diminish the model’s utility in supporting the existence of a strong repeat purchase. phenomenon. Hence it is important to understand: just how this repeat purchase phenomenon operates in relationship to advertising.”

Both Dr. Lucas and Dr. Kuehn agreed that of many possible varlables influencing repeat, purchases, advertising’ s role may be of lesser significance except as it serves to contribute to- brand identification and reinforce brand choice. (Tr. 493, 1521, 1680, 1726-28: SOUP Ex: 14.) * Their: reasoning ‘underlying this Yondlusion i is important since it depends rather . heavily: on their belief that ‘the ‘consumer’s experience with a “product is likely to ‘outweigh or “supersede. ‘any initial i impressions about the product, which hey might have gained from specific advertising. claims made about the’ ‘product. ‘ In the case of tire purchases which are probably on a two to ‘four year, purchase cycle for most” consiimers “the » experience © factor is likely to be far less” significant than it Ww ld’ ‘be for more frequently ntations made. by Firestone challenged here are not the types” of claims which are. capable : -Of verification: by a consumer based on. é xperiénce. As a result, the . evidence that advertising affects both the initial purchasé and to some extent less well known the repeat purchase as well is relevant to the question of whether a mere prohibition of the particular false claims is adequate relief.

As I interpret the evidence offered with respect to the repeat purchase phenomenon, it tells us that advertising has some continuing role in influencing purchases and that new advertising campaigns are designed to reinforce the continued existence of the initial im- ‘pressions made by prior advertising.

_ Applying the record evidence on the relationship of advertising claims to sales in the instant case, it is our obligation to determine whether the deceptive representations as to the stopping qualities and safety of Firestone tires can be eliminated by preventing their repetition in the future, or whether their deceptive nature must be brought 6 As Dr. Kuehn pointed out:

Advertising can initially create some exposure of the consumer to a product, but the experience with the product—its satisfaction, the consistency of that experience with what the advertising promise or advertising claim may have been—is a large factor in whether -or not the consumer repeats.

And consequently we can’t assume that the advertising carryover here is at all precise. In fact, if the product is unacceptable or inconsistent with what the consumer expected, che is very likely not to purchase the product. And consequently this is one of the very big factors which distinguishes successful from “unsuccessful products, namely, the factors other than the advertising. (Tr. 1686-87.) FIRESTONE TIRE AND RUBBER CO. — 485.

398 Dissenting. Statement home in some form to consumers even though the particular. misrepresentations found to have been made here have not been made ‘since 1968, some four years ago. Resolution of this question must. turn in large part on the extent. to which there is a reasonable likelihood that these misrepresentations are still operating to influence consumers to purchase Firestone tires. Secondarily, it must turn on whether the deception can be effectively eradicated unless those consumers who may have integrated this deceptive information into their attitudes and perceptions of Firestone tires and developed a favorable brand association based on that information are afforded an. _ opportunity to reassess their attitudes towards the product on the basis of the disclosure of the deception previously communicated to them. Consumers clearly must be entitled to re-examine their purchasing habits and create for themselves either new attitudes and ‘intentions or persist in their old ones on the basis of accurate information about the product.

The evidence is clear that. it. is highly unlikely—to the point of - ‘virtual certainty—that. consumers perceiving the Firestone ads in question back in 1967 and 1968 have any conscious recall either of the content of these ads or even.of having perceived the ads. It is equally unlikely that Firestone tire purchasers in that period could tell now whether or not their tire purchases were influenced by the ads in general or by the particular claims here found to be deceptive. However, the evidence is clear that distinctions must be drawn between consumers’ specific and conscious recall of an advertising message and a favorable consumer attitude towards the product generated by the advertising or the maintenance of a favorable impression generated by the advertising through the operation of the brand loyalty phenomenon, satisfactory experience with the product and other variables. Further, it is clear that these latter effects upon consumers’ impressions ‘and: attitudes*may continue to influence to some extent their purchasing decisions.

Contrary to ANA’s and respondent’s beliefs, it is not necessary to quantify with precision the lingering effects of respondent’s advertisements in order to justify a corrective advertising order. It is enough that the Commission find “some fair probability” that consumers continue to be deceived. See Herzfeld v. FTC, 140 F. 2d 207 (2d Cir. 1944) ; see also Montgomery Ward & Co. v. FTC, 379 F. 2d 666, 670 (7th Cir. 1967) ; Charles of the lita Dist. Corp. v. FTC, 148. F. 2d 676 (2d Cir. 1944).

Intervenor ANA argues, however, that corrective advertising is unnecessary with respect to consumers who may have initially been 436. - FEDERAL. TRADE COMMISSION DECISIONS Dissenting Statement 81 FTC.

influenced by the message to: purchase Firestone tires because once: the initial purchase has been made, other factors beyond advertising,. notably the consumer’s actual experience with the product, take over: and influence the consumer’s' attitude towards a repeat purchase of the Firestone tire.

ANA’s arguments that actual experience with a product is a far: more reliable factor in influencing the consumer’s attitude towards a. product than any advertising message which might initially persuade: them to try the product and undoubtedly relevant and important in. many purchase situations. In the instant case, however, the nature of respondent’s claims here found to be deceptive | raises considerable: doubt as to the reliability of consumers’ experiences in shaping their: perceptions as to the particular safety representation found to bedeceptive in this case. We have found that Firestone falsely repre-. sented that its. tires stopped “25 percent quicker,” were assured of’ being defect free and were safe under conditions of use. None of these representations are of the type that are readily susceptible to consumerverification: Using a Firestone tire would in no way tell a consumer’ whether the tire in fact stops 25 percent quicker and: unfortunately”. will never tell a consumer whether it is‘safe—or more to the point— whether the same Firestone tires they purchase tomorrow or: the- . next day will be safe. Moreover, we have also to note in this connection the length of the typical purchase cycle for tires. Tires are pur-chased infrequently and hence it is not: unreasonable to assume that tire purchasers in 1968 (when these ads were being run) may only now be making their first or second purchase of. Firestone tires since their exposure to the misrepresentations in the Firestone advertisements.. Therefore, I do not find persuasive ANA’s argument that for those consumers who may have purchased Firestone tires on the basis of these deceptive representations, their own experience could in fact take. over and give-them a realistic basis on which to evaluate the deceptive: claims—in this case to find them untrue—thereby rendering unnecessary a corrective advertising order aimed at. enabling them to correct or modify attitudes towards the advertised tires formed on the basis of the deceptive claims. Moreover, ANA’s arguments in no case affect the prospective tire purchasers who may be considering’ their first Firestone purchase.

The hearing examiner’s argument that corrective advertising was: unnecessary here because of the fact that tires purchased in reliance on these deceptive advertisements after four years would be so threadbare that they would no longer be regarded by the purchaser as safe is similarly without merit. The issue is not as to the present condition of _ FIRESTONE TIRE AND RUBBER CO. - ' A487 2398 : Dissenting Statement .a Firestone tire owned by a consumer but rather the consumer’s atti- | -tude about Firestone tires gleaned from “The Safe Tire” and 25 per- -cent quicker stopping advertising claims. As this record demonstrates, advertising messages may continue to operate to influence a con- -sumer’s behavior long after they have been discontinued either be- -cause of a favorable brand association stored by the consumer as a. result of the message or because of a continued pattern of brand loyalty. Brand loyalty or repeat purchases obviously are applicable to the consumer’s general attitude towards the advertiser’s product rather ‘than to the specific item purchased as a result of the advertisement: Thus5 1 2 1 11 2 748 1142 135 34 90.075386 neither5 1 2 1 11 3 890 1155 24 21 90.075386 a5 1 2 1 11 4 922 1145 126 33 95.587975 threads 1 2 1 11 5 1057 1143 82 39 96.958710 bare5 1 2 1 11 6 1150 1145 67 32 96.846382 tires 1 2 1 11 7 1226 1145 110 43 96.488869 today5 1 2 1 11 8 1347 1157 64 21 95.783958 nor5 1 2 1 11 9 1421 1157 24 20 90.675735 a5 1 2 1 11 10 1453 1146 205 32 90.675735 consumer’s5 1 2 1 11 11 1670 1145 197 43 96.636276 experiences 1 2 1 11 12 1877 1146 88 33 96.209770 with4 1 2 1 12 0 634 1193 1330 45 -1 5 1 2 1 12 1 634 1193 187 33 0.000000 Firestone5 1 2 1 12 2 832 1193 84 33 96.424026 tires5 1 2 1 12 3 929 1195 219 42 96.915535 generally5 1 2 1 12 4 1111 1189 32 54 96.960358 is5 1 2 1 12 5 1159 1196 109 42 96.824608 likely5 1 2 1 12 6 1282 1196 37 32 96.918495 in5 1 2 1 12 7 1332 1198 64 30 96.697449 ours 1 2 1 12 8 1408 1196 182 42 96.631638 judgments 1 2 1 12 9 1601 1199 38 30 96.620918 to5 1 2 1 12 10 1651 1199 139 39 96.620918 operates 1 2 1 12 11 1804 1199 37 29 93.190529 to5 1 2 1 12 12 1855 1196 109 33 40.190979 eradi-4 1 2 1 13 0 633 1243 1337 45 -1 5 1 2 1 13 1 633 1247 83 28 55.589798 ‘cates 1 2 1 13 2 734 1255 68 31 96.682449 any5 1 2 1 13 3 820 1245 139 41 92.826653 general5 1 2 1 13 4 974 1243 179 35 96.155663 attitudes5 1 2 1 13 5 1161 1246 140 32 92.740372 formed5 1 2 1 13 6 1319 1246 46 42 92.740372 by5 1 2 1 13 7 1384 1257 21 21 95.640213 a5 1 2 1 13 8 1423 1247 182 31 95.640213 consumers 1 2 1 13 9 1620 1247 154 32 96.734978 towards5 1 2 1 13 10 1785 1246 185 43 96.411858 Firestone4 1 2 1 14 0 634 1294 1332 46 -1 5 1 2 1 14 1 634 1294 92 43 1.701088 tires5 1 2 1 14 2 747 1305 41 22 94.325928 as5 1 2 1 14 3 811 1296 28 30 92.618980 a5 1 2 1 14 4 856 1295 110 32 41.088303 result:5 1 2 1 14 5 982 1295 45 33 89.588715 of5 1 2 1 14 6 1050 1295 205 33 92.127075 Firestone’s5 1 2 1 14 7 1279 1295 191 43 94.958405 particulars 1 2 1 14 8 1493 1297 240 41 95.711212 performances 1 2 1 14 9 1756 1298 70 31 95.211800 ands 1 2 1 14 10 1852 1298 114 42 96.799011 safety4 1 2 1 15 0 633 1335 1127 63 -1 5 1 2 1 15 1 633 1335 128 63 25.812630 claims5 1 2 1 15 2 772 1345 112 32 96.912827 which5 1 2 1 15 3 893 1357 52 21 96.235916 we5 1 2 1 15 4 954 1346 89 32 96.235916 have5 1 2 1 15 5 1056 1347 110 32 96.346489 found5 1 2 1 15 6 1177 1350 39 29 96.696205 to5 1 2 1 15 7 1225 1347 42 32 96.928093 be5 1 2 1 15 8 1276 1346 208 43 64.087250 misleading5 1 2 1 15 9 1494 1347 73 38 64.087250 ands 1 2 1 15 10 1579 1347 181 42 96.463074 deceptive.3 1 2 2 0 0 639 1395 1326 247 -1 4 1 2 2 1 0 685 1395 1280 45 -1 5 1 2 2 1 1 685 1395 157 45 21.606064 It-is‘my.5 1 2 2 1 2 854 1396 87 35 96.865784 views 1 2 2 1 3 955 1397 43 34 96.865784 of5 1 2 2 1 4 1011 1397 76 33 90.695648 this5 1 2 2 1 5 1099 1398 129 40 95.327896 record,5 1 2 2 1 6 1242 1409 44 20 38.546623 as:5 1 2 2 1 7 1297 1398 19 31 58.289352 I5 1 2 2 1 8 1332 1398 239 45 89.899635 have.sought5 1 2 2 1 9 1577 1401 39 30 89.899635 to5 1 2 2 1 10 1627 1399 144 41 92.901665 analyzes 1 2 2 1 11 1784 1398 43 42 96.195717 it,5 1 2 2 1 12 1842 1399 89 37 69.681168 that5 1 2 2 1 13 1931 1399 34 37 69.681168 it4 1 2 2 2 0 634 1420 1331 76 -1 5 1 2 2 2 1 634 1446 172 32 45.929321 contains5 1 2 2 2 2 814 1458 31 20 37.436348 a5 1 2 2 2 3 851 1444 164 35 85.699471 sufficient5 1 2 2 2 4 1027 1445 95 45 95.317719 body5 1 2 2 2 5 1132 1443 49 37 96.988396 of5 1 2 2 2 6 1198 1440 159 40 77.007523 evidences 1 2 2 2 7 1373 1449 39 31 96.846390 to5 1 2 2 2 8 1426 1441 171 39 96.846390 warrants 1 2 2 2 9 1595 1449 71 33 96.822510 this5 1 2 2 2 10 1683 1420 228 76 7.953888 Cloraniasion5 1 2 2 2 11 1921 1453 44 29 81.370361 to4 1 2 2 3 0 633 1495 1331 52 -1 5 1 2 2 3 1 633 1488 170 43 85.744247 -concludes 1 2 2 3 2 811 1494 79 35 96.142174 that5 1 2 2 3 3 899 1497 116 33 96.142174 there5 1 2 2 3 4 1006 1509 30 21 64.198227 is5 1 2 2 3 5 1043 1509 23 21 64.198227 a5 1 2 2 3 6 1076 1499 198 32 94.813255 reasonable5 1 2 2 3 7 1283 1498 225 43 96.953262 probability5 1 2 2 3 8 1507 1500 78 30 87.140289 that5 1 2 2 3 9 1591 1500 99 31 87.140289 there5 1 2 2 3 10 1700 1510 59 21 96.986588 ares 1 2 2 3 11 1768 1495 196 52 96.760452 consumers4 1 2 2 4 0 631 1548 1331 45 -1 5 1 2 2 4 1 631 1548 115 42 86.494293 ‘today5 1 2 2 4 2 755 1548 79 32 96.960342 who5 1 2 2 4 3 847 1559 57 21 95.915718 ares 1 2 2 4 4 916 1543 73 53 91.369476 still5 1 2 2 4 5 1000 1548 137 43 95.355675 acting5 1 2 2 4 6 1127 1546 40 35 95.355675 in5 1 2 2 4 7 1177 1549 147 32 96.534851 reliance5 1 2 2 4 8 1334 1560 47 21 96.534851 on5 1 2 2 4 9 1390 1561 42 20 95.549683 or5 1 2 2 4 10 1442 1560 60 21 95.549683 ares 1 2 2 4 11 1515 1549 197 33 63.629120 influenced.5 1 2 2 4 12 1710 1550 52 48 75.749496 ‘by5 1 2 2 4 13 1771 1551 74 31 93.218445 the:5 1 2 2 4 14 1843 1540 119 53 92.140587 decep-4 1 2 2 5 0 632 1597 1331 45 -1 5 1 2 2 5 1 632 1597 79 32 90.736824 ‘tives 1 2 2 5 2 722 1597 138 33 96.354996 claims5 1 2 2 5 3 852 1610 36 20 96.833954 in5 1 2 2 5 4 899 1594 89 37 96.969444 issues 1 2 2 5 5 998 1602 36 29 96.382393 to5 1 2 2 5 6 1046 1599 134 42 96.382393 requires 1 2 2 5 7 1189 1600 165 32 96.708817 remedial5 1 2 2 5 8 1368 1598 114 37 96.360664 actions 1 2 2 5 9 1492 1600 136 42 92.275940 beyond5 1 2 2 5 10 1637 1603 127 30 24.385368 a'ceases 1 2 2 5 11 1777 1599 73 34 92.807449 ands 1 2 2 5 12 1857 1601 106 32 92.807449 desist3 1 2 3 0 0 625 1648 1339 94 -1 4 1 2 3 1 0 625 1648 1339 59 -1 5 1 2 3 1 1 625 1648 118 34 74.167923 “orders 1 2 3 1 2 762 1648 153 33 82.065063 directed5 1 2 3 1 3 938 1649 107 43 96.791519 solely5 1 2 3 1 4 1066 1654 39 28 96.854271 at5 1 2 3 1 5 1125 1650 59 32 96.903328 thes 1 2 3 1 6 1208 1646 118 36 96.545700 futures 1 2 3 1 7 1347 1648 262 35 96.580582 dissemination5 1 2 3 1 8 1627 1651 54 32 65.926094 of:5 1 2 3 1 9 1692 1652 58 55 97.013344 thes 1 2 3 1 10 1773 1648 191 45 96.714333 particular4 1 2 3 2 0 634 1699 367 43 -1 5 1 2 3 2 1 634 1699 221 43 94.409317 advertising5 1 2 3 2 2 873 1699 128 33 96.881905 claims.3 1 2 4 0 0 635 1749 1352 451 -1 4 1 2 4 1 0 683 1749 1281 45 -1 5 1 2 4 1 1 683 1750 37 31 92.247231 It5 1 2 4 1 2 737 1749 32 41 92.247231 is5 1 2 4 1 3 787 1751 75 37 96.849876 also5 1 2 4 1 4 881 1751 91 31 96.650467 clears 1 2 4 1 5 990 1755 38 27 95.266068 to5 1 2 4 1 6 1047 1763 64 30 96.512321 me,5 1 2 4 1 7 1131 1752 167 42 96.564781 however,5 1 2 4 1 8 1321 1752 77 32 95.897316 that5 1 2 4 1 9 1416 1752 71 32 95.897316 this5 1 2 4 1 10 1509 1752 121 32 96.718536 records 1 2 4 1 11 1651 1751 100 33 96.867096 could5 1 2 4 1 12 1772 1753 87 31 96.314827 have5 1 2 4 1 13 1880 1753 84 31 96.725815 been4 1 2 4 2 0 640 1795 1347 50 -1 5 1 2 4 2 1 640 1795 243 48 95.805458 strengthened5 1 2 4 2 2 907 1801 31 32 95.805458 if5 1 2 4 2 3 959 1801 29 32 96.751572 it5 1 2 4 2 4 1006 1802 74 33 96.566025 had5 1 2 4 2 5 1099 1803 184 31 96.566025 contained5 1 2 4 2 6 1306 1803 193 32 96.518394 additional5 1 2 4 2 7 1523 1795 130 40 96.621033 factual5 1 2 4 2 8 1676 1803 159 32 96.159836 materials 1 2 4 2 9 1857 1798 130 47 60.016068 going4 1 2 4 3 0 642 1846 1322 50 -1 5 1 2 4 3 1 642 1851 134 41 96.479492 beyond5 1 2 4 3 2 787 1852 60 31 96.922600 thes 1 2 4 3 3 861 1856 120 37 96.895180 experts 1 2 4 3 4 992 1846 186 48 96.397255 testimony5 1 2 4 3 5 1190 1854 132 31 96.167679 offered5 1 2 4 3 6 1336 1853 86 32 97.002068 with5 1 2 4 3 7 1436 1857 131 38 93.977989 respects 1 2 4 3 8 1580 1857 36 27 93.977989 to5 1 2 4 3 9 1629 1854 60 30 96.113457 thes 1 2 4 3 10 1702 1854 139 42 93.285683 general5 1 2 4 3 11 1855 1854 109 31 92.229942 work-4 1 2 4 4 0 641 1902 1323 44 -1 5 1 2 4 4 1 641 1902 78 42 95.186241 ings5 1 2 4 4 2 728 1902 42 32 95.233635 of5 1 2 4 4 3 778 1902 284 34 95.233635 advertisements5 1 2 4 4 4 1072 1915 46 21 95.932091 on5 1 2 4 4 5 1131 1915 176 21 96.469070 consumers 1 2 4 4 6 1320 1904 149 32 96.380211 decisions 1 2 4 4 7 1483 1914 177 31 96.039413 processes.5 1 2 4 4 8 1675 1905 44 31 95.768517 In5 1 2 4 4 9 1730 1903 192 43 95.768517 particulars 1 2 4 4 10 1935 1905 29 31 95.693359 it4 1 2 4 5 0 640 1953 1323 43 -1 5 1 2 4 5 1 640 1953 115 32 96.230743 would5 1 2 4 5 2 772 1953 88 43 96.230743 have5 1 2 4 5 3 874 1954 85 32 96.822647 been5 1 2 4 5 4 976 1954 148 42 95.571671 helpful,5 1 2 4 5 5 1140 1956 112 31 13.111816 tothe5 1 2 4 5 6 1270 1958 118 29 96.775360 extent5 1 2 4 5 7 1403 1959 36 28 95.847038 to5 1 2 4 5 8 1456 1955 115 32 96.675629 which5 1 2 4 5 9 1586 1956 60 31 96.277374 thes 1 2 4 5 10 1663 1959 136 28 95.966599 currents 1 2 4 5 11 1818 1959 86 28 95.966599 states 1 2 4 5 12 1921 1955 42 32 96.731804 of4 1 2 4 6 0 640 2004 1324 46 -1 5 1 2 4 6 1 640 2004 58 31 96.458427 thes 1 2 4 6 2 712 2007 55 28 87.312302 art.5 1 2 4 6 3 779 2004 116 34 90.939545 would5 1 2 4 6 4 907 2004 136 42 96.308662 permit,5 1 2 4 6 5 1057 2006 31 32 96.847458 if5 1 2 4 6 6 1100 2005 71 33 96.612564 this5 1 2 4 6 7 1184 2007 119 31 96.657257 records 1 2 4 6 8 1315 2004 73 34 97.005173 had5 1 2 4 6 9 1400 2006 167 44 0.000000 included:5 1 2 4 6 10 1581 2000 66 54 0.000000 more5 1 2 4 6 11 1681 2005 127 42 96.441566 precise5 1 2 4 6 12 1820 2004 85 34 96.799164 data5 1 2 4 6 13 1918 2015 46 23 96.536499 on4 1 2 4 7 0 635 2055 1326 43 -1 5 1 2 4 7 1 635 2055 81 32 49.994148 how5 1 2 4 7 2 727 2055 290 33 49.994148 advertisements5 1 2 4 7 3 1030 2056 103 33 96.616318 affects 1 2 4 7 4 1148 2066 179 23 93.128159 consumers 1 2 4 7 5 1344 2056 253 33 31.611717 attitudes'ands 1 2 4 7 6 1612 2055 216 43 96.752975 perceptions5 1 2 4 7 7 1846 2057 38 31 96.886871 of5 1 2 4 7 8 1901 2057 60 32 96.439545 thea 1 2 4 8 0 637 2105 1324 45 -1 5 1 2 4 8 1 637 2105 148 41 96.510094 products 1 2 4 8 2 796 2117 35 21 96.985809 as5 1 2 4 8 3 843 2106 77 32 96.844185 wells 1 2 4 8 4 930 2116 36 23 96.450806 as5 1 2 4 8 5 975 2117 93 22 96.271576 some5 1 2 4 8 6 1078 2106 178 43 96.271576 empirical5 1 2 4 8 7 1266 2108 83 32 96.753227 data5 1 2 4 8 8 1360 2106 138 44 96.366249 linking5 1 2 4 8 9 1506 2109 61 31 96.393372 thes 1 2 4 8 10 1578 2106 239 43 96.112404 applicability5 1 2 4 8 11 1828 2108 38 32 97.000137 of5 1 2 4 8 12 1877 2108 84 32 96.896927 such4 1 2 4 9 0 640 2155 1143 45 -1 5 1 2 4 9 1 640 2157 215 41 96.373016 generalized5 1 2 4 9 2 863 2160 159 39 96.768372 concepts5 1 2 4 9 3 1033 2161 35 28 95.522667 to5 1 2 4 9 4 1077 2158 60 32 95.522667 thes 1 2 4 9 5 1147 2157 190 43 96.039192 particulars 1 2 4 9 6 1345 2158 283 33 96.039192 advertisements5 1 2 4 9 7 1639 2155 36 35 96.719795 in5 1 2 4 9 8 1685 2157 98 33 96.311806 issue.3 1 2 5 0 0 634 2207 1328 299 -1 4 1 2 5 1 0 682 2207 1280 44 -1 5 1 2 5 1 1 682 2208 43 31 82.844521 In5 1 2 5 1 2 740 2208 59 31 96.218719 thes 1 2 5 1 3 814 2207 130 32 95.719055 instant5 1 2 5 1 4 957 2219 86 31 96.483986 case,5 1 2 5 1 5 1060 2208 58 33 96.483986 for5 1 2 5 1 6 1132 2210 166 41 96.530396 example,5 1 2 5 1 7 1315 2209 101 33 96.223251 while5 1 2 5 1 8 1433 2210 60 32 96.861176 Dr.5 1 2 5 1 9 1510 2210 111 32 96.657784 Lucas5 1 2 5 1 10 1634 2208 149 34 96.524124 testified5 1 2 5 1 11 1800 2220 37 22 96.524124 as5 1 2 5 1 12 1851 2211 38 31 96.935242 to5 1 2 5 1 13 1902 2209 60 32 96.678589 thea 1 2 5 2 0 634 2257 1328 45 -1 5 1 2 5 2 1 634 2257 173 33 91.547356 existence5 1 2 5 2 2 815 2259 42 32 96.356323 of5 1 2 5 2 3 865 2269 21 21 96.356323 a5 1 2 5 2 4 898 2269 182 33 96.753479 carryover5 1 2 5 2 5 1090 2260 98 32 96.697708 effects 1 2 5 2 6 1200 2261 58 32 96.918724 for5 1 2 5 2 7 1266 2261 49 31 95.867470 all5 1 2 5 2 8 1324 2259 294 42 95.867470 advertisements,5 1 2 5 2 9 1627 2261 44 31 96.744080 he5 1 2 5 2 10 1681 2270 70 22 96.033829 was5 1 2 5 2 11 1762 2263 60 28 96.033829 not5 1 2 5 2 12 1832 2259 130 42 96.943268 precise4 1 2 5 3 0 635 2309 1326 47 -1 5 1 2 5 3 1 635 2319 43 22 96.624008 as5 1 2 5 3 2 688 2312 37 29 95.942818 to5 1 2 5 3 3 736 2309 59 32 96.538765 thes 1 2 5 3 4 806 2310 203 42 96.774094 magnitude5 1 2 5 3 5 1022 2310 39 32 96.993744 of5 1 2 5 3 6 1073 2310 71 33 97.004120 this5 1 2 5 3 7 1155 2322 185 31 96.564590 carryover5 1 2 5 3 8 1352 2312 111 32 96.345421 under5 1 2 5 3 9 1476 2310 148 46 96.345421 varying5 1 2 5 3 10 1636 2310 204 34 96.755257 conditions.5 1 2 5 3 11 1856 2311 105 41 96.804108 Thus,4 1 2 5 4 0 636 2359 1325 45 -1 5 1 2 5 4 1 636 2359 72 33 96.583984 this5 1 2 5 4 2 722 2361 119 31 96.647614 records 1 2 5 4 3 856 2360 127 44 96.802589 might5 1 2 5 4 4 983 2361 87 33 96.485069 have5 1 2 5 4 5 1081 2362 87 32 95.984276 been5 1 2 5 4 6 1180 2362 245 42 95.984276 substantially5 1 2 5 4 7 1438 2362 255 42 96.331818 strengthened,5 1 2 5 4 8 1706 2361 33 32 96.550766 if5 1 2 5 4 9 1755 2361 29 31 96.607437 it5 1 2 5 4 10 1798 2361 71 33 93.190475 had5 1 2 5 4 11 1885 2372 76 21 92.248077 con-4 1 2 5 5 0 635 2410 1327 65 -1 5 1 2 5 5 1 635 2410 120 33 96.715950 tained5 1 2 5 5 2 770 2422 93 21 96.183823 more5 1 2 5 5 3 878 2412 277 33 96.389229 documentation5 1 2 5 5 4 1168 2413 145 44 96.748116 bearings 1 2 5 5 5 1324 2424 46 22 96.901077 on5 1 2 5 5 6 1385 2415 68 33 73.900253 the.5 1 2 5 5 7 1450 2414 181 61 59.680016 expected.5 1 2 5 5 8 1634 2412 200 43 95.239296 magnitude5 1 2 5 5 9 1848 2412 40 32 96.495811 of5 1 2 5 5 10 1903 2412 59 55 96.691620 thea 1 2 5 6 0 634 2463 815 43 -1 5 1 2 5 6 1 634 2472 187 31 82.861099 carryover5 1 2 5 6 2 835 2463 58 31 96.175598 for5 1 2 5 6 3 907 2463 139 34 96.533134 various5 1 2 5 6 4 1058 2467 100 39 96.580925 types5 1 2 5 6 5 1171 2464 40 33 96.995232 of5 1 2 5 6 6 1225 2464 224 42 95.964691 advertising.3 1 2 6 0 0 634 2513 1329 247 -1 4 1 2 6 1 0 671 2513 1290 45 -1 5 1 2 6 1 1 671 2513 82 37 70.424271 ‘Thes 1 2 6 1 2 769 2514 85 40 96.341942 needs 1 2 6 1 3 868 2515 60 31 96.963387 for5 1 2 6 1 4 943 2515 184 32 96.531693 corrective5 1 2 6 1 5 1142 2515 240 43 96.820404 advertising5 1 2 6 1 6 1375 2527 36 20 96.831581 in5 1 2 6 1 7 1428 2515 130 33 96.910576 certain5 1 2 6 1 8 1575 2509 167 38 96.487045 instances5 1 2 6 1 9 1757 2514 114 42 96.550262 might5 1 2 6 1 10 1887 2514 74 33 96.989937 also4 1 2 6 2 0 637 2563 1324 45 -1 5 1 2 6 2 1 637 2563 88 33 96.273308 have5 1 2 6 2 2 734 2564 84 32 95.122276 been5 1 2 6 2 3 826 2565 259 33 95.122276 demonstrated5 1 2 6 2 4 1094 2567 153 41 96.379478 through5 1 2 6 2 5 1256 2567 99 32 95.827667 others 1 2 6 2 6 1362 2566 183 42 96.382980 empirical5 1 2 6 2 7 1558 2566 216 42 96.405983 approaches.5 1 2 6 2 8 1786 2566 76 31 96.586472 Thes 1 2 6 2 9 1873 2569 88 28 97.014771 state4 1 2 6 3 0 634 2614 1329 47 -1 5 1 2 6 3 1 634 2614 43 32 96.927055 of5 1 2 6 3 2 696 2614 58 33 96.847610 thes 1 2 6 3 3 774 2618 54 29 96.153267 arts 1 2 6 3 4 848 2626 79 31 96.569687 may5 1 2 6 3 5 947 2620 62 27 96.848694 not5 1 2 6 3 6 1029 2617 40 31 96.730766 be5 1 2 6 3 7 1089 2616 164 33 96.190369 sufficient5 1 2 6 3 8 1273 2621 37 28 96.873230 to5 1 2 6 3 9 1331 2617 143 42 96.930611 develops 1 2 6 3 10 1496 2617 178 42 96.380295 empirical5 1 2 6 3 11 1695 2616 268 45 96.894608 methodologies4 1 2 6 4 0 635 2666 1326 44 -1 5 1 2 6 4 1 635 2666 277 43 96.349335 demonstrating5 1 2 6 4 2 930 2666 128 43 96.523628 precise5 1 2 6 4 3 1077 2668 155 42 96.714272 linkages5 1 2 6 4 4 1250 2668 39 31 96.972473 in5 1 2 6 4 5 1306 2668 49 32 96.339691 all5 1 2 6 4 6 1375 2668 169 31 96.578041 instances5 1 2 6 4 7 1564 2668 149 32 80.551193 between5 1 2 6 4 8 1729 2677 23 21 80.551193 a5 1 2 6 4 9 1768 2666 193 42 96.506264 particular4 1 2 6 5 0 635 2716 1324 44 -1 5 1 2 6 5 1 635 2716 267 33 96.500214 advertisements 1 2 6 5 2 923 2718 69 32 96.606834 ands 1 2 6 5 3 1013 2722 138 29 96.461594 currents 1 2 6 5 4 1170 2719 205 31 95.753197 consumers’5 1 2 6 5 5 1398 2718 214 42 96.284790 perceptions5 1 2 6 5 6 1632 2719 70 31 95.779663 ands 1 2 6 5 7 1725 2717 163 33 92.599159 attitudes5 1 2 6 5 8 1908 2721 51 28 91.997665 to- A438 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION DECISIONS Dissenting Statement - 81 FEC.

wards a product. Nevertheless, taking into account whatever problems may be currently associated with developing such methodologies, it would have been helpful if some indication could have been developed as to the linkages between the ad in question and. its lingering impact, if any, on consumers.

One direct. empirical linkage between the deceptive iad-and.a need for corrective advertising would be a showing of significant consumer recall of the particular messages found to have been deceptive which were conveyed by the Firestone advertisement. However, the evidence in this record indicates that the integration of advertising messages by consumers is ‘a process that does not: necessarily result in conscious recall of the specific message, but rather results in attitudinal and perceptual changes relating to the brand being advertised. Therefore, it. . would thave. been helpful if this record had contained. alternative empirical showings of the linkage between the deceptive ad ‘and ‘ts carryover designed to probe such attitudinal and perceptual changes irrespective: of whether or not the. particular.advertising message was recalled by a consumer. For example, one manner of empirically probing to determine the existence of such a linkage might involve 1. systematic survey: demonstrating that there are a significant number of consumers who ‘perceive the brand as-it was deceptively represented in the challenged advertisement. While an empirical showing of this. nature would not necessarily demonstrate that the consumers’ perception of the brand, even though it is consistent with the deceptive ad.,. was due only to the challenged advertisement, it could indicate a rea~ sonable likelihood that the ad led to or reinforced a deceptive representation of the brand that should be corrected through future advertisements. Other empirical approaches demonstrating the linkage: between challenged advertisements and the subsequent carryov er itt the consumer’s memory may ‘also be possible. In my own view, SOUP presented sufficient evidence supporting the likelihood of a continuing effect of the Firestone advertisement on consumers as to shift to the respondents the need to go forward with other. proof tending to refute such likelihood. However, it is clear that the question of which party should have the burden of going forward with this type of empirical proof is an issue on which reasonable differences of opinion could arise.

These ‘and other important issues respecting the applicability of the corrective advertising remedy are unfortunately not resolved by the instant case.

For the foregoing reasons, I support the order entered in this case. but dissent to the failure of this order to require corrective advertising. FIRESTONE TIRE AND RUBBER CO. - 439 398 — Separate Statement ComMMISSIONER Dennison, Concurring IN Parr anp DissentiIne IN Parr :

I join in the foregoing opinion to the extent that it finds that Firestone’s “25 percent quicker stopping” claim violated Section 5 and that advertisements for its “Safe Tire” falsely.implied that the tires, were. free from all defects. Therefore, I agree to Paragraphs One and Two of the order.

However, I do not.agree that these advertisements also represented. . that respondent’s tires would be safe under all possible conditions of use. Therefore, I do:not concur in Paragraphs Three and Four of, the . Commission’s order.

Additionally, I cannot agree with Paragraph Five of the order as it. is presently written. It would require respondent to substantiate all. tire safety aud performance.claims with scientific tests, but as the Com- ‘mission recently recognized in Pfizer, Docket No. 8819 [p. 23 herein], . not-all substantive product claims need be. supported with rigorous | scientific: tests: since some--product characteristics may be well-established in the arts and industry. Indeed, many performance, claims which a tiremaker might assért come “from general information common to everyone. To require respondent, to engage in additional testing in these circumstances would be unduly stringent. With respect to the issue of corrective advertising, I would leave for future cases, having stronger evidentiary bases, any extended consideration and discussion of what should guide the Commission in this area.

SEPARATE STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN Kirkpatrick. I concur in Commissioner Jones’ opinion. I concur also in the Commission’s order and findings except that I dissent from those parts of the opinion and findings relating to the “conditions of use claim”. and from Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the. order relating thereto. My dissent is occasioned by my belief that claims read into an advertisement vary with the degree of knowledge which the public already possesses about the product. In this case, the implication found by the majority—that Firestone tires are safe under ad/ conditions of use—seems to me to be remote when contrasted with common knowledge regarding minimal levels of tire care, and I cannot find that the ads stood for the proposition advanced in the complaint.

I also find that I cannot agree with Commissioner Jones’ separate statement on the appropriateness of a corrective advertising order in this case. As ‘a general analysis of advertising’s intended effect, particularly on consumer purchasing behavior, and as an explanation of 440. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION: ‘DECISIONS Separate: Statement: 81. F.T.C.

why it'may in some circumstances be proper, indeed essential, to require advertisers to correct or otherwise remedy any lingering effects of a deceptive advertisement, the testimony offered by intervenor SOUP on the question of corrective advertising has contributed significantly to the body of knowledge: ‘which will assist the Commission to chart the law in this ‘area. That testimony ‘has not, showever, ‘gone beyond a general explanation of broad advertising ‘and behavioral principles—principles which were insufficiently applied, in my judgment, to the specific ‘facts before us. No showing: was made that the particular advertisements challenged by the complaint in this matter — were in fact commercials which succeeded in achieving the effect desired by advertisers—z.e., to continue to influence consumers’ purchas: ing decisions long after ‘the: advertisements ‘had been perceived: by consumers. oo :

Commissioner, Jo: ones notes in, her separate statement : “This revord could, have been strengthened if. it had contained additional factual material going beyond ‘the expert testimony’ offered with respect to -the ‘general’ workings of advertisements on ‘consumer ‘decision processes... In. particular‘ it, would have been helpful, to the extent! to which.. the. current. state ‘ofthe art would permit, if this record. hadincluded more precise data. on how advertise- , ments. affect. consumer attitudes and perceptions of the product as well’ as some empirical data linking the applicability’ of such generalized‘ concepts to the -par-: ticular advertisements in issue.

To my. mind, particularly at this preliminary. stage of experience with this remedy, such information would not have been merely helpful but was indispensable to the intervenor’s case. Absent such evidence, we can require corrective advertising only by engaging in assumptions based on the general principles set out by the witnesses in this:matter and stated by Commissioner Jones “in her separate statement. If we adopt these assumptions and follow Commissioner Jones’ approach, a corrective advertising order would be warranted every time the Commission finds a claim to be potentially deceptive, regardless of how much time has elapsed since the ad appeared (in this case, four years), the media in which the advertisement appeared (here, in print), the frequency with which it ran, the length of time over which it was run, the size of the audience it reached, the audience’s characteristics, the blatancy of the deception, and the potential for danger to health and safety; the only limitation to such an all-inclusive approach being that affirmative correction might notbe necessary ifthe or iginal deceptive claim could easily be verified by the consumer. My view is that our understanding of the process involved in perceiving, storing and acting tipon advertising messages is still in its beginning stages; and at this early date in our involvement in this FIRESTONE’ TIRE “AND” RUBBER’ CO. ° 441 398 | Opinion field, I am not prepared to engage in the generalizations and. ‘assump= tions which would be required to order corrective advertising i in this case and on the record beforeus.: © ~ It may be that future advertising cases will: provide us with specific information or with a picture of advertising as a’ whole which would justify a presumption that all deceptive advertising is in fact integrated into the conscious or unconscious memories of a significantly sufficient number of consumers to warrant the requirement of a corrective advertisement whenever deception is found. I am simply not prepared to take that step on the basis of only one fully adjudicated case involving this issue. Subsequent cases may demonstrate that the number of commercial messages which fail to have a residual effect — is so small that a “per se” rule would be appropriate: Similarly, our experience may disclose that the state of advertising technology is such that residual effect is exceedingly difficult if not impossible to prove in any particular instance and yet is so frequently present that the public interest requires | that the Commission relieve complaint counsel of the burden of proving the continuing influence of the deceptive advertising being challenged. For the present, however, it is my view that our knowledge in this area is not deep enough to justify such an approach. Separate STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER Drxon Commissioner Dixon concurs only in the Order to Cease and Desist and the findings and rationale of the opinion in support thereof. STATEMENT OF CoMMIsSSIONER MacIntyre Concurrine IN Part As TO THE RESULT I concur in the decision of the Commission to issue those provisions of the order appearing in Paragraphs (1), (2), (3), and (4) and the underlying findings of the Commission in support thereof. I do not concur in the decision of the Commission for the issuance of Paragraph (5) of the Order to Cease and Desist or the Opinion of the Commission in this case.

OPINION OF THE Commission By Jones, Commissioner:

In June 1970, the Commission issued a complaint against the Firestone Tire and Rubber Company, charging that it had violated Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45 (1964), in making certain advertising claims as to the price, performance and 494-841—73-—__29 442 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION. DECISIONS Opinion 81 F,T.C.

safety of its tires.1 The complaint alleged that respondent, had falsely represented :. . .

(1) that its tires were being offered at. ‘prices substantially lower than regular or customary prices;

(2). that-it. had. established through. adequate scientific tests. that Fi irestone Super. Sports Wide.Oval tires would stop 25. percent quicker than. regular tires under typical road and weather conditions; (3). that Firestone tires were free from any defects; and. — _ (4) -that Firestone tires: were safe under .all. conditions of use. (Compl. paras. 4(a)~-(£),5(1)-(5), 6(1)- (5).) -.The-complaint. also charged, that. respondents use of the tire. name “Safety. Champion” was deceptive-in. that. it falsely represented that such. tires -were:.safer. than. other tires. . _(Compl., para. 8.):. : . units. atiswer;, respondent, denied:-d the: ‘principal allegations, of the complaint; Sages ae Prior. to: the hearings i in this case, the. Commission: on October 28, 1971, ordered: that, Students Opposing Unfair ‘Practices, Inc. (SQUP) be ‘permitted to intervene in the Proceedings. for the purpose of presenting’ evidence ahd arguments.on. the issue-of whether the: notice order. attached: to. thé complaint: would: adequately. protect the public interest. Thereafter on December 14, 1970, the hearing examiner permitted the ‘Association of National Advertisers, Ine. (ANA) to intervene to. present evidence and arguments on the same issue. The case proceeded to hearing i in March 1971. The examiner issued an initial decision finding against respondent on all complaint allegations. excepting those concerning the false advertising of prices ? -and the deceptive nature of the tire name “Safety Champion.” * The examiner entered a proposed order against respondent which required 1 The following abbreviations will be used for citations : Compl.—Complaint: .

ID—Initial decision of hearing examiner Tr.—Transcript of testimony Ccx—Commission Exhibit RX—Respondent Exhibit.

SOUP Ex.—Exhibit of intervenor SOUP ANA Ex.—Exhibit of intervenor ANA App. Br.—Brief on Appeal of respondent (Res.) or complaint counsel (C.C.) Ans. Br.—Answering brief Rep. Br.— Reply brief :

2The charges relating to the pricing. issues were dismissed by the examiner and counsel supporting the complaint does not appeal from this decision. Accordingly, this issue is no longer in the case and we do not treat it here other than to affirm the examiner’s conclusion that no liability was shown. :

3% Although the hearing examiner found that the name “Safety Champion” did not imply that the tire was safer than other tires, as alleged in the complaint, he ordered respondent to cease and desist from using the name, apparently on the theory that the name deceptively conveyed the idea that respondent’s. tires were free from any. defects and safe under all conditions of use. (ID, 20, 380 [pp. 417, 427, herein].) See discussion; infra, pp. 24—25 [pp. 456-58, herein].

“FIRESTONE ‘TIRE AND RUBBER CO.” 443 398 Opinion that it cease and desist from the practices found to be unlawful but which did not include the relief provisions urged by SOUP. . This matter.is now before the Commission on appeals from the i initial decision by three of the parties—respondent, complaint counsel and intervenor SOUP. Respondent contends (1) that the examiner erred in finding that its advertising with respect to the stopping performance and safe qualities of Firestone tires was deceptive, and (2) that the proposed order is overly broad in scope. Complaint counsel challenges certain of the examiner’s factual findings and his failure to recommend the precise form of the proposed order which accompanied the complaint. Interverior SOUP contests the examiner’s ‘determi ar tion’ that its additional provisions for reliéf were ‘unwarranted i in this ‘case. We will consider first the issues of liability raised on appeal by | respondent and complaint counsel and then the i issues of relief. raised by, the three ‘appealing P parties.

I : SSUES ‘OF: LIABILITY. 0. ee “The complaiit allegations charging respondent with, false. and misertising. 1 were based primarily, on. tw ising: claims, oné claiming that respondent’ s Wide Oval.tires stop 25 percent quicker than regular width tires and the other indicating that the Firestone tire is “The Safe Tire.” Additionally, the complaint. charged that Firestone’s brand name tire, “Safety _ Champion” also implied representations as to the safety of. respondent’s, tire which were misleading and deceptive. Respondent. denies that its advertisements and its use of the brand name Safety Champion conveyed. any: of the representations alleged.in the complaint and, hence that they did not violate Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act. We will consider. these contentions i in detail.

A. Respondent’s 25 Percent ‘Quicker Stopping Claim . The advertisement cited in the complaint which presented the 25 percent quicker stopping claim reads in part as follows: [The Firestone Super Sports Wide Oval tire is] built lower, widen, Nearly two inches wider than regular tires. To corner better, run cooler, stop 25% quicker. :

The complaint charged that through this ad, respondent represented that it:

* * * had established through adequate scientific tests that any car equipped with Firestone Super Sports Wide Oval tires could be stopped 25% quicker under typical road and weather conditions for the usable life of the original tread of 444 FEDERAL. TRADE COMMISSION , DECISIONS Opinion oO 81 ETC.

such: tires when compared with the performance, of the same vehicle under ‘the same “conditions when. ‘equipped with any manufacturer's tires of a particular construction. (Compl., para. 5(5).)_ :

It was further charged that respondent had not in “fact performed adequate scientific tests to establish that its Wide Oval tires performed as described above. (Compl. para. 6(5).) ~ Thes 1 2 5 1 3 869 907 148 66 96.161102 hearings 1 2 5 1 4 1028 915 177 39 96.544998 examiners 1 2 5 1 5 1216 910 111 46 96.739525 found5 1 2 5 1 6 1339 926 46 24 96.830971 on5 1 2 5 1 7 1396 914 59 38 96.789749 thes 1 2 5 1 8 1465 905 92 52 96.990234 basis5 1 2 5 1 9 1570 896 43 49 96.700127 of5 1 2 5 1 10 1619 895 60 54 97.016022 thes 1 2 5 1 11 1690 890 120 59 96.945335 records 1 2 5 1 12 1822 879 158 79 94.465683 evidences 1 2 5 1 13 1991 893 78 55 96.980316 that4 1 2 5 2 0 746 956 1323 63 -1 5 1 2 5 2 1 746 968 58 31 96.885521 thes 1 2 5 2 2 817 964 83 47 96.807068 tires5 1 2 5 2 3 910 967 40 32 96.807068 in5 1 2 5 2 4 963 965 158 54 96.870667 questions 1 2 5 2 5 1134 965 116 43 96.567520 would5 1 2 5 2 6 1262 960 78 46 96.979416 stops 1 2 5 2 7 1346 961 53 36 96.425873 25.5 1 2 5 2 8 1409 956 144 50 96.134674 percent5 1 2 5 2 9 1561 959 142 51 96.980202 quicker5 1 2 5 2 10 1712 973 45 21 96.973358 on5 1 2 5 2 11 1770 959 123 51 48.172573 “glare.5 1 2 5 2 12 1898 952 81 50 96.063377 ice,”5 1 2 5 2 13 1991 956 78 43 97.005127 that4 1 2 5 3 0 746 1007 1323 56 -1 5 1 2 5 3 1 744 1015 48 46 96.956726 no5 1 2 5 3 2 796 1009 94 41 94.160721 tests5 1 2 5 3 3 905 1017 88 40 95.860382 were5 1 2 5 3 4 1007 1014 100 48 95.395912 made5 1 2 5 3 5 1124 1028 45 22 96.903648 on5 1 2 5 3 6 1184 1006 99 43 96.780212 others 1 2 5 3 7 1299 1011 84 37 96.813095 roads 1 2 5 3 8 1398 1013 163 35 96.332809 surfaces5 1 2 5 3 9 1567 1013 74 34 96.864853 ands 1 2 5 3 10 1651 1006 78 48 96.756241 that5 1 2 5 3 11 1743 1007 239 56 0.000000 respondent's5 1 2 5 3 12 1992 1016 77 36 95.949112 test,4 1 2 5 4 0 744 1057 1329 55 -1 5 1 2 5 4 1 744 1057 179 44 70.172592 theréfore,5 1 2 5 4 2 947 1064 70 37 96.324120 did5 1 2 5 4 3 1021 1060 62 40 96.433113 not5 1 2 5 4 4 1096 1068 96 42 96.605476 shows 1 2 5 4 5 1204 1064 79 48 95.979439 that5 1 2 5 4 6 1292 1058 53 53 93.392181 its5 1 2 5 4 7 1353 1066 84 33 97.005966 tires5 1 2 5 4 8 1450 1062 115 39 96.666306 would5 1 2 5 4 9 1571 1060 86 47 96.993355 stops 1 2 5 4 10 1669 1066 40 40 96.914032 255 1 2 5 4 11 1723 1067 140 40 96.461250 percent5 1 2 5 4 12 1871 1059 147 47 96.461250 quicker5 1 2 5 4 13 2027 1061 46 38 97.010147 on4 1 2 5 5 0 746 1100 1324 68 -1 5 1 2 5 5 1 746 1116 100 44 96.975769 others 1 2 5 5 2 858 1115 161 51 96.114662 surfaces.5 1 2 5 5 3 1022 1110 103 52 74.042892 ‘Thes 1 2 5 5 4 1118 1118 175 43 96.580864 examiners 1 2 5 5 5 1304 1109 193 48 96.571999 concluded5 1 2 5 5 6 1503 1110 85 48 88.521187 that:5 1 2 5 5 7 1585 1100 214 68 76.839310 ‘respondents 1 2 5 5 8 1809 1111 143 44 35.860817 had.not5 1 2 5 5 9 1963 1104 107 42 93.204620 estab-4 1 2 5 6 0 745 1154 1327 62 -1 5 1 2 5 6 1 745 1166 114 49 91.492218 lished5 1 2 5 6 2 869 1157 78 53 97.013649 that5 1 2 5 6 3 952 1164 74 52 95.866364 any5 1 2 5 6 4 1032 1154 47 62 65.723526 otf5 1 2 5 6 5 1088 1155 48 46 96.783730 its5 1 2 5 6 6 1146 1164 93 48 54.124298 tires.5 1 2 5 6 7 1244 1159 115 52 54.124298 would5 1 2 5 6 8 1369 1160 78 52 96.844391 stops 1 2 5 6 9 1460 1161 41 46 96.844391 255 1 2 5 6 10 1515 1160 139 55 95.831375 percent5 1 2 5 6 11 1663 1164 142 49 96.613968 quicker5 1 2 5 6 12 1817 1160 111 38 96.996376 under5 1 2 5 6 13 1940 1155 132 59 96.943695 typical4 1 2 5 7 0 743 1204 1329 62 -1 5 1 2 5 7 1 743 1214 105 38 82.385071 roads 1 2 5 7 2 852 1215 69 37 87.540749 ands 1 2 5 7 3 937 1212 149 50 96.614250 weather5 1 2 5 7 4 1098 1204 209 61 96.601410 conditions.5 1 2 5 7 5 1311 1206 86 52 96.203857 than5 1 2 5 7 6 1414 1205 115 44 96.471329 would5 1 2 5 7 7 1542 1211 102 55 96.617638 others 1 2 5 7 8 1658 1212 83 43 97.006729 tires5 1 2 5 7 9 1757 1212 70 35 96.946930 ands 1 2 5 7 10 1843 1209 79 47 63.193439 that5 1 2 5 7 11 1936 1208 136 45 92.810417 accord-4 1 2 5 8 0 748 1257 1326 72 -1 5 1 2 5 8 1 748 1262 111 67 96.579056 ingly,5 1 2 5 8 2 874 1260 238 57 78.056969 respondent’s5 1 2 5 8 3 1132 1259 215 58 96.995178 advertising5 1 2 5 8 4 1358 1260 111 51 84.965614 claims 1 2 5 8 5 1491 1262 72 48 96.192749 was5 1 2 5 8 6 1580 1256 121 50 96.930672 unfair5 1 2 5 8 7 1720 1263 70 35 96.799973 ands 1 2 5 8 8 1804 1257 181 60 95.845901 deceptive5 1 2 5 8 9 2004 1257 70 40 96.702469 anda 1 2 5 9 0 748 1308 1070 54 -1 5 1 2 5 9 1 748 1320 38 34 96.367012 in5 1 2 5 9 2 804 1316 167 37 96.367012 violations 1 2 5 9 3 988 1319 40 34 97.005989 of5 1 2 5 9 4 1047 1314 142 41 96.760635 Sections 1 2 5 9 5 1203 1321 31 44 95.095795 5.5 1 2 5 9 6 1252 1312 91 50 95.095795 (ID,5 1 2 5 9 7 1361 1308 41 44 92.929695 985 1 2 5 9 8 1427 1318 50 42 91.790573 [p.5 1 2 5 9 9 1495 1308 75 54 96.573174 418,5 1 2 5 9 10 1588 1314 166 45 45.859779 herein].)3 1 2 6 0 0 749 1344 1329 319 -1 4 1 2 6 1 0 793 1344 1282 69 -1 5 1 2 6 1 1 793 1372 44 32 96.793457 In5 1 2 6 1 2 851 1370 47 34 96.793457 its5 1 2 6 1 3 914 1370 135 43 96.582474 appeal,5 1 2 6 1 4 1064 1360 209 52 95.991287 respondents 1 2 6 1 5 1288 1370 82 38 95.991287 does5 1 2 6 1 6 1385 1373 60 33 96.828156 not5 1 2 6 1 7 1462 1344 133 58 96.404930 contests 1 2 6 1 8 1606 1362 70 38 96.286369 thes 1 2 6 1 9 1682 1362 189 46 96.206825 complaints 1 2 6 1 10 1887 1346 188 63 96.117058 allegation4 1 2 6 2 0 749 1416 1326 45 -1 5 1 2 6 2 1 749 1422 78 32 96.391876 that5 1 2 6 2 2 847 1421 46 33 96.407974 its5 1 2 6 2 3 913 1420 265 34 96.336197 advertisements 1 2 6 2 4 1198 1416 219 45 96.338570 represented5 1 2 6 2 5 1436 1419 78 32 96.540092 that5 1 2 6 2 6 1534 1418 46 33 96.239548 its5 1 2 6 2 7 1599 1417 165 42 96.230316 stopping5 1 2 6 2 8 1783 1416 102 33 95.933372 claims 1 2 6 2 9 1905 1428 70 21 93.237762 was5 1 2 6 2 10 1995 1427 80 31 93.078529 sup-4 1 2 6 3 0 752 1467 1323 47 -1 5 1 2 6 3 1 752 1472 123 41 96.630592 ported5 1 2 6 3 2 895 1472 47 42 96.804352 by5 1 2 6 3 3 962 1472 166 41 96.377785 adequate5 1 2 6 3 4 1147 1470 179 33 67.570107 scientific5 1 2 6 3 5 1332 1469 184 34 0.000000 tests“and.5 1 2 6 3 6 1527 1470 77 31 96.636978 that5 1 2 6 3 7 1622 1469 60 31 96.966461 thes 1 2 6 3 8 1701 1467 102 33 96.552177 claims 1 2 6 3 9 1823 1478 38 22 96.326546 as5 1 2 6 3 10 1880 1467 195 33 96.498428 advertised4 1 2 6 4 0 754 1516 1323 62 -1 5 1 2 6 4 1 754 1523 130 39 96.476685 related5 1 2 6 4 2 902 1526 38 28 96.977478 to5 1 2 6 4 3 958 1523 58 31 97.000175 thes 1 2 6 4 4 1034 1521 167 48 96.756775 stopping5 1 2 6 4 5 1219 1516 187 62 96.422493 capacities5 1 2 6 4 6 1421 1509 39 43 96.754494 of5 1 2 6 4 7 1478 1520 47 40 96.754494 its5 1 2 6 4 8 1542 1519 66 34 96.950096 tires 1 2 6 4 9 1618 1518 118 43 96.963623 under5 1 2 6 4 10 1752 1518 131 42 96.809418 typical5 1 2 6 4 11 1901 1518 93 35 94.327484 road,5 1 2 6 4 12 2006 1517 71 40 95.730225 anda 1 2 6 5 0 750 1554 1327 71 -1 5 1 2 6 5 1 750 1564 152 49 96.716888 weather5 1 2 6 5 2 913 1566 202 55 96.094940 conditions.5 1 2 6 5 3 1129 1565 232 60 91.241150 Respondents 1 2 6 5 4 1365 1563 72 59 95.024841 also5 1 2 6 5 5 1449 1563 161 52 77.534302 concédés5 1 2 6 5 6 1618 1558 87 44 95.931526 that5 1 2 6 5 7 1715 1569 60 41 96.171799 thes 1 2 6 5 8 1786 1567 69 34 96.488007 tests 1 2 6 5 9 1867 1554 210 63 95.813271 underlying4 1 2 6 6 0 753 1608 1325 55 -1 5 1 2 6 6 1 753 1621 65 41 96.855186 thes 1 2 6 6 2 830 1620 104 42 96.806244 claims 1 2 6 6 3 947 1618 89 37 85.815216 was5 1 2 6 6 4 1043 1618 99 50 81.547607 made5 1 2 6 6 5 1154 1617 115 50 0.000000 solely5 1 2 6 6 6 1288 1624 46 29 96.248909 on5 1 2 6 6 7 1348 1618 27 41 92.440079 45 1 2 6 6 8 1380 1612 85 50 39.060539 “wet,5 1 2 6 6 9 1476 1608 196 53 94.549591 hazardous5 1 2 6 6 10 1690 1608 146 47 82.883789 surface.5 1 2 6 6 11 1843 1611 235 48 94.795128 Respondent3 1 2 7 0 0 726 1668 1354 148 -1 4 1 2 7 1 0 726 1668 1354 47 -1 5 1 2 7 1 1 726 1707 2 3 76.454620 _5 1 2 7 1 2 749 1673 138 42 55.764233 argues,5 1 2 7 1 3 911 1662 167 51 96.606438 however,5 1 2 7 1 4 1102 1664 79 40 96.967056 that5 1 2 7 1 5 1204 1672 46 32 96.688103 its5 1 2 7 1 6 1273 1675 67 34 96.938759 tests 1 2 7 1 7 1363 1682 72 22 96.310181 was5 1 2 7 1 8 1456 1669 39 34 95.983826 in5 1 2 7 1 9 1519 1667 74 46 95.983826 facts 1 2 7 1 10 1616 1670 165 41 96.805145 adequate5 1 2 7 1 11 1804 1669 38 32 96.551353 to5 1 2 7 1 12 1864 1672 147 38 96.578918 supports 1 2 7 1 13 2032 1668 48 32 96.578918 its4 1 2 7 2 0 755 1718 1325 48 -1 5 1 2 7 2 1 755 1724 146 32 96.813889 broader5 1 2 7 2 2 913 1720 165 46 96.262360 stopping5 1 2 7 2 3 1088 1723 102 33 96.812813 claims 1 2 7 2 4 1200 1723 79 32 96.853630 that5 1 2 7 2 5 1288 1723 60 32 96.796005 thes 1 2 7 2 6 1357 1722 103 34 96.762039 Wide5 1 2 7 2 7 1471 1722 91 34 96.173424 Oval5 1 2 7 2 8 1573 1721 67 31 95.016205 tires 1 2 7 2 9 1652 1720 113 32 96.561737 would5 1 2 7 2 10 1776 1718 156 43 95.828987 performs 1 2 7 2 11 1943 1719 137 42 96.806602 equally4 1 2 7 3 0 757 1770 1217 46 -1 5 1 2 7 3 1 757 1786 39 21 96.535591 as5 1 2 7 3 2 811 1775 76 32 96.737213 wells 1 2 7 3 3 904 1786 46 21 96.399895 on5 1 2 7 3 4 967 1775 75 41 96.819725 dry,5 1 2 7 3 5 1058 1774 276 32 96.093201 non-hazardous5 1 2 7 3 6 1350 1771 162 35 96.375099 surfaces.5 1 2 7 3 7 1536 1773 92 41 96.375099 (Res.5 1 2 7 3 8 1645 1771 94 42 93.287025 App.5 1 2 7 3 9 1755 1770 73 41 93.215881 Br.,5 1 2 7 3 10 1844 1770 130 42 95.151466 10-12.)3 1 2 8 0 0 759 1795 1325 326 -1 4 1 2 8 1 0 799 1795 1282 72 -1 5 1 2 8 1 1 799 1827 74 30 96.953995 Thes 1 2 8 1 2 887 1826 70 32 96.800629 soles 1 2 8 1 3 971 1825 156 42 96.347504 questions 1 2 8 1 4 1141 1828 37 29 96.487503 at5 1 2 8 1 5 1192 1823 99 41 96.487503 issue,5 1 2 8 1 6 1306 1816 207 48 96.768425 therefore,5 1 2 8 1 7 1518 1830 17 26 96.824883 is5 1 2 8 1 8 1548 1821 152 34 96.743179 whether5 1 2 8 1 9 1714 1795 234 68 91.437065 respondent’s5 1 2 8 1 10 1958 1823 69 30 94.880257 tests 1 2 8 1 11 2040 1819 41 33 94.880257 of4 1 2 8 2 0 759 1871 1323 48 -1 5 1 2 8 2 1 759 1877 57 31 96.154785 thes 1 2 8 2 2 830 1876 166 43 96.665337 stopping5 1 2 8 2 3 1011 1874 215 44 96.380127 capabilities5 1 2 8 2 4 1241 1875 40 33 96.783554 of5 1 2 8 2 5 1294 1875 54 34 77.845383 its5 1 2 8 2 6 1353 1875 84 32 77.845383 tires5 1 2 8 2 7 1450 1875 100 31 96.088722 made5 1 2 8 2 8 1564 1882 44 29 96.590149 on5 1 2 8 2 9 1621 1884 20 21 96.738670 a5 1 2 8 2 10 1655 1872 193 33 96.290291 hazardous5 1 2 8 2 11 1861 1871 137 33 96.807518 surfaces 1 2 8 2 12 2011 1881 71 22 96.476448 was4 1 2 8 3 0 758 1921 1323 64 -1 5 1 2 8 3 1 758 1938 47 22 95.397636 an5 1 2 8 3 2 823 1926 186 43 95.397636 “adequate5 1 2 8 3 3 1027 1922 184 46 96.211838 scientific”5 1 2 8 3 4 1230 1928 68 31 95.465736 tests 1 2 8 3 5 1312 1919 39 40 95.465736 to5 1 2 8 3 6 1368 1921 151 64 96.257553 supports 1 2 8 3 7 1535 1924 46 33 96.915237 its5 1 2 8 3 8 1598 1920 225 46 96.350716 generalized,5 1 2 8 3 9 1840 1918 183 46 96.803764 unlimited5 1 2 8 3 10 2040 1917 41 37 96.987755 254 1 2 8 4 0 759 1962 1324 60 -1 5 1 2 8 4 1 759 1981 139 38 96.984192 percent5 1 2 8 4 2 908 1978 138 42 96.997215 quicker5 1 2 8 4 3 1057 1977 167 43 96.940041 stopping5 1 2 8 4 4 1234 1977 111 45 96.950172 claim.5 1 2 8 4 5 1358 1977 45 32 95.952919 In5 1 2 8 4 6 1414 1987 63 22 95.952919 ours 1 2 8 4 7 1486 1975 98 44 96.932259 view,5 1 2 8 4 8 1595 1976 58 40 96.906609 thes 1 2 8 4 9 1665 1974 119 33 91.837776 records 1 2 8 4 10 1795 1962 159 43 96.613647 evidences 1 2 8 4 11 1965 1973 118 41 96.442085 amply4 1 2 8 5 0 760 2023 1324 49 -1 5 1 2 8 5 1 760 2025 247 37 96.608162 demonstrates5 1 2 8 5 2 1020 2029 79 36 93.261978 that5 1 2 8 5 3 1114 2028 236 42 91.244492 respondent’s5 1 2 8 5 4 1361 2031 68 41 96.297356 tests 1 2 8 5 5 1443 2037 69 22 96.297356 was5 1 2 8 5 6 1525 2027 62 32 96.895264 not5 1 2 8 5 7 1600 2037 46 21 96.670052 an5 1 2 8 5 8 1660 2025 166 42 96.670052 adequate5 1 2 8 5 9 1838 2023 165 36 92.030441 scientific5 1 2 8 5 10 2017 2026 67 30 96.603218 test4 1 2 8 6 0 760 2074 1090 47 -1 5 1 2 8 6 1 760 2090 94 31 96.219460 upon5 1 2 8 6 2 871 2079 111 33 96.219460 which5 1 2 8 6 3 998 2076 37 36 96.818352 to5 1 2 8 6 4 1051 2079 100 33 96.635933 makes 1 2 8 6 5 1166 2079 84 33 96.623558 such5 1 2 8 6 6 1268 2089 20 22 96.249039 a5 1 2 8 6 7 1303 2077 147 34 96.249039 broader5 1 2 8 6 8 1465 2076 259 34 96.704758 unconditional5 1 2 8 6 9 1738 2074 112 33 96.620270 claim.3 1 2 9 0 0 763 2123 1327 304 -1 4 1 2 9 1 0 805 2123 1282 47 -1 5 1 2 9 1 1 805 2130 73 33 97.008751 Thes 1 2 9 1 2 892 2130 158 33 96.270515 evidences 1 2 9 1 3 1063 2130 188 33 96.803757 submitted5 1 2 9 1 4 1265 2140 45 22 96.931084 on5 1 2 9 1 5 1321 2128 72 34 96.833359 this5 1 2 9 1 6 1406 2129 89 32 96.974434 issues 1 2 9 1 7 1507 2129 48 41 97.004906 by5 1 2 9 1 8 1567 2127 188 42 96.493500 complaints 1 2 9 1 9 1767 2123 137 35 96.497665 counsels 1 2 9 1 10 1915 2124 172 34 96.428215 consisted4 1 2 9 2 0 763 2176 1324 48 -1 5 1 2 9 2 1 763 2181 133 43 96.545845 largely5 1 2 9 2 2 915 2181 40 34 96.226738 of5 1 2 9 2 3 978 2181 62 42 96.837502 (a)5 1 2 9 2 4 1055 2181 59 32 96.837502 thes 1 2 9 2 5 1131 2181 115 40 96.999054 actual5 1 2 9 2 6 1261 2181 67 32 96.593155 tires 1 2 9 2 7 1344 2184 84 29 96.593155 tests5 1 2 9 2 8 1444 2180 101 34 96.914017 made5 1 2 9 2 9 1561 2180 44 46 96.489014 by5 1 2 9 2 10 1623 2178 218 48 96.489014 respondent,5 1 2 9 2 11 1857 2176 69 33 91.149536 ands 1 2 9 2 12 1949 2176 55 42 91.918961 (b)5 1 2 9 2 13 2026 2176 61 32 96.998436 thea 1 2 9 3 0 764 2226 1323 48 -1 5 1 2 9 3 1 764 2229 184 45 96.599274 testimony5 1 2 9 3 2 964 2232 40 32 96.549484 of5 1 2 9 3 3 1019 2232 62 33 93.276962 Dr.5 1 2 9 3 4 1099 2229 40 35 91.719757 F.5 1 2 9 3 5 1158 2231 95 35 96.743050 Cecil5 1 2 9 3 6 1270 2224 155 39 96.743050 Brenner5 1 2 9 3 7 1441 2230 39 33 97.014420 of5 1 2 9 3 8 1490 2224 66 39 96.963295 thes 1 2 9 3 9 1570 2224 168 39 96.534119 National5 1 2 9 3 10 1750 2223 138 37 96.702042 Bureaus 1 2 9 3 11 1904 2227 40 33 93.275215 of5 1 2 9 3 12 1961 2226 126 34 92.924377 Stand-4 1 2 9 4 0 760 2277 1328 47 -1 5 1 2 9 4 1 760 2283 87 39 96.841011 ards5 1 2 9 4 2 862 2283 85 39 96.323036 who5 1 2 9 4 3 954 2293 69 23 96.323036 was5 1 2 9 4 4 1038 2283 130 33 96.576447 offered5 1 2 9 4 5 1182 2293 38 22 96.576447 as5 1 2 9 4 6 1236 2286 44 28 96.972511 an5 1 2 9 4 7 1295 2286 121 38 94.496941 experts 1 2 9 4 8 1431 2281 137 33 94.496941 witness5 1 2 9 4 9 1582 2292 45 21 96.439590 on5 1 2 9 4 10 1641 2279 81 34 96.591133 thes 1 2 9 4 11 1714 2289 88 22 96.873245 issues 1 2 9 4 12 1818 2278 38 33 96.602646 of5 1 2 9 4 13 1870 2278 67 33 97.017517 tires 1 2 9 4 14 1951 2277 137 43 96.980858 testing,4 1 2 9 5 0 765 2325 1325 68 -1 5 1 2 9 5 1 765 2337 36 29 96.971771 to5 1 2 9 5 2 823 2334 94 33 96.570335 shows 1 2 9 5 3 938 2334 81 37 83.928856 that:5 1 2 9 5 4 1036 2333 67 33 83.928856 tires 1 2 9 5 5 1124 2337 84 29 96.452927 tests5 1 2 9 5 6 1231 2334 103 31 95.475204 made5 1 2 9 5 7 1351 2344 45 21 84.579170 on5 1 2 9 5 8 1417 2343 63 22 93.852119 ones 1 2 9 5 9 1501 2332 86 33 96.582436 roads 1 2 9 5 10 1607 2331 136 40 96.058502 surfaces 1 2 9 5 11 1763 2340 60 22 96.058502 ares 1 2 9 5 12 1843 2332 60 30 96.687088 not5 1 2 9 5 13 1924 2325 166 68 96.975349 adequate4 1 2 9 6 0 763 2381 1050 65 -1 5 1 2 9 6 1 763 2388 38 29 96.498421 to5 1 2 9 6 2 812 2385 228 32 96.560867 demonstrates 1 2 9 6 3 1052 2384 67 32 96.915726 tires 1 2 9 6 4 1131 2384 242 52 95.438461 performances 1 2 9 6 5 1384 2394 48 22 95.438461 on.5 1 2 9 6 6 1441 2384 97 62 96.961189 others 1 2 9 6 7 1553 2382 84 34 96.526955 roads 1 2 9 6 8 1650 2381 163 34 96.660194 surfaces.2 1 3 0 0 0 766 2449 402 44 -1 3 1 3 1 0 0 766 2449 402 44 -1 4 1 3 1 1 0 766 2449 402 44 -1 5 1 3 1 1 1 766 2453 27 30 94.594872 1.5 1 3 1 1 2 816 2450 247 43 0.000000 Respondent's5 1 3 1 1 3 1088 2449 80 35 96.111336 Test2 1 4 0 0 0 764 2492 1329 269 -1 3 1 4 1 0 0 764 2492 1329 269 -1 4 1 4 1 1 0 804 2492 1284 62 -1 5 1 4 1 1 1 804 2509 198 44 96.218086 According5 1 4 1 1 2 1024 2513 36 41 96.218086 to5 1 4 1 1 3 1083 2510 59 32 96.870560 thes 1 4 1 1 4 1165 2509 222 33 96.491898 uncontested5 1 4 1 1 5 1409 2509 171 37 96.320244 evidences 1 4 1 1 6 1591 2508 36 33 96.320244 in5 1 4 1 1 7 1649 2508 59 32 93.658623 thes 1 4 1 1 8 1731 2506 128 41 93.658623 record,5 1 4 1 1 9 1882 2492 206 62 96.877228 respondent4 1 4 1 2 0 764 2559 1326 44 -1 5 1 4 1 2 1 764 2560 189 33 82.355042 conducted5 1 4 1 2 2 976 2564 58 29 93.305809 tens 1 4 1 2 3 1057 2560 233 42 94.122330 comparative5 1 4 1 2 4 1313 2560 165 43 96.507248 stopping5 1 4 1 2 5 1501 2559 153 34 97.008759 distances 1 4 1 2 6 1676 2561 83 30 95.334625 tests5 1 4 1 2 7 1775 2569 52 21 95.334625 on5 1 4 1 2 8 1849 2560 65 30 96.647331 wet5 1 4 1 2 9 1937 2554 153 35 96.238335 concrete4 1 4 1 3 0 767 2608 1326 45 -1 5 1 4 1 3 1 767 2612 98 32 96.219589 “skids 1 4 1 3 2 886 2612 107 41 95.604050 pads”5 1 4 1 3 3 1015 2612 130 41 96.278465 having5 1 4 1 3 4 1165 2623 21 21 96.631859 a5 1 4 1 3 5 1207 2611 181 33 22.826813 coefficient5 1 4 1 3 6 1407 2612 40 32 96.924095 of5 1 4 1 3 7 1468 2611 143 33 96.410881 friction5 1 4 1 3 8 1631 2611 93 31 90.853607 from5 1 4 1 3 9 1745 2612 48 29 90.853607 .155 1 4 1 3 10 1814 2612 36 29 93.094101 to5 1 4 1 3 11 1871 2611 59 30 92.691628 .20.5 1 4 1 3 12 1959 2600 83 50 93.134041 (CX5 1 4 1 3 13 2062 2608 31 40 75.348221 %,4 1 4 1 4 0 767 2659 1326 46 -1 5 1 4 1 4 1 767 2663 68 42 96.630196 20.)5 1 4 1 4 2 861 2662 74 34 96.321625 Ones 1 4 1 4 3 952 2666 50 29 96.404182 sets 1 4 1 4 4 1018 2663 40 32 96.438766 of5 1 4 1 4 5 1075 2662 180 33 96.186592 Firestone5 1 4 1 4 6 1271 2662 103 35 96.777916 Wide5 1 4 1 4 7 1391 2662 90 34 96.891174 Oval5 1 4 1 4 8 1497 2662 85 33 96.874397 tires5 1 4 1 4 9 1598 2672 69 22 96.230698 was5 1 4 1 4 10 1684 2660 108 32 95.956017 tested5 1 4 1 4 11 1810 2659 136 43 95.956017 against5 1 4 1 4 12 1963 2670 62 21 97.012199 ones 1 4 1 4 13 2041 2661 52 30 97.012199 seta 1 4 1 5 0 769 2710 1324 51 -1 5 1 4 1 5 1 769 2714 40 32 95.987915 of5 1 4 1 5 2 826 2713 177 34 95.987915 Firestone5 1 4 1 5 3 1018 2713 113 48 96.755142 Super5 1 4 1 5 4 1148 2713 124 47 96.983047 Sports5 1 4 1 5 5 1287 2714 99 41 96.885262 tires;5 1 4 1 5 6 1403 2714 61 32 96.956665 thes 1 4 1 5 7 1478 2714 81 32 96.934723 loads 1 4 1 5 8 1576 2713 68 32 96.792221 ands 1 4 1 5 9 1660 2710 158 34 96.761841 inflation5 1 4 1 5 10 1834 2716 156 36 96.854477 pressures 1 4 1 5 11 2005 2720 88 22 96.940865 were *“PIRESTONE “TIRE AND RUBBER’ COL | 445 398-° Opinion kept the same for both sets. (Tr. 275, CX 7, 20.) All the test’ runs were made at 15 miles an hour, the wheels were locked as in‘ an emergency stop, and. the relative stopping distances. were measured and averaged for both sets of tires. (Oral Arg. Tr. 72-93, CX 7, 20. ) The test runs revealed an average stopping distance of 15. 8 feet for the narrow tire, and 53. 2 feet for the Wide Oval tire, or a gredter average stopping ability of 29. 8 percent for the Wide Oval. (CX 20. ) 2. Dr. Brenner's Testimony _ Complaint counsel ‘offered the testimony of Dr. F. Cecil Brenner, Chief of the Tire System Section of the National Bureau of Stand- . ards, in order to establish the limited nature of the tests conducted by respondent and the: difficulties of applying the results of a test made under one set of conditions to other types of conditions. Dr. Brenner téstified that the particular coefficient of friction (.15 to .20) for the road surface used in respondent’s Wide Oval test was equivalent to “glare ice” and was not typical of roads in the United States. (Tr. 278.) * He opined that respondent’s test data would not correlate with many common road surfaces in the United States. (Tr... 285.) Further, he explicitly stated his opinion that respondent’s test. data did not show that its tires would react in the same relative way on dry surfaces as they had on wet. (Tr. 280.) When asked for the basis for this opinion Dr. Brenner stated :

In the course of my duties, * * * we have tested several hundred tires using vehicles such as this and other devices on a variety of surfaces. The particular surface that gives the poorest relationship with normal surfaces is the smooth surface of this coefficient, or approximately this coefficient of friction. We can find a tire that looks very good on that surface that will look quite bad relative to other tires on other surfaces that are more typical of normal use, of normal pavement. (Tr. 280-81.) 5 He further testified on the basis of tests he had supervised not only that the comparative performance of tires tested on a smooth and a rough surface may not stay fixed, but that indeed the tire relation- 4He agreed on cross examination that this coefficient of friction might approximate certain other types of road conditions such as “bleeding” asphalt and traffic control paint. (Tr. 295.) He also testified that there is no “typical” road surface in the country because there are a whole spectrum of surfaces, each with its own characteristics which can affect stopping capabilities. (Tr. 315.) 5 Dr. Brenner again made this observation when testifying later as to a particular tire test he supervised for the National Highway Safety Bureau. The test results had shown, he said, that:

The one surface that gave the poorest correlation agreement with all other surfaces was our artificially smooth surface. * * * We found very low correlation between thé behavior of tires on that surface with concrete and the other three asphaltic surfaces, (Tr. 334.) 446 FEDERAL. TRADE. COMMISSION ; DECISIONS Opinion 7 81 ET.C.

ships -may.. even: reverse.® When asked .the. explanation. for; this phe: nomenon,, Dr. Brenner replied :. : fote ates Well, this. isa. complex: problem. It: chas: to; do: with: the -yelationship * ER GE the: way.:in ;which the rubber at the: contact ‘patch:is deformed—interaets.-with the surface, Now - the fact that you have two coefficients of. friction, measured by any one of the techniques that are equal,. the texture could e quite. different. Now if you have: a’ sharp’ pointed’ aggregate on‘the other surface,’ the’ way ‘that. the tire is. distortéd at: those ‘points: is quite differernt;-and the ‘rubber may react in different ways in these cases. (Tr. 328, 330.) ae ‘ it .

F: OR #, + the chemidtey’ “Of-6 surface), material is different and ‘therefore t the‘forces of adhesion: between: the..tire.and the: surface. , /will,,bé, different, ‘and “nie is: one ance tests; Dr. sareatieny took into account the: numerous variables which he testified affect, the stopping performance of. tires.” 7 In response to questions on cross examination by respondent’s counsel, Dr. Brenner also set forth his opinion as to the effect of one particular factor, tire width, on the stopping performance of tires. Specifically, Dr. Brenner was asked by respondent’s counsel for his views on ‘whether the extra width of respondent’s Wide Oval tire was one factor causing ‘the tire to stop faster. The following colloquy, then took place:

| Dr. Brenner:

“A: Lhave a view that it [the extra width] would have an effect on it—it would be a more pronounced effect on dry surfaces than on wet; the effect on wet, and especially at these low coefficients would—it is not that clear.

* * % ne * we ° These tests, run. with about sixty-five sets of tires on 5 different surfaces, had been conducted for the National Highway Safety Bureau. 7 His tests, which were conducted to measure the performance of regrooved bus tires, Were run with tires having differing tread. design. and. tread groove depths at varying speeds (20, 40, and 50 miles per hour) on three surfaces (worn concrete and coarse and fine graded asphaltic concrete) with coefficients of friction ranging from .24 to 45. (RX 6, at 6, 10; Tr. 320.) -WRESTONE TIRE’ AND RUBBER CO: _ 447 398 : Opinion “Q: In other words, the physics of the tread width, you mean if its wider there is more rubber in ‘contact’ with the road? ~ A: Yes. But the unit pressures are ‘less. | ~ Q: Well, Iguess that if there is more'rubber on the road it: stands to reason ‘that at least’ on’ a’ dry surface ‘when you don’t get hydroplaning’ *-*%* the more rubber on the road, the quicker you'll stop! g A: Yes, in this situation. :

Q: So that j in your view the fact that: the Firestone wide oval tire tésted in: Exhibit 7 is two inches wider *-*'* might have more. significance-on 4 dry pavement than tt does on a wet paveinatit described here? : . bower, on ‘A: It would have significanice. (Tr 341-42, ): Poy! Dr. Brenner further: testified that due to the numerous factors af: fecting-1 the relationship of one tire’ with another, one does not know: how:a particular tire ‘will: compare’ ‘with another sinless | one runs tests and ‘that if is-ari ‘accepted’ practice to make whatever extrapolations and interpolations: are reasonable: =rera such’ tests. (Tr. B44, yo 3. Respondent's. Argument; .

Respondent’s. argument is a. simple 0 one. .. Respondent argues ‘that ‘Dr: Brenner’ 's single (and somewhat ambiguous) statement that the effect of the broader tire width would be “more pronounced” on dry than on wet surfaces constitutes a complete justification for its claim that its test results on wet hazardous surfaces can be scientifically extrapolated, to apply equally to all surfaces, _ Respondent.argues that it is normal for scientists to: make extrapolations and deductions from actual tests and it was appropriate and scientifically valid to do so here. (Resp. App. Br., 12.) We do not agree, We do not believe that a fair reading of Dr. Brenner’s testimony i in its entirety supports respondent’s contentions as to the proper implications which can be scientifically drawn from its narrow hazardous surface test. Dr. Brenner was asked direct questions on the precise issue of correlating tire performance under one set of conditions. with tire performance under a different set of conditions and testified in response that it was virtually impossible to correlate performance because of the many variables involved.

His testimony reveals that the variables affecting tire performance range from the type of road surface involved, to the type and construction of the tire in terms of the kind of rubber ‘used, to the type of tread and its width, plus many other factors. He specifically denied the applicability of the results of respondent’s tests to road surfaces with different friction coefficients. He testified that in conducting perform- 448 FEDERAL: TRADE COMMISSION - DECISIONS Opinion - 81 FVL.C.

ance test.of tires, he himself employed road surfaces of several friction coefficients and textures and tested at varying: speeds.® At one point in 5 1 4 1 1 2 772 719 55 32 96.570412 his5 1 4 1 1 3 837 720 183 42 96.725113 testimony5 1 4 1 1 4 1032 721 44 32 96.482979 he5 1 4 1 1 5 1088 733 87 30 96.760887 gave5 1 4 1 1 6 1187 731 37 24 96.786003 as5 1 4 1 1 7 1237 722 53 33 96.211517 his5 1 4 1 1 8 1302 723 223 42 96.307617 unequivocal5 1 4 1 1 9 1537 725 142 51 96.922668 opinions 1 4 1 1 10 1687 726 82 37 96.518082 that5 1 4 1 1 11 1780 726 28 37 96.780823 it5 1 4 1 1 12 1819 738 69 22 96.929604 was5 1 4 1 1 13 1900 728 197 44 96.058357 impossible2 1 5 0 0 0 760 773 1357 810 -1 3 1 5 1 0 0 765 773 1352 192 -1 4 1 5 1 1 0 765 773 1331 58 -1 5 1 5 1 1 1 765 774 37 29 96.115089 to5 1 5 1 1 2 822 782 131 27 96.115089 assumes 1 5 1 1 3 971 773 78 37 94.691261 that5 1 5 1 1 4 1069 784 19 21 94.691261 a5 1 5 1 1 5 1108 773 67 38 94.813080 tires 1 5 1 1 6 1195 774 219 57 96.853195 performing5 1 5 1 1 7 1432 775 111 32 96.383163 better5 1 5 1 1 8 1563 787 85 21 44.522205 ona.5 1 5 1 1 9 1668 778 135 39 93.447838 smooth5 1 5 1 1 10 1823 778 137 35 96.476151 surfaces 1 5 1 1 11 1981 775 115 37 96.476151 would4 1 5 1 2 0 765 821 1352 53 -1 5 1 5 1 2 1 765 821 176 38 25.487167 maintains 1 5 1 2 2 948 833 44 22 25.487167 an5 1 5 1 2 3 1006 823 172 33 96.356949 identical5 1 5 1 2 4 1182 824 157 43 96.356949 superiors 1 5 1 2 5 1352 825 228 43 92.762680 relationships 1 5 1 2 6 1594 837 79 25 91.721794 on.a5 1 5 1 2 7 1686 827 137 36 96.114922 surfaces 1 5 1 2 8 1837 828 85 37 96.835381 with5 1 5 1 2 9 1936 841 21 21 96.972443 a5 1 5 1 2 10 1971 830 125 47 55.377403 higher5 1 5 1 2 11 2115 872 2 2 0.000000 —4 1 5 1 3 0 766 871 1330 51 -1 5 1 5 1 3 1 766 871 143 47 96.196022 friction5 1 5 1 3 2 922 873 190 42 94.632324 coefficient.5 1 5 1 3 3 1127 875 132 39 96.712967 Indeed5 1 5 1 3 4 1272 875 43 36 96.719429 he5 1 5 1 3 5 1327 875 127 43 96.302422 opined5 1 5 1 3 6 1468 873 78 36 96.715530 that5 1 5 1 3 7 1560 887 25 22 95.732529 a5 1 5 1 3 8 1595 887 132 32 95.732529 reverses 1 5 1 3 9 1740 878 227 44 96.992714 relationships 1 5 1 3 10 1982 875 114 47 96.442627 might4 1 5 1 4 0 765 932 142 33 -1 5 1 5 1 4 1 765 932 142 33 96.511009 emerge.3 1 5 2 0 0 760 935 1336 643 -1 4 1 5 2 1 0 784 935 1311 91 -1 5 1 5 2 1 1 784 1001 2 4 83.894089 _5 1 5 2 1 2 806 972 168 39 96.983482 Viewed5 1 5 2 1 3 965 985 38 21 96.596260 in5 1 5 2 1 4 1019 974 60 43 96.190872 thes 1 5 2 1 5 1097 979 89 33 96.247070 most5 1 5 2 1 6 1195 975 190 44 96.659416 favorable5 1 5 2 1 7 1404 976 91 44 96.521805 lights 1 5 2 1 8 1515 965 62 51 96.521805 for5 1 5 2 1 9 1591 935 235 91 7.757996 respondent's5 1 5 2 1 10 1845 969 191 54 92.039940 argument,5 1 5 2 1 11 2057 985 38 29 95.940567 at4 1 5 2 2 0 764 1001 1330 70 -1 5 1 5 2 2 1 764 1001 74 58 96.742371 best5 1 5 2 2 2 850 1023 61 42 93.250069 Dr.5 1 5 2 2 3 925 1014 182 52 91.391693 Brenner’s5 1 5 2 2 4 1120 1025 116 43 96.494057 singles 1 5 2 2 5 1243 1029 154 30 96.558273 sentences 1 5 2 2 6 1405 1027 112 38 96.736320 relied5 1 5 2 2 7 1530 1039 93 31 96.625992 upon5 1 5 2 2 8 1635 1028 46 43 96.825401 by5 1 5 2 2 9 1695 1031 229 40 96.534286 respondents 1 5 2 2 10 1915 1042 31 22 95.005829 is5 1 5 2 2 11 1959 1043 19 21 93.128883 a5 1 5 2 2 12 1991 1034 103 35 93.041412 state-4 1 5 2 3 0 769 1073 1325 50 -1 5 1 5 2 3 1 769 1070 100 42 94.948341 ments 1 5 2 3 2 877 1073 76 39 95.802689 that5 1 5 2 3 3 968 1074 59 36 96.596016 thes 1 5 2 3 4 1042 1074 110 38 96.964294 widths 1 5 2 3 5 1167 1076 49 35 24.092690 of5 1 5 2 3 6 1222 1087 20 23 24.092690 a5 1 5 2 3 7 1257 1076 90 33 94.971581 tires 1 5 2 3 8 1338 1088 29 21 94.971581 is5 1 5 2 3 9 1383 1088 63 27 96.971626 ones 1 5 2 3 10 1462 1077 113 36 96.918716 factors 1 5 2 3 11 1590 1079 163 42 96.409126 affecting5 1 5 2 3 12 1765 1079 60 34 96.950874 thes 1 5 2 3 13 1839 1081 164 42 92.613853 stopping5 1 5 2 3 14 2017 1092 77 31 92.565865 per-4 1 5 2 4 0 765 1124 1328 48 -1 5 1 5 2 4 1 765 1124 176 34 96.695045 formance5 1 5 2 4 2 952 1125 41 33 96.695045 of5 1 5 2 4 3 1005 1136 20 22 83.400208 a5 1 5 2 4 4 1037 1125 68 34 93.573845 tires 1 5 2 4 5 1117 1124 69 35 96.950768 ands 1 5 2 4 6 1199 1130 37 30 96.790565 to5 1 5 2 4 7 1249 1128 58 33 96.790565 thes 1 5 2 4 8 1321 1131 117 30 96.033318 extent5 1 5 2 4 9 1450 1129 72 32 96.957893 this5 1 5 2 4 10 1535 1140 63 21 96.423737 ones 1 5 2 4 11 1612 1130 115 32 96.423737 factors 1 5 2 4 12 1739 1130 47 42 96.901810 by5 1 5 2 4 13 1800 1131 96 33 96.921608 itself5 1 5 2 4 14 1911 1132 182 41 96.217346 influences4 1 5 2 5 0 763 1173 1330 51 -1 5 1 5 2 5 1 763 1174 166 43 96.491867 stopping5 1 5 2 5 2 947 1173 251 45 0.000000 performance,5 1 5 2 5 3 1217 1177 71 33 0.000000 -this5 1 5 2 5 4 1309 1178 172 40 96.493118 influences 1 5 2 5 5 1496 1180 114 36 96.488533 would5 1 5 2 5 6 1622 1180 50 32 96.488533 be5 1 5 2 5 7 1692 1192 104 25 47.742706 more:5 1 5 2 5 8 1801 1183 225 41 47.742706 pronounced5 1 5 2 5 9 2048 1194 45 21 95.876732 on4 1 5 2 6 0 771 1224 1323 49 -1 5 1 5 2 6 1 771 1224 81 43 96.858398 dry5 1 5 2 6 2 852 1225 86 37 96.209610 than5 1 5 2 6 3 954 1236 51 31 91.640388 on5 1 5 2 6 4 1012 1226 88 32 90.374115 wet*5 1 5 2 6 5 1119 1227 153 37 90.674011 surfaces5 1 5 2 6 6 1288 1239 39 29 96.767487 or5 1 5 2 6 7 1344 1232 37 30 96.943253 at5 1 5 2 6 8 1397 1229 87 34 85.238945 least5 1 5 2 6 9 1498 1230 115 36 94.903679 would5 1 5 2 6 10 1629 1221 87 48 96.756065 have5 1 5 2 6 11 1732 1231 220 42 96.956078 significance5 1 5 2 6 12 1966 1244 45 30 73.514435 on,5 1 5 2 6 13 2024 1238 70 29 68.956078 wet4 1 5 2 7 0 762 1260 1331 65 -1 5 1 5 2 7 1 762 1270 162 52 84.194176 surfaces.5 1 5 2 7 2 947 1264 82 55 88.818039 (Tr,5 1 5 2 7 3 1044 1260 148 64 86.965622 341-43.)5 1 5 2 7 4 1213 1279 131 37 95.145035 Indeed5 1 5 2 7 5 1360 1291 38 28 89.984428 as5 1 5 2 7 6 1414 1283 80 39 90.459259 parts 1 5 2 7 7 1510 1281 40 39 97.010223 of5 1 5 2 7 8 1564 1281 64 37 96.453934 thes 1 5 2 7 9 1639 1292 91 31 96.636711 same5 1 5 2 7 10 1745 1286 156 39 96.302696 sentences 1 5 2 7 11 1918 1295 45 24 96.396584 on5 1 5 2 7 12 1979 1283 114 37 96.554245 which4 1 5 2 8 0 763 1327 1333 48 -1 5 1 5 2 8 1 763 1327 207 41 72.395844 respondent.5 1 5 2 8 2 981 1327 121 42 73.913345 places5 1 5 2 8 3 1121 1329 84 40 96.645493 such5 1 5 2 8 4 1224 1329 113 42 96.251732 majors 1 5 2 8 5 1357 1330 301 44 96.086655 reliance5 1 5 2 8 6 1519 1323 57 56 93.602104 for5 1 5 2 8 7 1594 1323 61 56 82.193413 its5 1 5 2 8 8 1669 1331 162 43 95.271538 position,5 1 5 2 8 9 1851 1334 62 33 95.901100 Dr.5 1 5 2 8 10 1937 1334 159 41 96.583603 Brenner4 1 5 2 9 0 763 1371 1329 53 -1 5 1 5 2 9 1 763 1367 135 56 43.647942 offered,5 1 5 2 9 2 908 1377 52 33 43.647942 thes 1 5 2 9 3 979 1377 92 33 20.291542 view:5 1 5 2 9 4 1080 1379 80 32 68.265762 that5 1 5 2 9 5 1172 1379 60 33 96.708084 thes 1 5 2 9 6 1248 1380 99 33 96.752335 effects 1 5 2 9 7 1363 1381 40 36 96.695251 of5 1 5 2 9 8 1418 1381 60 32 96.282402 thes 1 5 2 9 9 1492 1385 98 33 96.599182 extras 1 5 2 9 10 1605 1382 111 33 96.530327 widths 1 5 2 9 11 1732 1382 51 37 96.399879 “is5 1 5 2 9 12 1798 1388 62 34 96.587486 not5 1 5 2 9 13 1875 1384 79 36 87.378960 that.5 1 5 2 9 14 1969 1384 123 40 87.378960 clear.”4 1 5 2 10 0 762 1426 1330 50 -1 5 1 5 2 10 1 762 1426 162 42 96.568451 Further,5 1 5 2 10 2 942 1428 62 38 85.236534 Dr.5 1 5 2 10 3 1011 1428 170 37 96.219826 Brenner5 1 5 2 10 4 1199 1441 70 21 96.785805 was5 1 5 2 10 5 1288 1431 129 42 96.874146 merely5 1 5 2 10 6 1436 1431 105 33 95.971100 asked5 1 5 2 10 7 1559 1432 44 35 78.493835 if5 1 5 2 10 8 1609 1433 44 38 78.493835 he5 1 5 2 10 9 1671 1433 71 32 96.759903 had5 1 5 2 10 10 1761 1431 89 45 95.689575 “any5 1 5 2 10 11 1869 1434 108 33 14.176575 view’.5 1 5 2 10 12 1995 1440 97 33 14.176575 as,to4 1 5 2 11 0 761 1476 1331 53 -1 5 1 5 2 11 1 761 1476 60 33 96.591827 thes 1 5 2 11 2 838 1477 100 33 96.591827 effects 1 5 2 11 3 955 1476 77 34 96.711685 that5 1 5 2 11 4 1050 1479 68 33 96.969200 tires 1 5 2 11 5 1136 1479 111 33 96.380165 widths 1 5 2 11 6 1267 1482 114 32 95.792564 would5 1 5 2 11 7 1402 1482 87 33 96.337845 have5 1 5 2 11 8 1509 1494 44 21 96.337845 on5 1 5 2 11 9 1573 1482 166 50 96.694733 stopping5 1 5 2 11 10 1758 1484 179 47 96.704300 distances,5 1 5 2 11 11 1960 1486 67 41 96.685555 ands 1 5 2 11 12 2047 1487 45 31 96.685555 he4 1 5 2 12 0 760 1527 1330 56 -1 5 1 5 2 12 1 760 1538 88 34 96.986771 gave5 1 5 2 12 2 859 1527 55 40 96.995674 his5 1 5 2 12 3 927 1528 116 33 96.769966 rather5 1 5 2 12 4 1055 1530 177 41 96.878296 equivocal5 1 5 2 12 5 1245 1530 138 39 96.701492 “view.”5 1 5 2 12 6 1396 1533 58 37 96.745132 He5 1 5 2 12 7 1462 1543 74 31 96.831985 was5 1 5 2 12 8 1548 1530 62 36 96.470932 not5 1 5 2 12 9 1623 1533 113 33 96.470932 asked5 1 5 2 12 10 1740 1534 37 33 96.845772 if5 1 5 2 12 11 1785 1535 71 32 96.932381 this5 1 5 2 12 12 1870 1529 71 54 96.874664 was5 1 5 2 12 13 1954 1535 136 45 91.119087 equiva-2 1 6 0 0 0 746 1577 1345 101 -1 3 1 6 1 0 0 746 1577 1345 101 -1 4 1 6 1 1 0 746 1577 1345 58 -1 5 1 6 1 1 1 746 1577 87 42 70.116951 lent.5 1 6 1 1 2 849 1578 37 32 70.116951 to5 1 6 1 1 3 904 1590 20 27 92.906837 a5 1 6 1 1 4 940 1578 238 57 94.853806 scientifically5 1 6 1 1 5 1196 1581 96 33 97.001183 valid5 1 6 1 1 6 1310 1572 266 53 96.886871 extrapolation,5 1 6 1 1 7 1596 1584 97 33 96.771042 ands 1 6 1 1 8 1683 1584 42 40 96.645264 in5 1 6 1 1 9 1739 1584 92 47 96.545204 lights 1 6 1 1 10 1849 1577 50 46 96.925964 of5 1 6 1 1 11 1907 1586 63 37 72.425064 his5 1 6 1 1 12 1981 1586 110 39 72.425064 entire4 1 6 1 2 0 751 1627 1339 51 -1 5 1 6 1 2 1 751 1623 223 48 69.423904 ‘testimony,5 1 6 1 2 2 968 1629 52 39 96.765434 it5 1 6 1 2 3 1017 1641 24 21 96.808472 is5 1 6 1 2 4 1055 1629 172 35 92.902428 doubtful5 1 6 1 2 5 1233 1630 153 35 92.902428 whether5 1 6 1 2 6 1399 1633 44 32 96.370445 he5 1 6 1 2 7 1456 1635 115 31 96.812492 would5 1 6 1 2 8 1585 1635 88 32 96.700493 have5 1 6 1 2 9 1687 1636 125 41 95.291763 agreed5 1 6 1 2 10 1827 1632 91 36 93.294777 with5 1 6 1 2 11 1927 1632 163 46 91.856232 respond-2 1 7 0 0 0 760 1678 1331 550 -1 3 1 7 1 0 0 760 1678 1331 345 -1 4 1 7 1 1 0 761 1678 1329 50 -1 5 1 7 1 1 1 761 1678 85 32 92.972557 ent’s5 1 7 1 1 2 862 1680 135 31 96.965248 counsels 1 7 1 1 3 1012 1680 81 32 51.686699 that.5 1 7 1 1 4 1104 1681 56 33 51.686699 his5 1 7 1 1 5 1175 1681 88 33 96.256363 views 1 7 1 1 6 1278 1684 206 40 96.256363 expressed5 1 7 1 1 7 1475 1695 37 21 96.952286 in5 1 7 1 1 8 1529 1695 159 31 96.736916 responses 1 7 1 1 9 1704 1689 36 29 96.917397 to5 1 7 1 1 10 1757 1697 21 21 96.434784 a5 1 7 1 1 11 1794 1686 123 42 96.399651 simple5 1 7 1 1 12 1934 1687 156 41 96.760071 question4 1 7 1 2 0 761 1730 1330 48 -1 5 1 7 1 2 1 761 1730 216 40 96.376808 represented5 1 7 1 2 2 994 1730 55 34 96.062988 his5 1 7 1 2 3 1067 1731 185 33 96.252762 “scientific5 1 7 1 2 4 1270 1733 202 42 96.460274 judgment”5 1 7 1 2 5 1492 1746 37 21 96.701378 as5 1 7 1 2 6 1547 1738 36 40 96.766205 to5 1 7 1 2 7 1601 1735 59 33 96.864586 thes 1 7 1 2 8 1679 1746 99 31 96.359848 scope5 1 7 1 2 9 1798 1737 112 32 96.359848 which5 1 7 1 2 10 1930 1738 99 32 96.442024 could5 1 7 1 2 11 2050 1749 41 21 96.442024 or4 1 7 1 3 0 760 1778 1330 52 -1 5 1 7 1 3 1 760 1778 124 34 96.839188 should5 1 7 1 3 2 910 1782 164 41 96.667999 properly5 1 7 1 3 3 1099 1782 42 32 96.924049 be5 1 7 1 3 4 1168 1782 189 34 96.197952 attributed5 1 7 1 3 5 1384 1788 37 28 92.769005 to5 1 7 1 3 6 1448 1785 234 42 92.624657 respondent’s5 1 7 1 3 7 1708 1789 67 29 95.967316 tests 1 7 1 3 8 1802 1788 132 32 95.967316 results.5 1 7 1 3 9 1962 1788 54 42 96.354263 By5 1 7 1 3 10 2044 1800 46 21 96.354263 no4 1 7 1 4 0 760 1830 1329 48 -1 5 1 7 1 4 1 760 1830 128 31 96.723862 stretch5 1 7 1 4 2 900 1830 39 33 96.682182 of5 1 7 1 4 3 950 1831 59 32 96.699287 thes 1 7 1 4 4 1020 1830 228 44 96.656242 imagination5 1 7 1 4 5 1261 1845 63 21 96.569626 cans 1 7 1 4 6 1337 1835 62 32 93.267509 Dr.5 1 7 1 4 7 1414 1836 181 32 91.317261 Brenner’s5 1 7 1 4 8 1608 1836 185 42 96.781380 testimony5 1 7 1 4 9 1807 1837 103 32 96.591370 about5 1 7 1 4 10 1924 1839 58 32 93.293114 thes 1 7 1 4 11 1994 1839 95 32 93.269882 theo-4 1 7 1 5 0 760 1879 1330 50 -1 5 1 7 1 5 1 760 1879 119 32 37.662361 retical5 1 7 1 5 2 900 1882 272 33 96.271996 reasonableness5 1 7 1 5 3 1193 1884 39 33 96.554230 of5 1 7 1 5 4 1252 1884 144 43 96.554230 making5 1 7 1 5 5 1417 1896 90 22 96.743233 some5 1 7 1 5 6 1528 1887 253 42 96.423019 extrapolation5 1 7 1 5 7 1804 1888 91 32 95.938690 from5 1 7 1 5 8 1917 1888 67 33 95.938690 tires 1 7 1 5 9 2005 1893 85 29 96.977898 tests4 1 7 1 6 0 766 1928 1324 70 -1 5 1 7 1 6 1 766 1928 40 32 96.957100 be5 1 7 1 6 2 833 1930 81 33 95.436043 reads 1 7 1 6 3 942 1941 37 22 95.436043 as5 1 7 1 6 4 1006 1932 131 42 96.950287 stating5 1 7 1 6 5 1162 1933 77 32 93.267113 that5 1 7 1 6 6 1266 1935 233 41 92.623314 respondent’s5 1 7 1 6 7 1525 1937 190 41 96.092361 particulars 1 7 1 6 8 1741 1938 253 42 96.092361 extrapolation5 1 7 1 6 9 2019 1936 71 62 96.965881 was4 1 7 1 7 0 766 1958 373 84 -1 5 1 7 1 7 1 766 1976 235 66 96.275696 scientifically5 1 7 1 7 2 1019 1958 115 58 0.000000 valid.5 1 7 1 7 3 1127 1986 12 16 94.802864 93 1 7 2 0 0 761 2031 1329 197 -1 4 1 7 2 1 0 805 2031 1284 50 -1 5 1 7 2 1 1 805 2031 98 32 96.847359 Thes 1 7 2 1 2 894 2043 89 22 96.639008 issues 1 7 2 1 3 1000 2033 106 33 97.010849 here5 1 7 2 1 4 1097 2045 30 21 96.433601 is5 1 7 2 1 5 1144 2038 61 29 96.433601 not5 1 7 2 1 6 1222 2035 151 33 96.362160 whether5 1 7 2 1 7 1391 2037 197 33 96.739700 reasonable5 1 7 2 1 8 1605 2038 270 42 97.015739 extrapolations5 1 7 2 1 9 1891 2050 64 22 93.244339 cans 1 7 2 1 10 1971 2051 118 30 93.221939 gener-4 1 7 2 2 0 763 2082 1327 44 -1 5 1 7 2 2 1 763 2082 71 42 96.342400 ally5 1 7 2 2 2 847 2082 41 33 96.342400 be5 1 7 2 2 3 900 2083 99 33 96.100418 made5 1 7 2 2 4 1012 2083 93 33 96.100418 from5 1 7 2 2 5 1117 2084 66 32 96.724495 tires 1 7 2 2 6 1196 2085 239 41 96.120621 performances 1 7 2 2 7 1447 2090 92 29 96.893562 tests.5 1 7 2 2 8 1552 2088 73 31 96.928169 Nor5 1 7 2 2 9 1636 2088 29 31 96.997559 is5 1 7 2 2 10 1678 2088 57 31 96.967613 thes 1 7 2 2 11 1745 2088 90 32 96.933899 issues 1 7 2 2 12 1846 2088 80 33 96.389900 here5 1 7 2 2 13 1938 2088 152 33 96.234314 whether4 1 7 2 3 0 761 2133 1329 46 -1 5 1 7 2 3 1 761 2133 59 32 96.910812 thes 1 7 2 3 2 841 2134 109 33 96.859116 widths 1 7 2 3 3 973 2134 38 32 96.983864 of5 1 7 2 3 4 1032 2134 83 33 96.842796 tires5 1 7 2 3 5 1136 2135 119 32 96.223656 affects5 1 7 2 3 6 1276 2136 91 32 96.763390 theirs 1 7 2 3 7 1387 2136 166 43 96.577301 stopping5 1 7 2 3 8 1573 2136 214 42 96.580559 capabilities5 1 7 2 3 9 1808 2137 68 33 96.925201 ands 1 7 2 3 10 1897 2137 72 33 96.713898 will5 1 7 2 3 11 1990 2138 38 32 96.714966 be5 1 7 2 3 12 2050 2139 40 30 96.962463 of4 1 7 2 4 0 763 2184 1325 44 -1 5 1 7 2 4 1 763 2184 217 42 96.534744 significance5 1 7 2 4 2 994 2185 98 32 96.469383 when5 1 7 2 4 3 1106 2185 140 42 96.470833 applied5 1 7 2 4 4 1260 2189 36 29 95.902969 to5 1 7 2 4 5 1310 2190 66 28 96.494728 wet5 1 7 2 4 6 1390 2187 85 31 96.823364 roads 1 7 2 4 7 1489 2187 151 31 96.904358 surfaces5 1 7 2 4 8 1654 2198 39 20 96.521568 or5 1 7 2 4 9 1706 2190 36 28 97.006683 to5 1 7 2 4 10 1756 2187 67 41 96.745636 dry5 1 7 2 4 11 1837 2187 161 32 96.503365 surfaces.5 1 7 2 4 12 2013 2188 75 32 96.895401 The2 1 8 0 0 0 762 2261 1324 547 -1 3 1 8 1 0 0 764 2261 1322 263 -1 4 1 8 1 1 0 799 2261 1285 27 -1 5 1 8 1 1 1 799 2261 9 14 59.532898 §5 1 8 1 1 2 821 2261 165 26 95.079552 Respondents 1 8 1 1 3 998 2263 146 25 95.079552 accurately5 1 8 1 1 4 1158 2262 88 25 96.204323 points5 1 8 1 1 5 1260 2265 45 19 96.403854 outs 1 8 1 1 6 1319 2263 59 21 96.473297 that5 1 8 1 1 7 1391 2263 27 21 96.009003 in5 1 8 1 1 8 1433 2269 47 15 95.900269 ones 1 8 1 1 9 1495 2265 52 19 96.233276 tests 1 8 1 1 10 1560 2264 44 21 95.972359 Dr.5 1 8 1 1 11 1617 2263 116 21 96.893303 Brenner5 1 8 1 1 12 1746 2264 62 20 95.845596 used5 1 8 1 1 13 1822 2263 59 24 96.274216 only5 1 8 1 1 14 1895 2264 52 20 96.321846 wet5 1 8 1 1 15 1961 2264 123 21 96.072868 surfaces.4 1 8 1 2 0 766 2294 1320 28 -1 5 1 8 1 2 1 766 2294 39 21 96.183258 On5 1 8 1 2 2 820 2295 53 22 96.545311 this5 1 8 1 2 3 889 2296 97 24 96.370445 grounds 1 8 1 2 4 1003 2297 154 24 96.383553 respondents 1 8 1 2 5 1172 2302 93 20 96.352066 argues5 1 8 1 2 6 1280 2298 59 20 95.708603 that5 1 8 1 2 7 1355 2298 22 20 95.708603 it5 1 8 1 2 8 1392 2303 53 15 96.140869 was5 1 8 1 2 9 1462 2298 129 21 95.750511 therefore5 1 8 1 2 10 1606 2298 114 24 96.078568 justified5 1 8 1 2 11 1735 2297 28 21 96.192535 in5 1 8 1 2 12 1778 2298 113 24 95.912338 limiting5 1 8 1 2 13 1907 2298 36 20 96.878418 its5 1 8 1 2 14 1960 2303 54 15 96.572601 owns 1 8 1 2 15 2032 2299 54 20 96.808823 test4 1 8 1 3 0 766 2329 1320 27 -1 5 1 8 1 3 1 766 2329 27 21 95.290504 to5 1 8 1 3 2 807 2329 62 21 95.290504 such5 1 8 1 3 3 884 2330 122 21 95.996445 surfaces.5 1 8 1 3 4 1027 2331 68 24 96.192520 (Res.5 1 8 1 3 5 1110 2331 65 25 89.600288 App.5 1 8 1 3 6 1190 2331 51 25 89.600288 Br.,5 1 8 1 3 7 1259 2331 35 25 96.729927 8.)5 1 8 1 3 8 1314 2331 26 21 96.682747 It5 1 8 1 3 9 1354 2332 92 21 95.751793 should5 1 8 1 3 10 1462 2332 29 21 95.598877 be5 1 8 1 3 11 1505 2332 84 24 96.757416 noted,5 1 8 1 3 12 1606 2332 123 24 96.141930 however,5 1 8 1 3 13 1744 2331 61 22 96.786713 that5 1 8 1 3 14 1821 2331 42 21 93.030334 Dr.5 1 8 1 3 15 1880 2331 135 22 91.817482 Brenner’s5 1 8 1 3 16 2032 2334 54 19 96.904930 test4 1 8 1 4 0 764 2362 1321 29 -1 5 1 8 1 4 1 764 2367 54 16 94.871780 was5 1 8 1 4 2 831 2362 119 22 96.122597 intended5 1 8 1 4 3 964 2365 27 20 96.607796 to5 1 8 1 4 4 1004 2370 115 15 96.812431 measures 1 8 1 4 5 1133 2365 42 20 96.171516 thes 1 8 1 4 6 1189 2365 84 24 96.644913 safety5 1 8 1 4 7 1288 2366 27 20 95.776688 of5 1 8 1 4 8 1327 2366 46 20 96.937813 bus5 1 8 1 4 9 1387 2366 63 20 96.061050 tires5 1 8 1 4 10 1464 2367 51 19 96.778938 ands 1 8 1 4 11 1528 2368 45 19 96.102562 not5 1 8 1 4 12 1586 2366 41 21 96.864723 for5 1 8 1 4 13 1640 2371 44 15 96.707115 uses 1 8 1 4 14 1698 2371 29 15 96.778160 as5 1 8 1 4 15 1741 2366 43 20 96.614136 thes 1 8 1 4 16 1798 2365 68 21 96.614136 basis5 1 8 1 4 17 1875 2363 46 23 96.491356 for5 1 8 1 4 18 1935 2371 15 15 96.683350 a5 1 8 1 4 19 1963 2367 122 24 96.087502 stopping4 1 8 1 5 0 766 2397 1319 27 -1 5 1 8 1 5 1 766 2397 74 20 95.416977 claims 1 8 1 5 2 856 2403 32 15 96.690865 on5 1 8 1 5 3 904 2398 34 20 95.873360 all5 1 8 1 5 4 955 2398 73 24 96.464661 types5 1 8 1 5 5 1045 2398 27 21 96.749680 of5 1 8 1 5 6 1088 2399 115 20 96.451866 surfaces5 1 8 1 5 7 1219 2404 29 16 96.769173 as5 1 8 1 5 8 1264 2405 52 15 93.289856 was5 1 8 1 5 9 1333 2400 177 24 92.563683 respondent’s5 1 8 1 5 10 1527 2401 59 20 96.506165 test.5 1 8 1 5 11 1603 2400 187 24 94.833046 Furthermore,5 1 8 1 5 12 1809 2399 70 21 96.626480 aside5 1 8 1 5 13 1894 2400 68 20 96.619431 from5 1 8 1 5 14 1979 2401 43 20 95.318626 thes 1 8 1 5 15 2032 2406 53 16 91.554855 use4 1 8 1 6 0 765 2430 1321 29 -1 5 1 8 1 6 1 765 2430 28 21 96.776581 of5 1 8 1 6 2 808 2432 50 20 96.402245 wet5 1 8 1 6 3 874 2432 123 25 96.390419 surfaces,5 1 8 1 6 4 1015 2432 42 21 93.270134 Dr.5 1 8 1 6 5 1076 2433 136 21 92.129822 Brenner’s5 1 8 1 6 6 1229 2433 53 21 96.867943 tests 1 8 1 6 7 1298 2433 88 22 96.628853 varied5 1 8 1 6 8 1404 2434 100 25 96.628853 greatly5 1 8 1 6 9 1521 2434 66 21 93.285912 from5 1 8 1 6 10 1604 2433 177 25 90.543381 respondent’s5 1 8 1 6 11 1799 2434 58 24 93.273308 test,5 1 8 1 6 12 1875 2433 50 25 0.000000 4.¢.,5 1 8 1 6 13 1943 2434 26 21 94.847305 in5 1 8 1 6 14 1987 2435 99 24 94.847305 testing4 1 8 1 7 0 764 2465 1321 28 -1 5 1 8 1 7 1 764 2466 29 19 96.603661 at5 1 8 1 7 2 808 2465 121 21 96.280426 different5 1 8 1 7 3 944 2466 96 25 96.471291 speeds,5 1 8 1 7 4 1057 2472 34 16 96.353752 on5 1 8 1 7 5 1107 2472 16 16 96.110367 a5 1 8 1 7 6 1139 2467 101 25 96.279602 variety5 1 8 1 7 7 1257 2468 27 20 96.597702 of5 1 8 1 7 8 1300 2468 116 21 96.050575 surfaces5 1 8 1 7 9 1433 2469 51 19 96.725876 ands 1 8 1 7 10 1501 2469 64 20 96.725876 with5 1 8 1 7 11 1582 2468 63 21 96.020111 tires5 1 8 1 7 12 1664 2469 27 19 96.741837 of5 1 8 1 7 13 1708 2468 110 24 96.225281 varying5 1 8 1 7 14 1835 2469 72 19 95.838066 tread5 1 8 1 7 15 1927 2469 87 24 95.838066 designs 1 8 1 7 16 2032 2469 53 20 96.849350 anda 1 8 1 8 0 764 2500 187 24 -1 5 1 8 1 8 1 764 2504 92 19 88.711555 groove5 1 8 1 8 2 866 2500 85 24 95.303688 depth.3 1 8 2 0 0 762 2533 1323 233 -1 4 1 8 2 1 0 796 2533 1288 29 -1 5 1 8 2 1 1 796 2533 45 20 0.000000 It5 1 8 2 1 2 856 2533 92 22 96.059807 should5 1 8 2 1 3 963 2534 29 21 96.335014 be5 1 8 2 1 4 1008 2535 76 20 96.319672 noted5 1 8 2 1 5 1102 2535 25 20 96.243774 in5 1 8 2 1 6 1144 2535 53 21 96.136917 this5 1 8 2 1 7 1213 2536 151 21 96.269882 connections 1 8 2 1 8 1380 2536 60 21 96.825928 that5 1 8 2 1 9 1456 2536 45 21 96.978645 thes 1 8 2 1 10 1517 2536 107 25 96.718666 hearings 1 8 2 1 11 1639 2536 137 25 96.333336 examiner,5 1 8 2 1 12 1793 2536 57 21 96.537582 who5 1 8 2 1 13 1866 2536 50 21 96.488335 had5 1 8 2 1 14 1935 2536 43 21 93.250908 thes 1 8 2 1 15 1995 2542 89 20 92.896317 oppor-4 1 8 2 2 0 764 2566 1321 29 -1 5 1 8 2 2 1 764 2566 87 26 96.616913 tunity5 1 8 2 2 2 865 2568 27 20 96.704369 to5 1 8 2 2 3 906 2568 62 20 96.092110 hear5 1 8 2 2 4 982 2568 42 21 93.288406 Dr.5 1 8 2 2 5 1039 2569 136 21 91.735168 Brenner’s5 1 8 2 2 6 1190 2570 138 25 96.075645 testimony5 1 8 2 2 7 1342 2570 75 25 96.075645 given5 1 8 2 2 8 1431 2576 28 15 96.219986 as5 1 8 2 2 9 1474 2576 15 15 93.258858 a5 1 8 2 2 10 1503 2571 161 21 37.285332 ¢onsecutive5 1 8 2 2 11 1678 2570 81 20 96.316772 whole5 1 8 2 2 12 1773 2570 63 20 96.347931 with5 1 8 2 2 13 1851 2570 35 20 96.625740 all5 1 8 2 2 14 1900 2570 28 21 96.625740 of5 1 8 2 2 15 1943 2571 44 20 93.286713 thes 1 8 2 2 16 2001 2571 84 21 90.832840 inflec-4 1 8 2 3 0 764 2600 1320 29 -1 5 1 8 2 3 1 764 2600 69 21 96.346710 tions5 1 8 2 3 2 851 2602 51 20 96.559212 ands 1 8 2 3 3 921 2602 128 24 96.559212 emphasis5 1 8 2 3 4 1068 2603 82 20 96.268356 which5 1 8 2 3 5 1170 2605 95 20 96.372467 cannot5 1 8 2 3 6 1284 2604 29 20 96.664612 be5 1 8 2 3 7 1332 2599 155 30 96.654602 reproduced5 1 8 2 3 8 1507 2605 28 20 95.430389 in5 1 8 2 3 9 1554 2610 15 15 95.430389 a5 1 8 2 3 10 1588 2604 103 25 96.378860 printed5 1 8 2 3 11 1710 2605 96 24 96.340759 record,5 1 8 2 3 12 1827 2603 42 22 96.582382 did5 1 8 2 3 13 1889 2605 46 20 96.231033 not5 1 8 2 3 14 1956 2605 62 21 96.263855 views 1 8 2 3 15 2038 2605 46 21 96.663376 Dr.4 1 8 2 4 0 763 2634 1321 30 -1 5 1 8 2 4 1 763 2634 136 22 92.357773 Brenner’s5 1 8 2 4 2 913 2636 113 21 96.336868 remarks5 1 8 2 4 3 1039 2642 30 16 96.137535 as5 1 8 2 4 4 1082 2638 156 24 95.830276 respondents 1 8 2 4 5 1251 2638 84 21 96.100212 would5 1 8 2 4 6 1348 2638 67 21 96.699295 have5 1 8 2 4 7 1429 2644 29 15 96.312111 us5 1 8 2 4 8 1471 2639 39 20 95.713028 do.5 1 8 2 4 9 1525 2638 130 25 96.644028 Although5 1 8 2 4 10 1669 2638 31 21 96.147057 he5 1 8 2 4 11 1715 2638 41 21 96.451706 did5 1 8 2 4 12 1773 2639 47 20 96.690933 not5 1 8 2 4 13 1833 2638 56 21 96.902443 deals 1 8 2 4 14 1904 2638 63 21 96.709480 with5 1 8 2 4 15 1983 2639 101 25 96.583351 specifica 1 8 2 5 0 764 2669 1320 28 -1 5 1 8 2 5 1 764 2669 101 24 96.639679 aspects5 1 8 2 5 2 880 2669 28 21 95.347603 of5 1 8 2 5 3 922 2669 43 21 93.296661 Dr.5 1 8 2 5 4 981 2669 137 23 90.396606 Brenner’s5 1 8 2 5 5 1134 2672 147 25 96.164604 testimony,5 1 8 2 5 6 1297 2672 44 20 96.485077 thes 1 8 2 5 7 1357 2673 130 20 93.206947 examiners 1 8 2 5 8 1503 2673 136 21 51.792831 ecencluded5 1 8 2 5 9 1656 2672 59 20 96.291794 that5 1 8 2 5 10 1730 2672 44 21 96.291794 thes 1 8 2 5 11 1791 2672 119 21 95.849602 evidences 1 8 2 5 12 1925 2678 30 16 95.849602 as5 1 8 2 5 13 1971 2679 15 14 94.902954 a5 1 8 2 5 14 2002 2674 82 21 94.902954 whole4 1 8 2 6 0 763 2704 1320 28 -1 5 1 8 2 6 1 763 2704 95 23 93.160179 proved5 1 8 2 6 2 871 2704 177 24 90.390610 respondent’s5 1 8 2 6 3 1063 2705 52 20 96.912247 tests 1 8 2 6 4 1130 2710 54 16 96.226433 was5 1 8 2 6 5 1198 2706 154 25 96.144455 inadequate5 1 8 2 6 6 1366 2707 28 20 96.185417 to5 1 8 2 6 7 1409 2708 108 23 96.185417 supports 1 8 2 6 8 1531 2707 43 21 96.123901 thes 1 8 2 6 9 1588 2707 31 20 96.813683 255 1 8 2 6 10 1636 2707 104 24 96.518852 percent5 1 8 2 6 11 1753 2706 104 25 96.794525 quicker5 1 8 2 6 12 1872 2707 121 25 96.648277 stopping5 1 8 2 6 13 2007 2707 76 21 95.929909 claim4 1 8 2 7 0 762 2736 872 30 -1 5 1 8 2 7 1 762 2736 41 21 96.484154 for5 1 8 2 7 2 814 2736 114 22 96.593056 surfaces5 1 8 2 7 3 938 2737 75 22 96.522064 others 1 8 2 7 4 1022 2738 65 20 96.722107 than5 1 8 2 7 5 1098 2740 72 21 96.631317 those5 1 8 2 7 6 1182 2740 83 21 96.632973 tested5 1 8 2 7 7 1281 2740 56 24 96.825081 (ID,5 1 8 2 7 8 1348 2740 31 20 93.281136 225 1 8 2 7 9 1394 2740 36 25 91.098373 [p.5 1 8 2 7 10 1442 2741 57 25 93.299690 418,5 1 8 2 7 11 1510 2740 124 25 92.605598 herein].)3 1 8 3 0 0 796 2778 930 30 -1 4 1 8 3 1 0 796 2778 930 30 -1 5 1 8 3 1 1 796 2778 141 26 90.602493 *Reported5 1 8 3 1 2 948 2784 29 16 96.980614 as5 1 8 3 1 3 988 2781 128 20 96.532921 corrected5 1 8 3 1 4 1128 2782 31 23 96.985420 by5 1 8 3 1 5 1170 2781 74 22 96.206154 orders 1 8 3 1 6 1255 2782 26 21 96.214394 of5 1 8 3 1 7 1292 2782 44 21 96.214394 thes 1 8 3 1 8 1347 2782 176 26 95.205475 Commission,5 1 8 3 1 9 1534 2783 58 20 96.944618 Feb.5 1 8 3 1 10 1604 2782 39 25 96.619041 16,5 1 8 3 1 11 1655 2781 71 22 96.440636 1973.2 1 9 0 0 0 789 2818 6 7 -1 3 1 9 1 0 0 789 2818 6 7 -1 4 1 9 1 1 0 789 2818 6 7 -1 5 1 9 1 1 1 789 2818 6 7 0.000000 e ‘ FIRESTONE TIRE AND RUBBER’ CO. 449 398 Opinion issue here is simply whether a test of the comparative stopping qualities of respondent’s Wide Oval tire made on a hazardous road surface is adequate scientific. support for respondent’s claim that its Wide Oval tire will stop a precise percentage quicker on all road surfaces.

We conclude that the evidence demonstrates clearly that respond: ent’s ten test runs were inadequate to support its advertised claims respecting the stopping qualities of its Wide Oval tires. Respondent’s test was extremely limited in scope in contrast to respondent’s unqualified advertising claim. The expert witness called by complaint counsel explicitly stated that the test was not scientifically adequate to support respondent’s claim. Respondent failed to call any experts to controvert this testimony but chose to rely on one small equivocal portion of Dr. Brenner’s testimony as its sole basis to ‘support its contentions as to the adequacy of its tests.

Respondent's further argument that it was acting in.a responsible manner in selecting a wet surface upon which to test its tires since such surfaces present. the most serious risks for accidents i is not relevant. to this proceeding. The selection of the surface in itself is not the issue here, but whether, whatever surface is used, the specific advertising claim made by respondent on the basis of its tests is in fact adquately substantiated by the test data. If respondent had limited its claim to the stopping performance of its Wide Oval tires on “wet slippery surfaces,” as it did in later ads, this claim might have been substantiated by the test.1° The practice of respondent being challenged here was not in the design of its particular test but in its failure to limit its advertising claim to the type of comparative tire performance which its test ‘results substantiated. Finally, respondent also argues that if it had limited its claim to wet slippery surfaces, such a claim would have made tire purchasers feel more disposed toward the Wide Oval tire than the claim challenged here and would have caused them to buy more Wide Ovals. On this basis respondent concludes that its ad was not deceptive, since it used a claim which had diminished rather than enhanced the appeal of its products. (Res. App. Br. 14-15.) 10 Complaint counsel indicated that he would have been “reluctant to challenge respondent’s ad if limited to ‘‘wet slippery surfaces.’ (C.C. Find., 18.) This more limited advertisement is not before us and we need not consider its lawfulness. We note, however, that numerous variables besides friction coefficients affect the relative stopping performance of tires, so that respondent’s test using a single type of wet surface and comparing the Wide Oval with only one set of regular tires might not in fact be adequate to support a claim even as to all wet slippery surfaces without further specific qualification as to the surface involved and the types of other tires against which its tire was compared. 450 FEDERAL, TRADE COMMISSION, DECISIONS Opinion 81 F. T. C.

_ First, we cannot agree that respondent’s ad, diminished the appeal of its product. Certainly there i is no.evidence to this effect. 1’ Also, it is illogical to assume that consumers would prefer a tire tested only on a wet surface -to one tested on a variety of wet and dry surfaces. Certainly the risks of accidents are not limited to wet surfaces, and given the congested traffic of. our cities and the speeds of our super highways, stopping capacity can be. equally important to drivers’ on dry surfaces as well as wet. Furthermore, to consumers in arid climates an advertisement as to stopping capacity on wet slippery surfaces may. in fact have little appeal. In short, assuming any relevancy to respondent’s argument, there would seem to be little or no basis for assuming that respondent’s advertisement challenged here would have less consumer appeal than one limited to wet slippery surfaces. In any event, whether or not respondent could devise.a more appealing advertisement substantiated adequately and scientifically by,» its test data is irrelevant to this proceeding. The legal determination as to whether an advertisement is deceptive is not based on its effectiveness relative to truthful ads in selling products. If this were the test, companies could deceptively advertise with impunity so long as they could show that a truthful advertisement would sell even more products. Clearly the existence of a more appealing but truthful ad does nothing to cure the defects of a “deceptive ad and has’ no rele: vance to a determination of whether a particular advertisement is . deceptive.

The legal test for determining if advertising has violated Section 5 is whether:

* * * the use by accused of the false and misleading statements and representations has the capacity and tendency to deceive and mislead members of the public * * * into the erroneous and mistaken belief that said statements and representations are true. U.S. Retail Credit Assn. v. FTC, 300 E. 2d 212, 221 (4th Cir. 1962).

This test has been met in the instant case. Respondent agrees that its advertisement represents that its 25 percent quicker stopping claim has been substantiated by adequate scientific tests. This was the thought that the advertisement erroneously conveyed to the public. As shown above, respondent did not adequately substantiate its advertising claim. Thus, consumers were led to believe that respondent’s tires had been adequately tested when in fact they had not. Clearly, respondent’s advertisement thus had the capacity and tendency to deceive members of the public into an erroneous and mistaken “It is difficult to imagine that respondent would have selected such an advertisement to sell its product if it did not attract customers. i! ORPRESTONE! ‘TIRE“AND: ‘RUBBER: CO: ? ‘451 ‘398-2 Opinion ‘belief as to: réspondent’s product. That: consumers were actually deceived need’ not ‘be shown. ‘Charlesof the Ritz Distributors Corp. v. FTO, 148 F. 2d 6765680: (2d ‘Cir: 1944) ; Fioret Sales Co. ve FTC, 100 F.2d 358, 859 (2d:Cir. 1938).

. Respondent: argues: that: complaint ‘counsel: was roti to: show that respondent’s advertisement would have been likely to. cause consumers to buy its product when they otherwise would not have done so. Bockenstette v. “FTO, 184 -F, 9d 369, 371 (10th Cir. 1943) ; Indiana Quartered Oak. Co. v. FTO, 26 F. 2d 340, 342 (2d Cir. 1928). We-do not agree that these cases stand for the proposition that.such a showing 1s required to prove ‘deception, although. certainly a showing that consumers obtained from the ad an erroneous impression of the product’s performance capabilities could be one way in which deception could be proved.? The fact that consumers were not harmed because they would have purchased | the products anyway under truthful ad- ‘vertisements i is nat relevant to this proceeding.** The sole relevant consideration, is whether, respondent’s advertisement: truthfully represented. the facts about respondent’s Wide. Oval tire to the public. _ hold that it did not.

In ‘sum, we find that the adrnitted circumstances under which respondent tested its tires were limited and that despite these limited test. conditions, respondent used these tests as its sole support for its advertisement representing that its. Wide Oval tires would stop 25 percent quicker under all road and weather conditions and relative to all other types of regular tires: Its tests did not support, either directly or by reasonable extrapolation, respondent’s broad stopping claim. The particular.claim at issue here involves a matter of human safety. It-is a claim which consumers themselves cannot verify since they have neither the equipment nor the knowledge to undertake the complicated tire tests required.. They must rely on the technical expertise of the manufacturer to assure. the validity of its claims. Under such circumstances, it is both unfair and deceptive to consumers to make a specific advertising claim without’ substantial scientific test 2 Indiana Quartered Oak, a case decided before the 1938 Wheeler-Lea amendment, eonsidéred only the showing necessary to prove unfair competition, not deceptive practices. Bockenstette indicates only that to show deception, it is “sufficient” that a probable result of the practice is to “‘cause one to do that which he would not otherwise do.’’ 134 F.2d 369, 371.

8In Montgomery Ward & Co. Vv. FTC, 379 F.2d 666 (7th Cir. 1967) the court found that even if petitioner honored its policy of a money-back guarantee, this could not justify false advertising. If it were otherwise, “anything might be advertised as long as unsatisfied customers were returned their money.” 379 F.2d.at 671. The same rationale applies here. Even if we were to accept, which we do not, respondent’s contention that consumers _were not harmed: because they would have purchased its tires anyway under a truthful adv ertisement, this does not erase the initial deception that the advertisement conveys and which the Commission is obligated to correct. 452 FEDERAL ‘TRADE. COMMISSION. DECISIONS Opinion 81. F.T.C.

data to support it..In.light.of the record evidence ‘in this.case,as.outlined. above;. we. agree with the examiner that, respondent’s test did not constitute adequate scientific support for its:25 percent quicker stopping claim, and that the advertisement. was thus unfair. and:deeeptive: within the. meaning of Section 6 5. of the. 2 Rederal 1 Trade. Com: mission Act. SEE Say eae ue 8 Pret a acpsthacrt taed B. _Respondeni’s Safe Tire Represontations “The complaint’ alleged that: through the following’ ‘advertisement sind others s similar to. it respondent 1 made two inisrepresentations: (1) as sure that its ‘tires are ‘free from any. defects. The advertisement ‘reads as follows: ne :

vee ue The Safe Tite Fitéstone / When you buy: ‘a, Wirestone Tire—no matter, how, much, or, - how: littl you pay— afe tire. ‘Firestone tires | are custom-built one ‘by | ‘one. By. “skilled ‘craftsmen, ‘And’ ‘they’ re ‘personally ‘inspected fer “an” extra: margin’ of “batety. “Te! these ‘tires don’t’ pass’ all of the’ exacting Firestone iniipeotions, they ‘don't get ‘our. ‘test Jab. On our test track. ‘And in | rigorous ‘aay-to-day ariving conditions. All Firestone tires meet or exceed the new Federal Government testing requirments. (They have for some time.) Firestone—The Safe Tire. At 60,000 Firestone Safe Tire Centers. At no more cost than ordinary tires. (Compl. para. 4(e).) * The principal issue on appeal is whether, as the examiner found, the advertisement of Firestone tires as “The Safe Tire” represents that Firestone tires are free from all defects and are safe under all conditions of use.*® Respondent argues first as to both claims that the record does not support the examiner’s findings because its consumer survey “squarely rebutted” the construction of the advertisement alleged in the complaint. In addition to relying on its survey evidence, respondent also argues that as a matter of “common sense” consumers would not construe its ad as representing that its tires are absolutely defect free nor infer from the ad that its tires are safe under all conditions of use 4 An additional Firestone advertisement was entered into evidence containing similar “safety” representations. (ID, 18-19, {p. 414 herein] CX 14—D.) 15 Respondent acknowledges that it cannot insure that its tires are absolutely free from defects but only that they were manufactured with due care using the best manufacturing techniques known to the industry.. (CX 3.) It also concedes that its tires are not absolutely safe under all conditions of use and that their safe performance depends on their being properly cared for and run with correct inflation and tire pressures for the load earried. (Res. App. Br., 25.) ‘FIRESTONE ‘TIRE AND RUBBER CO. - 453 398 7 . Opinion because it is a matter of “common knowledge and experience * * * that tires need adequate air and bald tires may be dangerous. ” (Res. App. Br.; 22.) We will consider first respondent’s survey evidence which bears upon both alleged misrepresentations in the “Safe Tire” ad. Then, because respondent’s additional arguments as to the proper construction of the advertisement differ somewhat between the two alleged deceptive safety claims, we will deal with each ‘separately. 1. Respondent's Survey Evidence -, In order to support its contentions as to how. its.advertising message was in fact perceived by consumers, respondent conducted a probability. survey of a scientifically selected sample of the universe of .tire purchasers. These purchasers were shown the full text of. “The Safe Tire” ad'set forth above. After removing the ad. from: view,they were . asked which of the following four statements came closest to: what they thought the ad said :

(a) Firestone ‘does all it can to use the best manufacturing and testing proce: dures to make its tires safe and as free as possible from defects of:any kind; (b)..Almost. all Firestone tires. are safe under hormal conditions and are free from defects that might make them unsafe ;

(c) Each model of Firestone tires at least meets the 1 minimum government safety standards ;

(d) Every Firestone tire is absolutely safe no matter how it is used and regardless of the tire inflation pressure and load of the car; or every single Firestone tire will be absolutely free from any defects. (RX 53, 4.) Over half (52.7 percent) of the interviewees selected statement (a) as coming closest to what they thought the ad said; 15.9 percent se- -lected (b) ; 14.8 percent selected (c); and 15.3 percent selected (d), the statement containing the interpretation of the ad as alleged in the complaint. This last group of 15.3 percent were also asked if they believed the ad and 5.4 percent stated that they thought the ad exaggerated. (RX 53, 5.) The hearing examiner did not explicitly decide whether or not the survey was valid.1* He indicated his view that even if the survey results were correct, the 15 percent interviewed who perceived the ad as alleged by complaint counsel constituted a sufficiently significant percentage of the buying public who were entitled to be told the truth regarding the safety of respondent’s tires. (ID, 18 [p. 415, herein].) Respondent now asks the Commission to rely on its survey results in 16 At one point the examiner “doubted that only 15 percent of the purchasing public would construe the statement as did those responding in the survey” and at another point indicated that the survey, was “designed and conducted in a professional and competent manner.” (ID, 17, 18 [p. 415, herein].) 454 FEDERAL. PRADE COMMISSION: DECISIONS Qpinion, . 81 FEVT.C:

determining . whether or not,.its .ads were’ unfair, Or. * deceptive to - consumers... , . : : me It is clear that the, Commission, if it So 5 chooses, need not. rely 0 on. respondent’s survey but may. rely on its own reading of the tire advertisement to determine its meaning to the public and whether it has the tendency or capacity. to deceive the public: The law is clear that the Commission’s expertise is, sufficient. and. that it:-need: not resort. to survey evidence or consumer. testimony: as,to how an advertisement may be perceived by the public or whether they relied upon the ad to their detriment. FTC v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., 380 U.S. 374, 891-992 (1965); J. B. Williams & Co. v. FTC, 381 Fe ‘od ‘884, 890 (6th: Cir. 1967) ; Wiresk Industries, Tne. vi FEC, 278 'F: 20387, 342 (7th Giri); cert. denied, 364 U.S. 883 (1960) ; #. PvDrew & Co. v. FTO, 235 F. 2a 735, 741. (24 Cir. 1956), cert. denied, 352°U:S. 969° (1957), ‘Charles of the Rite Distributors Corp. v: FTO, 143 F. 9d:676, 680 (2d Cir: 1944). In the instant case, respondents chose 'tio offer into the record ‘a scientifically determined sample of consumer views as to-how thisadver: tisement was infact perceived by; them. .It, is: incumbent. -upon.us, therefore, to consider this evidence and determine:the weight, if any, which shouldbe attributed to it in adding to the ‘expertise which we must bring to bear upon the issue’ of whether ‘this, advertisement constituted an unfair or deceptive practice. , ..We find no problems in the sampling methodology: used in conducting the survey. The interviewers were properly selected on a:random probability basis, the use of oral interrogation was entirely proper and appropriate and the impartiality of the interviewers was:without question. However, we find'serious problems in the survey instrument itself which casts substantial doubt on. the usefulness and d applicability of the answers elicited. «. wal - The essential flaw in.the survey: technique. stems from the fact that no. one of the four,separate statements about the advertisement’s content is mutually exclusive of any other. Hence, if one statement is-selected as.“closer” than another to what the individual perceived the ad was saying, this: fact. does not take into. account.the possibility: that the interviewee. might also have perceived the ad as conveying more than . one.of.the. statements selected. For example, it is conceivable that a consumer could perceive both that “Firestone does all.it can to use the best manufactur ing and testing procedures to make:its tires safe and ‘as free as possible, from defects of any. kind (statement. (a) above) and that “Every single Firestone tire will be absolutely free from any defects” (part of'statenient: (d) above). Or he could perceive that“Each model of Firestone tires at least meets the minimum ma. government safety stand- ~“GIRESTONE TIRE AND RUBBER CO. 455 398 Opinion ards” (statement (c) ) and that “Every single Firestone tire will be absolutely free from any defects” (statement (d) ). : The distortions inherent in the results flowing from the required selection of statements which are not mutually exclusive are aggravated by the inclusion among the choices of statement (c) : “Each model of Firestone tires at least meets the minimum government safety standards.” Since the “safe tire” ad in issue expressly made the ‘statement that “All Firestone tires meet or exceed the new Federal Government Testing requirements,” it is unreasonable to assume that persons who chose this statement did not also gain other perceptions from the ad which might have been encompassed by one or more of the other statements even though not perceived as “closer” to the ad, hiowever ‘ “closer” was interpreted by the interviewées. ~~ Another difficulty with the survey which casts doubt on its validity in determining t tlie issues in this case stems from the fact that respondent sought to address two separate complaint allegations by this survey. The first allegation i is that the Firestone ad constitutes a representation that Firestone tires are free of ‘all defects. The second allegation is that the ad ‘represents the tires are safe under all conditions of use. The respondents survey failed to test these allegations separately, although they represent two separate questions for the Commission to resolve. Statement (d) about which the interviewees were interrogated coupled. both the free- from-defects representations and the safe-underall-conditions-of-use issue. The interviewees were thus confronted with the choice of a compound statement among other non- compound statements. Corisequently, some interviewees may have thought that the entire statement (d) had to be perceived in respondent’s advertisement in order to select that statement. Since statement (d) was of a different structure than the other three statements, respondent should have demonstrated. through appropriate pre-tests of the questionnaire how the statement was anilerstood ‘by interviewees, or more appropriately the two allegations should have been addressed separately. In short, we ‘conclude that an effort to determine consumers’ perceptions of a multi- statement advertisement through the device of asking them to select only one statement from’ several non-mutually exclusive statements which might be perceived in the’ad is an impermissible method of determining consumer perceptions about that advertisement. Asa result, we can ascribe little probative weight to the statistics purporting to reflect consumer perceptions about this ad..We do not believe, therefore, that respondent’s survey provides any insight into how this advertisement was in fact perceived by consumers. We turn now.to the remaining evidence and. arguments concerning 456 _ FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION DECISIONS Opinion _ | SL INTC.

each of the alleged déceptions contained in respondent’s “safe tire” advertisement. , We note at the outset that. both alleged misrepresentations go to the issue of the safety of respondent’s product, an issue of great’ significance to consumers. On this issue the Commission has required scrupulous accuracy in advertising claims, for obvious reasons. If consumers are misled or uninformed as to the safety of.a product, the consequences may not be limited to monetary Joss but personal i injury as well. Thus, the Commission. has frequently decided that the omission of product safety information is an unfair and deceptive practice. For instance, where no safety claim has been made about a product, but the product itself is inherently dangerous, the Commission has required parties to affirmatively state that such dangers. exist, In re Stupell Enterprises, 67 F.T.C..178 (1965) ; In re Novel Mfg. Corp. » 60 F.T.C. 1748 (1962) ; In re Fisher & Deritis, 49 F.T.C. 77 (1952). In these cases the Commission has determined that where the danger is not readily observable, the law requires affirmative; disclosures. of the danger to focus the attention of consumers. on this. fact. Otherwise, the Commission has found, consumers assume that products put into commerce. are safe under ‘normal use. In re Stupell, supra, at 187. In addition, the Commission has held that where specific claims as to product safety are advertised without any qualifications or limitations, it is unlawful not to. affirmatively reveal any limitations which may in fact exist. Zn re Unéverse Co., 63 F.T.C. 1282 (1968), aff'd sub. nom. Kirchner v. FTC, 337 F. 2d 751 (9th Cir. 1964) ; Zn ve Nuclear Products Co., 49 F.T.C. 229 (1952). Under such circumstances, the Commission has required respondents to disclose the limits of their safety claims so as to prevent the dangers inherent in consumers’ believing a product to be absolutely safe.

These cases make clear that advertisers are held to a high standard of care in making representations involving the safety of their products in order to assure to the greatest extent possible that their claims will not be misunderstood by the public. It is against the background of these principles as enunciated in these and other cases that we must consider the two complaint allegations regarding the representations contained in respondent’s “safe tire” advertisement. Free of All Defects Claim Respondent vigorously denies complaint counsel’s contention that its “safe tire ” ad constituted a representation that its tires were free from any manufacturing defects or defects in materials or workmanship. (Compl. para. 5(3).) Respondent argues that the proper interpretation FIRESTONE TIRE AND RUBBER CO. 457 398 Opinion of the advertisement is that respondent exercised the highest degree of care and exerted its best efforts to make its tires safe. (Resp. App. Br., 17.) Respondent also urges that the word “safe” should not be considered an absolute term, citing Raladam v. FTC, 42 F.2d 430 (6th Cir. 1930), and argues further that consumers would not.construe the term “safe” in the absolute sense.

Respondent’s ad made an unqualified reference to its tires as so fo.’ ” Moreover, its advertisement went further and dwelt at some length on the pains to which respondent went to make them safe, Viewing the ad 5 1 2 4 2 2 676 1094 37 23 96.135498 as5 1 2 4 2 3 722 1089 50 27 96.246796 we5 1 2 4 2 4 781 1087 91 29 96.246796 must5 1 2 4 2 5 881 1083 37 33 95.771942 in5 1 2 4 2 6 928 1083 46 33 5.895554 its5 1 2 4 2 7 982 1083 157 42 5.895554 entirety,5 1 2 4 2 8 1148 1083 138 33 93.287148 Rhodes5 1 2 4 2 9 1296 1082 209 33 91.830170 Pharmacal5 1 2 4 2 10 1515 1082 70 40 91.743851 Co.,5 1 2 4 2 11 1594 1082 73 32 82.033585 Ine.5 1 2 4 2 12 1678 1092 31 22 89.727036 v.5 1 2 4 2 13 1720 1080 104 42 95.434578 FTC,5 1 2 4 2 14 1835 1082 60 31 93.274490 2085 1 2 4 2 15 1907 1082 39 31 75.861259 F.5 1 2 4 2 16 1958 1081 44 32 81.502861 2d.4 1 2 4 3 0 676 1102 1323 75 -1 5 1 2 4 3 1 676 1136 71 40 78.565598 832,5 1 2 4 3 2 761 1135 69 33 91.474045 3875 1 2 4 3 3 842 1134 76 42 80.992386 (7th5 1 2 4 3 4 934 1134 70 33 94.494583 Cir.5 1 2 4 3 5 1021 1134 117 42 89.716568 1953),5 1 2 4 3 6 1150 1133 73 39 15.204987 itis5 1 2 4 3 7 1237 1134 90 32 96.568550 clears 1 2 4 3 8 1340 1133 78 32 96.570915 that5 1 2 4 3 9 1433 1133 58 32 96.976639 thes 1 2 4 3 10 1507 1102 263 75 95.535141 advertisements 1 2 4 3 11 1786 1106 146 67 95.084320 directly5 1 2 4 3 12 1948 1140 51 23 88.659393 as-4 1 2 4 4 0 676 1179 1325 48 -1 5 1 2 4 4 1 676 1185 149 33 96.621597 sociated5 1 2 4 4 2 835 1185 58 33 94.685074 thes 1 2 4 4 3 899 1181 119 46 94.685074 safety5 1 2 4 4 4 1028 1184 40 33 95.458160 of5 1 2 4 4 5 1078 1184 45 33 96.188301 its5 1 2 4 4 6 1134 1184 66 33 96.188301 tires 1 2 4 4 7 1212 1184 85 33 96.851768 with5 1 2 4 4 8 1306 1184 61 32 96.851768 thes 1 2 4 4 9 1378 1183 135 44 96.716263 quality5 1 2 4 4 10 1524 1184 40 32 96.716263 of5 1 2 4 4 11 1575 1182 44 33 96.211914 its5 1 2 4 4 12 1631 1181 250 37 96.670883 manufacture.5 1 2 4 4 13 1894 1175 107 51 96.739395 Thus,4 1 2 4 5 0 674 1231 1327 46 -1 5 1 2 4 5 1 674 1237 60 32 97.014542 thes 1 2 4 5 2 745 1235 283 47 96.751526 advertisements 1 2 4 5 3 1019 1246 37 21 96.841614 in5 1 2 4 5 4 1066 1235 156 42 96.919930 questions 1 2 4 5 5 1233 1235 218 41 96.633858 represented5 1 2 4 5 6 1462 1235 78 31 96.864548 that5 1 2 4 5 7 1552 1232 179 34 96.836243 Firestone5 1 2 4 5 8 1741 1232 85 32 96.702957 tires5 1 2 4 5 9 1838 1242 58 21 93.142586 ares 1 2 4 5 10 1908 1231 93 38 92.959976 “cus-4 1 2 4 6 0 676 1273 1326 55 -1 5 1 2 4 6 1 676 1291 73 28 96.486534 toms 1 2 4 6 2 760 1286 100 41 96.486534 built,5 1 2 4 6 3 874 1296 64 22 96.635521 ones 1 2 4 6 4 949 1286 47 42 96.835823 by5 1 2 4 6 5 1011 1286 94 40 96.829300 one,”5 1 2 4 6 6 1119 1286 78 31 96.676697 that5 1 2 4 6 7 1212 1283 146 34 96.933487 “skilled5 1 2 4 6 8 1372 1284 208 33 96.543304 craftsmen”5 1 2 4 6 9 1594 1283 103 42 96.281410 builds 1 2 4 6 10 1707 1283 106 40 96.281410 them,5 1 2 4 6 11 1828 1282 78 32 96.507507 that5 1 2 4 6 12 1920 1273 82 55 96.663307 they4 1 2 4 7 0 679 1331 1325 47 -1 5 1 2 4 7 1 679 1347 58 21 96.533241 ares 1 2 4 7 2 749 1336 196 42 96.594833 personally5 1 2 4 7 3 959 1335 205 42 92.920616 inspected,”5 1 2 4 7 4 1180 1334 115 42 31.470879 and’if5 1 2 4 7 5 1307 1334 82 42 96.854721 they5 1 2 4 7 6 1404 1334 95 32 96.422348 don’t5 1 2 4 7 7 1511 1344 88 36 96.855415 pass5 1 2 4 7 8 1605 1334 47 31 94.461754 all5 1 2 4 7 9 1665 1323 60 42 96.951988 thes 1 2 4 7 10 1737 1331 161 43 93.286850 exacting5 1 2 4 7 11 1910 1331 94 34 93.152870 Fire-4 1 2 4 8 0 679 1383 1324 45 -1 5 1 2 4 8 1 679 1392 95 28 96.983398 stones 1 2 4 8 2 784 1386 219 46 96.260849 inspections,5 1 2 4 8 3 1015 1386 102 42 96.438583 “they5 1 2 4 8 4 1127 1386 96 32 96.744583 don’t5 1 2 4 8 5 1234 1389 58 39 96.997536 gets 1 2 4 8 6 1303 1386 91 31 95.159485 out.”5 1 2 4 8 7 1406 1386 51 31 95.159485 To5 1 2 4 8 8 1470 1395 68 32 96.625450 any5 1 2 4 8 9 1550 1395 63 21 96.625450 ones 1 2 4 8 10 1624 1383 98 33 96.615791 who5 1 2 4 8 11 1714 1395 28 21 96.931557 is5 1 2 4 8 12 1754 1386 62 29 96.800606 not5 1 2 4 8 13 1828 1391 47 31 96.191246 an5 1 2 4 8 14 1883 1385 120 43 96.191246 expert4 1 2 4 9 0 679 1421 1324 71 -1 5 1 2 4 9 1 679 1449 51 21 95.920700 on5 1 2 4 9 2 736 1437 65 33 95.920700 tires 1 2 4 9 3 814 1435 139 44 95.833504 testing,5 1 2 4 9 4 967 1437 72 32 96.801590 ands 1 2 4 9 5 1047 1437 78 31 96.646339 who5 1 2 4 9 6 1139 1429 80 39 96.958069 does5 1 2 4 9 7 1232 1440 62 28 96.744774 not5 1 2 4 9 8 1303 1432 115 60 96.432396 know,5 1 2 4 9 9 1432 1434 184 42 96.522202 therefore,5 1 2 4 9 10 1629 1434 78 31 96.999657 that5 1 2 4 9 11 1721 1434 29 32 96.782631 it5 1 2 4 9 12 1763 1432 30 33 96.928490 is5 1 2 4 9 13 1807 1421 196 63 96.796997 impossible4 1 2 4 10 0 679 1483 1326 41 -1 5 1 2 4 10 1 679 1478 109 43 96.633392 under5 1 2 4 10 2 799 1491 137 29 96.651604 currents 1 2 4 10 3 946 1480 83 39 96.832329 tests5 1 2 4 10 4 1039 1491 37 28 96.796371 to5 1 2 4 10 5 1087 1487 115 32 96.757240 assures 1 2 4 10 6 1212 1487 78 31 96.820961 that5 1 2 4 10 7 1300 1485 93 33 96.507278 tires5 1 2 4 10 8 1396 1497 57 21 96.507278 ares 1 2 4 10 9 1465 1486 73 32 96.802895 free5 1 2 4 10 10 1548 1485 42 32 96.817635 of5 1 2 4 10 11 1600 1485 168 39 37.466209 defects,”5 1 2 4 10 12 1780 1494 53 23 97.001648 we5 1 2 4 10 13 1843 1483 73 32 96.843292 finds 1 2 4 10 14 1925 1477 80 38 96.976082 that4 1 2 4 11 0 680 1533 1326 46 -1 5 1 2 4 11 1 680 1539 69 33 96.371956 this5 1 2 4 11 2 764 1538 263 37 96.432121 advertisements 1 2 4 11 3 1042 1541 62 28 96.432121 not5 1 2 4 11 4 1120 1537 81 42 96.646828 only5 1 2 4 11 5 1219 1536 237 42 96.289833 affirmatively5 1 2 4 11 6 1472 1535 146 42 96.280365 implied5 1 2 4 11 7 1633 1533 79 33 96.876793 that5 1 2 4 11 8 1728 1533 82 43 96.660423 only5 1 2 4 11 9 1828 1533 178 33 96.690262 Firestone4 1 2 4 12 0 679 1579 1326 47 -1 5 1 2 4 12 1 679 1590 85 32 96.851265 tires5 1 2 4 12 2 775 1589 113 32 97.000824 which5 1 2 4 12 3 901 1599 58 21 96.950218 ares 1 2 4 12 4 973 1588 73 32 95.742615 free5 1 2 4 12 5 1059 1588 38 32 96.136314 of5 1 2 4 12 6 1103 1587 138 33 96.136314 defects5 1 2 4 12 7 1256 1587 101 32 96.952377 reach5 1 2 4 12 8 1369 1587 60 31 96.970711 thes 1 2 4 12 9 1443 1579 201 47 96.541084 consuming5 1 2 4 12 10 1658 1584 117 42 96.903381 public5 1 2 4 12 11 1786 1584 58 34 96.868462 but5 1 2 4 12 12 1862 1584 67 42 93.250977 also5 1 2 4 12 13 1952 1583 53 37 92.866196 af-4 1 2 4 13 0 680 1633 1327 48 -1 5 1 2 4 13 1 680 1639 208 42 92.437294 firmatively5 1 2 4 13 2 903 1638 147 42 91.636398 negated5 1 2 4 13 3 1068 1649 68 31 96.898666 any5 1 2 4 13 4 1153 1637 148 42 96.584381 possible5 1 2 4 13 5 1319 1641 161 36 96.602043 contrary5 1 2 4 13 6 1499 1635 213 41 96.210968 assumptions 1 2 4 13 7 1730 1646 38 20 96.587967 on5 1 2 4 13 8 1786 1635 57 30 96.309982 thes 1 2 4 13 9 1869 1635 80 40 96.309982 parts 1 2 4 13 10 1969 1633 38 32 96.938599 of4 1 2 4 14 0 683 1701 201 21 -1 5 1 2 4 14 1 683 1701 201 21 94.487038 consumers.3 1 2 5 0 0 683 1734 1335 650 -1 4 1 2 5 1 0 726 1734 1282 47 -1 5 1 2 5 1 1 726 1739 221 42 96.825462 Respondents 1 2 5 1 2 964 1739 46 42 96.548126 by5 1 2 5 1 3 1028 1738 45 32 96.548126 its5 1 2 5 1 4 1090 1749 76 21 96.634972 owns 1 2 5 1 5 1184 1737 188 33 93.115379 admissions 1 2 5 1 6 1384 1739 25 16 18.128197 *5 1 2 5 1 7 1427 1740 125 29 96.685905 cannot5 1 2 5 1 8 1569 1738 186 40 96.307472 guarantees 1 2 5 1 9 1771 1734 79 33 96.661514 that5 1 2 5 1 10 1866 1734 44 32 96.094421 its5 1 2 5 1 11 1927 1734 81 31 96.677879 tires4 1 2 5 2 0 685 1785 1328 45 -1 5 1 2 5 2 1 685 1803 57 21 96.749664 ares 1 2 5 2 2 758 1791 114 32 94.255119 defects 1 2 5 2 3 889 1791 82 31 94.255119 free.5 1 2 5 2 4 988 1790 74 31 96.004021 Thes 1 2 5 2 5 1078 1790 130 40 96.578339 imports 1 2 5 2 6 1225 1789 39 31 96.754822 of5 1 2 5 2 7 1280 1788 45 32 96.879570 its5 1 2 5 2 8 1341 1788 266 32 95.876740 advertisements 1 2 5 2 9 1622 1787 81 31 95.876740 thus5 1 2 5 2 10 1718 1789 221 29 96.423180 contravenes5 1 2 5 2 11 1954 1785 59 30 96.696899 thea 1 2 5 3 0 686 1834 1323 46 -1 5 1 2 5 3 1 686 1841 168 33 96.208679 admitted5 1 2 5 3 2 869 1840 90 33 96.608246 facts5 1 2 5 3 3 974 1840 38 32 96.971321 in5 1 2 5 3 4 1025 1840 71 32 96.794884 this5 1 2 5 3 5 1110 1851 83 21 96.556892 case.5 1 2 5 3 6 1209 1839 222 41 36.929253 Respondents 1 2 5 3 7 1446 1849 123 31 96.479095 argues5 1 2 5 3 8 1582 1837 78 32 96.409714 that5 1 2 5 3 9 1672 1835 190 43 96.353409 complaints 1 2 5 3 10 1875 1834 134 32 97.000244 counsel4 1 2 5 4 0 686 1886 1325 47 -1 5 1 2 5 4 1 686 1893 63 32 96.723907 has5 1 2 5 4 2 766 1896 62 28 96.178329 not5 1 2 5 4 3 847 1892 119 32 96.178329 shown5 1 2 5 4 4 983 1891 78 32 96.394310 that5 1 2 5 4 5 1080 1902 68 31 96.952385 any5 1 2 5 4 6 1168 1890 170 33 96.196358 defective5 1 2 5 4 7 1357 1899 38 22 96.582855 or5 1 2 5 4 8 1414 1888 124 33 96.648392 unsafe5 1 2 5 4 9 1556 1888 178 32 96.419556 Firestone5 1 2 5 4 10 1751 1887 85 31 96.316978 tires5 1 2 5 4 11 1852 1886 88 31 93.241211 have5 1 2 5 4 12 1959 1896 52 21 92.138046 ac-4 1 2 5 5 0 686 1938 1327 51 -1 5 1 2 5 5 1 686 1944 111 45 96.173378 tually5 1 2 5 5 2 813 1943 144 32 96.373207 reached5 1 2 5 5 3 973 1942 59 33 96.413788 thes 1 2 5 5 4 1048 1941 126 43 96.502266 public.5 1 2 5 5 5 1191 1942 181 39 96.900627 However,5 1 2 5 5 6 1388 1940 83 33 96.640862 such5 1 2 5 5 7 1488 1951 20 21 96.436523 a5 1 2 5 5 8 1523 1938 157 42 96.383606 showings 1 2 5 5 9 1694 1948 70 22 96.383606 was5 1 2 5 5 10 1779 1947 234 31 96.186478 unnecessary.4 1 2 5 6 0 688 1988 1325 47 -1 5 1 2 5 6 1 688 1995 74 32 94.805229 Thes 1 2 5 6 2 778 1993 190 42 96.535118 complaints 1 2 5 6 3 984 1993 126 42 96.816849 alleges5 1 2 5 6 4 1126 1992 78 32 96.043755 that5 1 2 5 6 5 1220 1992 60 32 96.043755 thes 1 2 5 6 6 1296 1992 130 41 96.223640 imports 1 2 5 6 7 1441 1991 40 32 93.291626 of5 1 2 5 6 8 1499 1989 233 43 91.766769 respondent’s5 1 2 5 6 9 1749 1988 264 32 96.213326 advertisement4 1 2 5 7 0 690 2037 1323 49 -1 5 1 2 5 7 1 690 2056 69 23 96.395958 was5 1 2 5 7 2 771 2046 77 31 94.831627 that5 1 2 5 7 3 862 2056 19 21 94.831627 a5 1 2 5 7 4 895 2044 187 42 96.906136 purchasers 1 2 5 7 5 1093 2043 40 33 96.771767 of5 1 2 5 7 6 1145 2043 46 33 96.972221 its5 1 2 5 7 7 1202 2043 85 32 96.952873 tires5 1 2 5 7 8 1300 2042 114 33 96.978317 would5 1 2 5 7 9 1426 2042 42 32 96.987198 be5 1 2 5 7 10 1480 2040 140 35 94.282822 assured5 1 2 5 7 11 1631 2040 39 32 96.671570 of5 1 2 5 7 12 1683 2038 173 43 96.667046 receiving5 1 2 5 7 13 1867 2049 20 21 96.826065 a5 1 2 5 7 14 1900 2037 113 34 96.893478 defect4 1 2 5 8 0 691 2088 1322 64 -1 5 1 2 5 8 1 691 2097 73 32 96.592651 free5 1 2 5 8 2 779 2095 76 57 96.900620 tire,5 1 2 5 8 3 871 2090 99 38 96.674355 when5 1 2 5 8 4 985 2094 37 33 96.674355 in5 1 2 5 8 5 1037 2095 100 32 96.237267 truth5 1 2 5 8 6 1152 2095 71 31 96.695709 ands 1 2 5 8 7 1237 2094 39 31 96.960037 in5 1 2 5 8 8 1291 2094 83 40 94.843033 fact,5 1 2 5 8 9 1390 2103 19 22 91.261444 a5 1 2 5 8 10 1426 2093 187 41 96.522430 purchasers 1 2 5 8 11 1627 2091 101 32 96.824158 could5 1 2 5 8 12 1742 2092 63 30 95.172531 not5 1 2 5 8 13 1819 2089 42 33 96.448784 be5 1 2 5 8 14 1875 2088 138 33 96.130600 assured4 1 2 5 9 0 683 2139 1332 50 -1 5 1 2 5 9 1 683 2147 45 32 73.310196 ‘of5 1 2 5 9 2 751 2146 172 43 96.707520 receiving5 1 2 5 9 3 946 2145 85 34 96.684792 such5 1 2 5 9 4 1054 2156 20 21 95.062042 a5 1 2 5 9 5 1097 2145 75 32 92.694748 tire.5 1 2 5 9 6 1204 2144 152 43 96.400620 (Compl.5 1 2 5 9 7 1381 2154 96 31 91.875732 para.5 1 2 5 9 8 1503 2142 96 43 90.787880 5(3),5 1 2 5 9 9 1622 2141 114 43 32.661758 6(8).)5 1 2 5 9 10 1763 2141 108 40 96.964188 Thus,5 1 2 5 9 11 1894 2139 30 33 96.931198 it5 1 2 5 9 12 1945 2148 70 23 96.988091 was4 1 2 5 10 0 691 2187 1324 54 -1 5 1 2 5 10 1 691 2198 136 43 96.913429 enough5 1 2 5 10 2 852 2197 59 33 96.157730 for5 1 2 5 10 3 937 2196 190 42 96.343643 complaints 1 2 5 10 4 1152 2196 137 32 96.145271 counsels 1 2 5 10 5 1314 2198 37 29 96.131851 to5 1 2 5 10 6 1377 2195 94 32 96.131851 shows 1 2 5 10 7 1497 2193 79 33 96.677216 that5 1 2 5 10 8 1601 2192 207 42 96.406647 respondents 1 2 5 10 9 1832 2190 100 41 96.876213 made5 1 2 5 10 10 1957 2187 58 35 96.578773 thea 1 2 5 11 0 693 2241 1325 49 -1 5 1 2 5 11 1 693 2249 132 41 96.410515 alleged5 1 2 5 11 2 849 2247 272 43 96.047501 representations 1 2 5 11 3 1144 2247 69 32 96.397354 ands 1 2 5 11 4 1237 2247 78 31 96.158432 that5 1 2 5 11 5 1337 2247 30 31 96.105927 it5 1 2 5 11 6 1390 2245 100 33 96.934593 could5 1 2 5 11 7 1514 2248 62 29 96.438721 not5 1 2 5 11 8 1598 2242 192 42 96.583771 truthfully5 1 2 5 11 9 1813 2242 100 33 96.144547 makes 1 2 5 11 10 1935 2241 83 33 96.594902 such4 1 2 5 12 0 692 2291 1325 47 -1 5 1 2 5 12 1 692 2311 45 22 96.007309 an5 1 2 5 12 2 754 2310 179 22 96.007309 assurances 1 2 5 12 3 949 2298 39 33 96.321220 of5 1 2 5 12 4 1004 2309 44 21 96.985474 no5 1 2 5 12 5 1066 2298 130 33 96.903328 defects5 1 2 5 12 6 1212 2298 140 32 97.007240 because5 1 2 5 12 7 1367 2291 138 47 96.748589 presents 1 2 5 12 8 1521 2298 83 30 93.295219 tests5 1 2 5 12 9 1619 2293 253 33 78.585197 cannot.detect5 1 2 5 12 10 1887 2292 47 32 96.392693 all5 1 2 5 12 11 1951 2291 66 32 96.973206 tire4 1 2 5 13 0 694 2350 138 34 -1 5 1 2 5 13 1 694 2350 138 34 96.540710 defects.3 1 2 6 0 0 692 2391 1328 258 -1 4 1 2 6 1 0 733 2391 1287 65 -1 5 1 2 6 1 1 733 2403 52 32 96.821358 As5 1 2 6 1 2 806 2401 105 33 95.881744 noted5 1 2 6 1 3 933 2400 116 41 95.267128 above,5 1 2 6 1 4 1072 2400 99 33 96.262283 when5 1 2 6 1 5 1194 2398 143 42 96.151947 making5 1 2 6 1 6 1358 2397 115 43 96.515366 safety5 1 2 6 1 7 1496 2397 120 33 96.878395 claims5 1 2 6 1 8 1636 2391 209 65 95.094009 respondents 1 2 6 1 9 1866 2397 92 29 78.533485 must5 1 2 6 1 10 1979 2394 41 38 95.092209 be4 1 2 6 2 0 692 2445 1328 48 -1 5 1 2 6 2 1 692 2454 82 32 96.725494 held5 1 2 6 2 2 793 2456 37 29 96.741463 to5 1 2 6 2 3 851 2463 21 22 96.892380 a5 1 2 6 2 4 892 2451 169 34 96.143288 standards 1 2 6 2 5 1081 2451 40 32 96.554924 of5 1 2 6 2 6 1141 2449 212 44 96.456879 unqualified5 1 2 6 2 7 1372 2449 242 33 96.456879 truthfulness.5 1 2 6 2 8 1635 2447 87 32 96.967941 This5 1 2 6 2 9 1742 2446 30 33 97.007103 is5 1 2 6 2 10 1791 2445 229 43 96.920135 particularly4 1 2 6 3 0 693 2496 1326 46 -1 5 1 2 6 3 1 693 2509 77 28 96.703041 true5 1 2 6 3 2 788 2504 101 32 95.694382 when5 1 2 6 3 3 907 2503 84 33 96.927055 such5 1 2 6 3 4 1009 2501 120 34 96.763474 claims5 1 2 6 3 5 1147 2512 59 21 97.003746 ares 1 2 6 3 6 1225 2501 40 32 96.995575 of5 1 2 6 3 7 1284 2512 20 21 95.756073 a5 1 2 6 3 8 1323 2504 83 38 95.756073 types 1 2 6 3 9 1425 2500 114 32 96.871391 which5 1 2 6 3 10 1557 2509 194 23 96.707344 consumers5 1 2 6 3 11 1768 2500 127 29 93.146637 cannot5 1 2 6 3 12 1912 2492 107 37 93.146637 them-4 1 2 6 4 0 696 2548 1323 42 -1 5 1 2 6 4 1 696 2548 106 40 96.978333 selves5 1 2 6 4 2 820 2558 68 29 63.889198 tests 1 2 6 4 3 907 2564 39 23 91.782455 as5 1 2 6 4 4 965 2553 30 33 95.989906 is5 1 2 6 4 5 1013 2554 60 31 96.674942 thes 1 2 6 4 6 1092 2563 74 22 96.735512 cases 1 2 6 4 7 1185 2552 90 32 96.358131 here.5 1 2 6 4 8 1297 2551 205 34 96.647926 Consumers5 1 2 6 4 9 1522 2553 91 30 95.866211 must5 1 2 6 4 10 1631 2549 81 32 95.866211 thus5 1 2 6 4 11 1732 2548 73 42 96.496643 rely5 1 2 6 4 12 1824 2558 45 22 96.240410 on5 1 2 6 4 13 1887 2548 59 31 93.290062 thes 1 2 6 4 14 1965 2557 54 22 93.154900 ex-4 1 2 6 5 0 696 2598 1324 51 -1 5 1 2 6 5 1 696 2606 126 43 93.097794 pertise5 1 2 6 5 2 840 2605 69 33 96.739059 ands 1 2 6 5 3 926 2604 165 42 96.912247 completes 1 2 6 5 4 1108 2604 146 41 96.722916 honesty5 1 2 6 5 5 1270 2602 40 33 96.775558 of5 1 2 6 5 6 1326 2602 217 42 96.683098 respondent.5 1 2 6 5 7 1561 2602 109 32 96.404892 These5 1 2 6 5 8 1687 2599 261 50 93.288330 circumstances5 1 2 6 5 9 1965 2598 55 32 93.262474 de-3 1 2 7 0 0 732 2670 1290 48 -1 4 1 2 7 1 0 732 2670 1290 48 -1 5 1 2 7 1 1 732 2673 21 32 0.000000 ”5 1 2 7 1 2 760 2672 53 40 80.647278 Thes 1 2 7 1 3 830 2690 105 22 95.950768 currents 1 2 7 1 4 952 2689 70 22 95.950768 states 1 2 7 1 5 1039 2689 28 21 96.390640 of5 1 2 7 1 6 1083 2689 44 21 96.415428 thes 1 2 7 1 7 1144 2670 43 48 96.930656 arts 1 2 7 1 8 1205 2689 23 21 95.255310 is5 1 2 7 1 9 1246 2689 61 20 95.255310 such5 1 2 7 1 10 1326 2688 60 20 96.775803 that5 1 2 7 1 11 1405 2687 63 21 95.545677 tires5 1 2 7 1 12 1486 2688 95 20 95.545677 cannot5 1 2 7 1 13 1599 2686 29 21 96.854691 be5 1 2 7 1 14 1646 2684 155 26 96.551910 thoroughly5 1 2 7 1 15 1821 2685 83 21 96.414948 tested5 1 2 7 1 16 1922 2684 42 21 92.883850 for5 1 2 7 1 17 1983 2685 39 20 92.428795 de-2 1 3 0 0 0 696 2721 797 28 -1 3 1 3 1 0 0 696 2721 797 28 -1 4 1 3 1 1 0 696 2721 797 28 -1 5 1 3 1 1 1 696 2725 66 22 95.314484 fects5 1 3 1 1 2 772 2724 111 24 96.019012 without5 1 3 1 1 3 891 2724 76 25 96.890945 beings 1 3 1 1 4 978 2723 141 24 95.900902 destroyed.5 1 3 1 1 5 1136 2723 57 25 91.457466 (ID,5 1 3 1 1 6 1205 2722 32 22 92.348450 185 1 3 1 1 7 1252 2722 35 25 92.348450 [p.5 1 3 1 1 8 1299 2722 56 25 93.294647 415,5 1 3 1 1 9 1367 2721 126 25 91.987007 herein].)2 1 4 0 0 0 700 2751 1323 64 -1 3 1 4 1 0 0 700 2751 1323 64 -1 4 1 4 1 1 0 733 2751 1290 31 -1 5 1 4 1 1 1 733 2760 19 13 96.361389 185 1 4 1 1 2 761 2758 34 22 96.280182 As5 1 4 1 1 3 809 2758 131 21 96.280182 indicated5 1 4 1 1 4 954 2758 26 21 94.628853 in5 1 4 1 1 5 995 2758 60 20 96.115784 notes 1 4 1 1 6 1069 2757 40 25 96.115784 15,5 1 4 1 1 7 1124 2761 88 20 96.597641 supra,5 1 4 1 1 8 1226 2756 156 25 95.892967 respondents 1 4 1 1 9 1397 2755 143 25 95.653923 stipulated5 1 4 1 1 10 1555 2755 27 21 95.653923 to5 1 4 1 1 11 1597 2754 45 21 96.641930 thes 1 4 1 1 12 1654 2752 58 22 96.214142 facts 1 4 1 1 13 1727 2752 60 24 96.759079 that5 1 4 1 1 14 1800 2752 23 21 96.923157 it5 1 4 1 1 15 1840 2752 22 21 96.385788 is5 1 4 1 1 16 1877 2751 146 26 67.670822 impossible4 1 4 1 2 0 700 2791 523 24 -1 5 1 4 1 2 1 700 2794 26 21 96.904778 to5 1 4 1 2 2 736 2794 87 20 96.190765 insures 1 4 1 2 3 833 2792 60 21 96.803833 that5 1 4 1 2 4 903 2792 62 21 96.836304 each5 1 4 1 2 5 976 2791 49 21 96.456573 tires 1 4 1 2 6 1036 2791 22 21 96.456573 is5 1 4 1 2 7 1068 2791 84 21 96.045815 defects 1 4 1 2 8 1162 2791 61 21 95.946297 free.2 1 5 0 0 0 799 2849 282 24 -1 3 1 5 1 0 0 799 2849 282 24 -1 4 1 5 1 1 0 799 2849 282 24 -1 5 1 5 1 1 1 799 2849 282 24 41.805786 494-841—73——30 458° FEDERAL* TRADECOMMISSION ‘DECISIONS Opinion 81 F.C.

mand scrupulous adherence to the truth, which we firid absent in this advertisement. We conclude that respondent’s absolute repesentation that its tires are “safe” is false and deceptive on its own admission | that tires cannot under today’s technology be assured of being free of defects..In view of this technological impossibility, it is an ‘unfair and deceptive act and practice for respondent to make the unqualified assertion of safety which it made in this case. Conditions of Use Claim =.

While it is s clear from the face of the advertisement that. respondent makes no explicit claim that its tires are safe under all conditions of use, we believe it does so implicitly. Respondent’s advertisement asserts flatly. that the Firestone tire is “The Safe Tire” and. describes the exacting rugged tests (“far exceeding any driving conditions”. consumers will ever encounter) which the tires are put through to. assure this safety. Respondent’s advertisement gives no indication that there is any. limit to the safety of this tire or what such limits might be. . Respondent. argues that it-is. “common knowledge” that conditions of use such as inflation pressure, overloading, and tire: wear. affect tire safety. Respondent concludes from this “common. knowledge” notion that knowledgeable consumers will not give full credence to its unlimited safety claims as written but will read the conditions-ofuse qualifications into the advertisement’s flat assertion. (Resp. App. Br., 25.) The record in this case, however, establishes clearly that ander. certain conditions tires may not be safe. Furthermore, the record contradicts respondent’s claims about consumer: knowledge as to tire use.

_ Dr. ‘Brenner. testified that tires which are: overinflated for instance, will have less impact. resistance and. will-be more easily. damaged by running over obstacles than tires properly inflated. He also-stated that swhen. tires are underinflated. they will run hotter.and the core rubber and adhesive. are more likely to disintegrate and. fail..The same dangers exist when. tires are overloaded. (Tr: 268-69.) Regarding the consumer’s knowledge about the relationship of these conditions of use to tire safety, Dr. Brenner essentially disagreed; with respondent’s. suggestions that the relationship was.common knowledge. He testified that he would “hope” that. people. knew such. facts. He pointed. out,. however, that a tire use survey he:conducted. showed that many people do not follow.safe practices in using their tires. (Tr. 339, RX 7.) 3° For example, more than 25 percent of the cars tested 39 Dr. Brenner’s survey studied how people in the United States were using their tires so that a safety standard could be developed which ‘would! be pertinent to! that use: (Tr. 356.) Ds ‘RRESTONE ‘TIRE AND RUBBER’ OO!" ‘ 459 had at least. one’ - seriously underinflated tire. (RX 7, iil) The: report indicates that such underinflation increases tire temperatures: at high speeds, ‘thereby increasing the danger of tire disablement. In addition, tire underinflation reduces tread wear and affects the handling properties of the vehicle, thus reducing its capacity to respond safely. (RX 7, viii.) The record before us does not reveal whether people: are- ignorant of the danger of improper tire care or whether people aié aware of the danger but choose to assume the risks out of indifference. Respond: ent would have us assume the latter alternative. We disagree. ~ Too much: is at- Stake, especially in matters of safety, to make any assumptions about consumer knowledge. Certainly this’ record pro- ‘vides us with no‘basis on which to do so. ‘Tire care is ‘not a simple matter. Firestone itself seems to’ recognize the fact that consumers are not fully informed as to tire care, since it prepares and distributes a booklet to consumers of its tires telling them about the proper steps to- maintain their. tires.2° Furthermore, 'Dr. Brenner’s ‘tire use-study lends some support to the notion that tire Payers may not be aware of the dangers of-improper tire care.2 ; :

‘The Commission cannot and.should not assume a: a degree of sophisti. cation on the part’ of tire buyers such that they will themselves read into respondent’s advertisement certain disclaimers with.-respect to its safety claims which are made in such absolute and. unqualified terms. The law-aims to protect the vast multitude of:.consumers which includes, “the: ignorant, the unthinking and the credulous:”. Charles of the Rite Distributors Corp. v. FTC, 143 F.2d 676, 679. (2d Cir. 1944). Whatever. amount, of. information consumers may :have:.about tire safety, the burden is hardly upon them to read material facts into-an advertisemént.in .ordér,to- make it-truthful...The-burden.;is: on the respondent to includé:such material information:in-the advertisement. Here respondent, not. the’ consumer,: chose .to. make :explicit. safety claims about its tires. Respondent, not the consumer,-had: ‘the known expertise regarding tire safety. Respondent alone was. in the’ position to assure that ats: advertisement was accurate and.‘consumers: had to 20" The booklet informs the. consumer, inter alia, about proper ‘infla D Y for “the load -earried, tire ‘inspection:: ‘and: tire rotation. Respondent argues: that ‘this - botkiet.’ dispels any possible misunderstanding. by consumers: as to the claimed safety. of -respondent’s tires. However, respondent ‘cannot avoid liability ‘by trying to undo advertising deception by post-sale‘information: ‘The harm -is already. done: when the misléadiig advertising induces the consumer to purchase the product. Montgomery. Ward Co, v. FTC, 3879 F.2d 666,5 1 5 2 4 2 712 2596 46 21 96.669121 6705 1 5 2 4 3 774 2587 66 37 0.000000 (7th5 1 5 2 4 4 843 2596 50 21 95.938881 Cir.5 1 5 2 4 5 906 2593 87 33 79.534111 1967).5 1 5 2 4 6 1041 2621 10 8 21.256523 .5 1 5 2 4 7 1971 2608 2 3 5.578079 :3 1 5 3 0 0 636 2618 1331 175 -1 4 1 5 3 1 0 679 2618 1287 43 -1 5 1 5 3 1 1 679 2629 18 13 85.354950 %5 1 5 3 1 2 707 2629 52 21 94.156776 Thes 1 5 3 1 3 778 2630 83 25 77.826546 study’5 1 5 3 1 4 871 2631 49 21 94.990776 did5 1 5 3 1 5 936 2627 58 26 18.066238 ‘not:5 1 5 3 1 6 994 2622 146 31 46.859478 -determines 1 5 3 1 7 1159 2620 67 36 84.351151 why.5 1 5 3 1 8 1237 2618 145 36 84.303429 consumers5 1 5 3 1 9 1402 2630 53 24 51.530266 fail’5 1 5 3 1 10 1470 2623 26 31 76.688736 ‘to5 1 5 3 1 11 1516 2618 87 36 95.140068 follows 1 5 3 1 12 1622 2620 68 34 47.290985 safe’5 1 5 3 1 13 1693 2629 118 30 86.044388 ‘practicé5 1 5 3 1 14 1829 2630 27 25 96.133652 in5 1 5 3 1 15 1877 2624 89 37 84.662354 caring4 1 5 3 2 0 636 2662 1331 33 -1 5 1 5 3 2 1 636 2662 60 29 85.989365 .for5 1 5 3 2 2 703 2663 67 21 89.260658 theirs 1 5 3 2 3 784 2664 70 21 80.358757 tires,5 1 5 3 2 4 870 2665 82 24 96.419044 There5 1 5 3 2 5 967 2671 43 15 96.682091 ares 1 5 3 2 6 1025 2666 29 28 96.755074 at5 1 5 3 2 7 1068 2665 68 21 93.209160 least5 1 5 3 2 8 1150 2666 176 25 61.142841 two-possible5 1 5 3 2 9 1341 2668 195 24 85.212112 explanations5 1 5 3 2 10 1525 2658 14 40 85.212112 :5 1 5 3 2 11 1552 2668 44 30 95.673019 (a)5 1 5 3 2 12 1616 2668 123 30 95.104408 ignorance5 1 5 3 2 13 1768 2668 28 26 95.267181 of5 1 5 3 2 14 1811 2669 44 28 96.309753 thes 1 5 3 2 15 1870 2669 97 25 96.012108 danger4 1 5 3 3 0 636 2685 1328 52 -1 5 1 5 3 3 1 636 2692 37 24 92.044479 ‘of5 1 5 3 3 2 685 2685 127 44 96.967239 improper5 1 5 3 3 3 826 2694 58 25 70.557190 cares 1 5 3 3 4 893 2693 57 36 82.459503 ‘ands 1 5 3 3 5 961 2696 53 33 53.703697 (b);5 1 5 3 3 6 1024 2688 178 47 87.769943 carelessness.5 1 5 3 3 7 1206 2700 37 23 22.647995 It5 1 5 3 3 8 1257 2701 22 24 95.747063 is5 1 5 3 3 9 1293 2701 126 25 95.747063 certainly5 1 5 3 3 10 1435 2702 44 20 96.196358 not5 1 5 3 3 11 1493 2695 93 32 95.634125 logical5 1 5 3 3 12 1600 2703 26 19 93.132751 to5 1 5 3 3 13 1636 2707 64 25 91.944580 assu5 1 5 3 3 14 1765 2695 122 42 96.446526 however,5 1 5 3 3 15 1905 2703 59 20 96.617813 that4 1 5 3 4 0 637 2730 1327 31 -1 5 1 5 3 4 1 637 2730 46 20 74.133942 sall5 1 5 3 4 2 699 2735 29 16 65.936905 or’5 1 5 3 4 3 745 2736 61 16 86.763504 even5 1 5 3 4 4 824 2736 61 20 59.979233 very5 1 5 3 4 5 902 2726 78 30 93.270470 many5 1 5 3 4 6 997 2726 146 29 79.145363 consumers5 1 5 3 4 7 1161 2734 63 20 80.762131 with5 1 5 3 4 8 1240 2732 133 27 93.940216 neglected5 1 5 3 4 9 1391 2736 50 20 92.689613 ands 1 5 3 4 10 1459 2729 180 27 0.000000 uns&fe'‘tires:5 1 5 3 4 11 1648 2736 68 20 26.554398 were5 1 5 3 4 12 1731 2733 98 28 44.219505 merely5 1 5 3 4 13 1846 2733 118 28 96.248657 careless,4 1 5 3 5 0 644 2764 731 29 -1 5 1 5 3 5 1 644 2764 136 26 96.710052 especially5 1 5 3 5 2 791 2764 21 21 95.016846 if5 1 5 3 5 3 822 2766 60 25 96.875053 they5 1 5 3 5 4 893 2767 72 20 96.627937 knew5 1 5 3 5 5 976 2767 44 21 95.801170 thes 1 5 3 5 6 1030 2767 67 21 95.801170 risks5 1 5 3 5 7 1108 2768 28 20 96.565613 of5 1 5 3 5 8 1146 2768 75 25 96.786583 using5 1 5 3 5 9 1231 2769 62 20 96.499664 such5 1 5 3 5 10 1304 2769 71 21 96.605484 tires.2 1 6 0 0 0 1703 2695 62 31 -1 3 1 6 1 0 0 1703 2695 62 31 -1 4 1 6 1 1 0 1703 2695 62 31 -1 5 1 6 1 1 1 1703 2695 62 31 95.000000 460 FEDERAL TRADE. COMMISSION DECISIONS Opinion 81 F.C.

rely on its accuracy, since they. could not test the claim themselves. Clearly, respondent’s duty was in this instance to set forth all material facts regarding the limitations on its safety claim so that its advertisement could not be misleading or unfair even to those consumers completely ignorant of proper tire care. Respondent has failed to do so here in omitting any mention of the fact that conditions of use affect the safety of its tires.

We conclude that respondent had the burden of making its safety claims unqualifiedly truthful to insure, to the greatest extent possible, that its representations would be fully and completely understandable . and would create no possible room for doubt, ambiguity, or misinterpretation. We find respondent, here | failed to meet this standard of . truthfulness in its “safe tire” advertisement thereby violating Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act.

Cc. “Safety Champion” Issue : The’ complaint charged‘ that respondent’s use of: the ‘tire name “Safety Champion” ‘was: misleading’ and deceptive in that it represented that such tires had unique construction or performance features rendering them safer than other tires when in fact they were not safer. (Compl. para. 8, emphasis added.) Respondent and complaint counsel stipulated to the fact that the tires in question do not have unique construction or performance features which render them safer than other tires. (CX 6, 2.) Thus, the sole issue in question is whether the name “Safety Champion” in fact constitutes a representation to the public respecting unique construction and special safety features of this particular tire rendering it safer than other tires as alleged in the complaint.

The hearing examiner concluded that while it may be literally true that the name “Safety Champion” means that the tires were supreme over all competitors as to safety, as alleged in the complaint, the common acceptance of that name would more likely be the same as it would be for the phrase, “the safe tire.” In other words, the examiner apparently concluded that. the name “Safety Champion” would be perceived by consumers as representing that the tires were free from defects and safe under all conditions of use. On this basis, the examiner recommended an order provision requiring respondent to cease and desist from using the words “Safety Champion” to describe its tires. Complaint counsel contests the hearing examiner’s finding of fact . on this issue since his interpretation of the “Safety Champion” name departs from the complaint allegation, but he supports the examiner’s order. Complaint counsel’s position is, in effect, that. the Commission “FIRESTONE TIRE “AND RUBBER CO. - - 461 398 Opinion should determine on the basis of its'own expert judgment the proper interpretation to be given the name “Safety Champion.” Complaint counsel asserts: that through respondent’s frequent use of the word “champion” in its tire names, it has conveyed the sense that Firestone tires are better than all other tires, and when, “champion” is similarly used in conjunction with’ a-safety theme, it conveys the message that the Firestone tire is safer than other tires. (C.C: App. Br., 9-10.) © Respondent, on the other hand, contests the hearing: examiner” s order to cease using the “Safety Champion” naine; arguing that the complaint: allegation as to the deceptive nature of the name was resolved by the examiner in respondent’s favor and, therefore, no > order provision on this claim is warranted.

Respondent asks the Commission to interpret’ the name “Safety Champion” on the basis of a survey designed by Dr. Hans Zeisel to determine consumers’ perceptions as to the ‘comparative degree of ‘safety conveyed by tire names. (RX 52.) The survey was a national probability sample representative of past and potential tire buyers. The interviewees were shown a card with six tire names withthe word “safety” in éach naime and: asked: whether,’ based’ on the ‘names alone, they thought any of the tires had unique porformiihds or construction ~ characteristics which would make one tire safer than others. Those who thought one or more of the tires listed would be safer than others were then asked which tire was safer than the rest. Only 1.4 percent of all interviewees selected the tire named “Safety Champion” as one with unique performance or construction characteristics making it safer than others.” This percentage was substantially lower than that for four of the other tire names.”* Complaint counsel argues that the survey was biased in that it only included names with the word “safety” in them. This fact, however, does not destroy the probative value of the test results with regard to the particular complaint allegations at issue here. The complaint alleged that the name “Safety Champion” represented that the tires were “safer than other tires.” (Compl. para. 8.) Both counsel for respondent and the Commission stipulated that the issue was whether the name represented to a “significant. segment” of the tire-buying public that the tires were “safer than all other tires.” (CX I, emphasis added.) It was thus fair to select any tire names for purposes of comparison, including those with the word “safety” in them, to show *2 Of these 1.4 percent, 0.8 percent also selected at least one other brand name as safer than the rest, thus reducing the percentage of persons selecting only ‘Safety Champion” as the safest tire to .6 percent of all those interviewed. *3 The survey results showed that 23.1 percent selected the name “Safety All Weather ;” 11.3 percent selected “Safety Traction Tread ;” 7.4 percent, “Grip Safe;” 5.0 percent, “Super Safety 800;” 1.4 percent, “Safety Champion ;” and .9 percent, “Safety Master.” 462 FEDERAL. TRADE, COMMISSION --DECISIONS Opinion, SL EEG that, the “Safety Champion” name did not in fact.represent it,.was the safest; tire. made, and thereby to disprove the complaint allegation. - In the. instant case, we find respondent’s survey of value in, informing us. as.to consumers’ perceptions.of the “Safety. Champion”. name: The: probability sample was. properly conducted. and. administered, the interviewing procedures were fair, and the questionnaire, was ap; propriate to determine consumer pereeptions of. the “Safety.C Cham. .. pion”. name. .

Accordingly, in light of. respondent’s: survey showing a. “very low percentage of consumers who would. perceive the “Safety.Champion” name as alleged i in the complaint, and in view of our own reading of the name, which does not compel a contrary conclusion, we find, as did the hearing examiner, that the name:“Safety Champion” does not represent that the tire is safer.than all other tires.** However, we disagree with the. examiner’s. conclusion that it was. nevertheless proper to prohibit.the use.of this brand name,on the basis:of an interpreta tion. neither alleged i inthe complaint nor argued. by the parties... . Accordingly, ..having. found. that. complaint, counsel. has. failed. to prove the complaint allegation: concerning the Safety Champion issue; we conclude that the allegation. must be. dismissed... ISSUES OF RELIEF We will consider first those issues of relief raised by complaint counsel and respondent which concern specific provisions of the examiner’s proposed order and second the aflirmative relief provisions sought by intervenor } SOUP.

A. Specific Order Provisions Complaint counsel argues that the examiner erred in failing to order. respondent, to substantiate its future safety, performance or quality claims about its consumer products with “competent scientific tests,” as required in the original notice order. (Emphasis added.) The examiner rejected the requirement that the test be “scientific,” stating his belief that the tests could be “road tests or other practical tests competently observed and recorded.” (ID, 382 [p. 427, herein].) In his order he required respondent to cease and desist from making any 24 Because of the resolution of this issue in respondent’s favor, there is no need to consider respondent’s contention that the Commission approved the use of the name “Safety. Champion” as not being false or misleading and that it is, in effect, estopped from now proceeding against. respondent for the. use of such name, Similarly, there is no need to deal with respondent’s contention that it discontinued using this tire name before it was aware the name might be challenged. (Resp. Ams. Br. 2-3.) FIRESTONE. TIRE: AND..RUBBER} COs" 3 463 398. =: Opinion | representations: as to the quality, safety or performance: of its con: sumer products unless they are “fully and, completely substantiated by competent. tests and the results are-available. for inspection. ” (ID, 34 [p. 428, herein].).

_ As we stated j in Pfizer, “there may be-some types of claims or some types of products for which the only reasonable basis, in fairness and in the expectations of consumers, would be a valid scientific or medi: cal basis, The precise formulation of the ‘reasonable: basis’. standard, however, .is an issue tobe determined at this time on a, case-by-case basis.” In the circumstances of this case, we believe that consumers could reasonably have expected Firestone’s performance and safety claims to: have been substantiated by scientific tests. - . _ Accordingly, we agree with complaint counsel that in the ‘circumstances of this case respondent should be required to substantiate its claims by- “scientific” tests..In our view a scientific testis one in which persons with skill and expertise in the field conduct.the test: and: evaluate its results in a. disinterested. manner using testing procedures generally accepted in the profession which best. insure accurate results. This is: not to say. that: respondent always. must conduct: laboratory. tests. The appropriate test depends on the nature.of the: claim made. ° Thus a road or user test.may be an‘adequate scientific test to sbstantiate one performance claim, whereas a laboratory test may be the proper test to. substantiate another claim. Respondent’s obligation is to assure that any claim it makes is adequately substantiated by the results of whatever constitutes a scientific test in those circumstances. The examiner’s order. requires respondent to keep its test results available for inspection without indicating the period of time for doing so. Complaint counsel would require that the results be kept available for three years following the last use of the claim. We believe that a time limit should be indicated and that three years following the termination of the claim is an appropriate period. Therefore, we have incorporated this limitation into the order accompanying this opinion. We have also limited Paragraph 5 of our final order to automobile tires since the test obligation imposed by this provision was directed solely to this type of product. We have further enlarged upon the record keeping requirement to assure that not only test results are available for inspection, but also the original test. data which was collected in the course of the test and a detailed description of how the test was performed. Without the benefit of this information, neither the Commission nor the consumer will be able to evaluate the accuracy of the test results and whether they in fact substantiate the advertising claim.

The order recommended by the examiner also prohibits respondent 464. _ FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION’ DECISIONS Opinion 81 F.C.

from making. any- representations regarding the safety of its tires without disclosing that the safety of any tire is affected by conditions of use, such as inflation pressure, vehicle weight, wear, and other operating conditions. Respondent urges that this provision is unjustified in its breadth. (Resp. App. Br., 26.) Respondent argues that the affirmative disclosure that tire safety is affected by conditions of use is not appropriate for all safety claims but: only when the advertised safety feature of the tire may. actually be affected by conditions of use. For instance, respondent argues, there isno reason to set forth qualifications regarding conditions of use in an bavertisement describing quality control procedures. — We do not agree. that such fine distinctions between safety dnims should’ be made in this case. Any claims which: go to the safety of respondent’s tires, including those regarding: ‘quality control procedures, tend to imply that those tires are safe in use. After all, it is the safe performance of the tires which consumers are interested tn and which the advertisers in the end hope’to promote with their safety claims: ‘Therefore, to assure complete accuracy all representations of safety, whether express’ or’ implied, should be properly qualified to indicate’ that safety of any tire is affected by conditions of use: Accordingly, we agree with the examiner’s recommended order as originally proposed.

Respondent also urges the Commission to dismiss the examiner’s order provision requiring respondent to cease and desist from using the name “Safety Champion.” Inasmuch as we have found that complaint counsel failed to prove the allegation concerning the use of this brand name, we concur in respondent's view and delete this provision from the order.

B. Affirmative Relief Sought by SOUP Intervenor SOUP contends—indeed this was the sole purpose of its intervention in this proceeding—that a mere prohibitory order requiring Firestone not to repeat its deceptive advertising claims in the future will not constitute adequate relief for the deceptions found to have been made. SOUP argues the public interest will not be served unless respondent is required to publicize the fact that it had in the past made false claims about the performance and efficacy of its tires.”* 2 SOUP seeks two additional order: provisions: (1) that Firestone’s future advertisements of its tires containing representations as to their safety or performance must contain a corrective message in a form approved by the Commission indicating that certain of its prior advertisements were false, deceptive or misleading; and (2) that Firestone be required to send a corrective letter to all Firestone tire purchasers over the period January 1, 1967 to December 31, 1974) making the same disclosures. (SOUP App. Br., 29-40.) < FIRESTONE. TIRE" AND “RUBBER: €O:.:)- 465 398 Opinion:

It is SOUP’s contention that a negative cease and désist. order: prohibiting the making of the deceptive claims is not a sufficient remedy because there are residual effects from the deceptive claims in consumers’ minds which will not be eradicated by a mere prohibition on the making of these misrepresentations in the future. SOUP also argued that Firestone is still deriving sales benefits from the deceptive ads and that neither their monetary benefits nor the possible physical injury to consumers which might flow from Firestone’s misrepresentations will be remedied by an exclusively prohibitory cease and desist order. Further SOUP argues that the Commission had found Firestone engaged in false advertising on two previous occasions so that a stronger remedy should now be imposed.

Intervenor ANA * and respondent Firestone both argue that SOUP has failed to prove that the residual effects of respondent’s advertisement may still produce sales or persist in the mind of the public so as to require affirmative eradication. They also argue that the Commission has no power to order this type of affirmative relief. The advertisements which gave rise to SOUP’s relief request appeared in national magazines during the period from J. anuary 1967 _through September 1968.?"

In his initial decision the hearing examiner concluded that the Commission has the authority to issue a corrective order but that in the present case such relief was not necessary. (ID, 31 [p. 426, herein].) After summarizing the wide array of evidence going to the existence and 2% ANA did not appeal from the hearing examiner’s decision but submitted briefs in opposition to SOUP’s request for a corrective advertising order. *7 The time periods and frequency of appearances differed as respects Firestone’s “safetire” ad and its 25 percent quicker stopping ad. The publication dates, magazines and frequencies of publication submitted for the record for these two ads were as follows: Number of .

Publication appearances ofad Dates of publication in publication “Safe-Tire’”’ ads:

Newsweek... _.------- 2-2 eee eee eee Dee. 25, 1967. Saturday Evening Post Feb. 10, 1968.

Look __..-.-.-------_-.- Mar. 15, 1968.

Life_ 222-222 ---.-2--- Mar. 22, 1968.

Saturday Evening Post. Mar. 23, 1968.

Playboy.__---------.--- . May, 1968.

Saturday Evening Post_._-....2..-.-.-.-2-.-2-----2----- May 18, 1968. “25 percent Quicker” ads:

January, 1967 through Sept., 1968.

Newsweek. - U.S. News. _-..--.--- Sports Illustrated.

Readers Digest Playboy_._-..-- Ebony._.-.-..-.------ BONO DNTATO QOW A et ee fo) a a S ko} & © 466 FEDERAL. TRADE “COMMISSION: DECISIONS Opinion SL ELEC.

magnitude of-the residual effects of the Firestone ade-i in: sation, she reached the following conclusion: _ , - Although this isa matter of judement,{t it appears s that such: an order is: not: necessary or desirable. in this case for thefollowing reasons: (1). There has been a considerable lapse of: time since a thé: adver tising occurred. ‘ .

_.+°.(2) There is:no reason: to believe that many of that tires 5 adver- - tised as safe have enough: tread | loft. on them: for the: 0 owners to ae believe they. aresafe... 0 0-0 :

_ 3 (8). The evidence. shows that the residual effect of the advertis- : ing. will-be slight indeed by the end of this. year even:if, the evidence offered by SOUP is-viewed in the most favorable. lighter; 2 (4) Many of respondent’s competitors have made, safety.claims : through the use of brand names similar to “Safety. Champion” and are under no cease and desist, order: of, any: ‘kind; A GP 81-32. | p. 426, herein.) ;

SOUP has appealed. from this. portion. of the examminer’s: s findings and conclusions. Intervenor ANA and respondent Firestone beth support, the.examiner’s conclusions as to the:applicability of the, relief in this case but dispute his legal conclusion 2 as.to: the existence of this power in the-Commission. or ruts ae 3 Neither the Bureau of Consumer Protection: nor complaint counsel argued i in support of intervenor SOUP’s request for the imposition of corrective advertisements in this case, although both strongly argued in support of the legal power of the Commission to order such relief i mn appropriate cases,?8 ‘Thus the issues posed by the parties span both the broad question as to the Commission’s power to order the relief contended for by SOUP. as well as the propriety of its exercise in the instant case. We shall deal first with the arguments of counsel on the existence of the power and, because we agree with the examiner that such power The Bureau of Consumer Protection asserted affirmatively that it was taking “no position with respect to the propriety of imposing a corrective advertising. remedy. in this particular ‘case:” It stated that its brief was submitted solely ‘‘in support.of the naked legal proposition that the Commission has authority to issue ‘corrective advertising’ orders.” (C.C. Ans, Br. to Intervenors.) Complaint counsel took the position that:

[Allthough the Commission clearly possesses the authority to require, in appropriate matters, corrective advertising by.a respondent found to have violated Section 5 of the WTC Act, the record in this case does not support the inclusion of such a provision herein. (C.C. App. Br., 3.) However, in his reply brief on appeal complaint counsel would not particularize his reasons for concluding that corrective advertising was not warranted in this case. (C.C. Rep. Br., 2-3.) — FIRESTONE: TIRE.“AND: RUBBER’ CO.) 467 398: | Opinion does exist; we shall then consider: the: second: issue.’ ‘raised: as: to: the propriety or necessity for its exercise in the instant case.” 1. Commission's Authority To: Issue. Corrective Ad Orders . ‘Numerous cases are cited by the parties respecting the Commission’ ) authority to issue a “corrective advertising” order: as. recommended by — SOUP. Both sides agree that the Commission has the power to bring about, an’ elimination of unfair and. deceptive. practices and that the order provisions designed to effectuate this power must bear a “reasonable. relation” tothe. unlawful practices found ‘to: exist. Jacob. Siegel Co. vu FIC, 327 U.S.. 608, 613: (1946).-It is-over the interpretation. of this. phrase “reasonable: relation” that the parties disagree... a , Respondent.and.ANA urge. us to. accord a narrow interpretation to the case law bearing on the.scope « of the Commission’s-remedial powers, confining the applicability of these cases only to similar factual situations. Since none of the Commission’s past cases has involved the same issues of relief raised here, nor have. they. developed. records. on the residual. effects. of: advertising, . respondent and ANA. conclude that these cases do not lend support to the proposition that the Commission has authority to issue corrective advertising. orders. ‘They argue. further that the Commission’ S: power extends only. to. terminating: past illegal conduct and insuring that similar violations do not recur in the future. They assert that orders must be prospective in nature. and that the order sought by SOUP seeking to dissipate the effects of respondent’s past utterances is retrospective and, therefore, beyond: the. scope of the Commission’s authority. Both ANA and respondent see the corrective order as a punitive measure and ANA argues further that it would have a chilling effect on respondent’s advertising in violation of the First Amendment. We disagree.

The courts have repeatedly recognized that to deal with the ever expanding scope of unfair and deceptive practices,’ the Commission must be permitted wide latitude in fashioning effective relief. In Jacob Siegel Co. v. FTC 327 U.S. 608, 612-13 (1946) the Court. stated: The Commission is the expert body to determine what remedy is necessary to eliminate the unfair and deceptive trade practices which have been disclosed. It has wide latitude for judgment and the. courts will not interfere except where the remedy. selected has no reasonable relation to the unlawful practices found to exist.

Again in FTC v. Ruberoid Co., 343 U.S. 470, 473 (1987) the Supreme Court reiterated this view:

2°The Commission has previously indicated its ‘conclusion that it has. the power to issue corrective advertising orders. ‘In re Campbell Soup, FTC Docket C-1741 (May 25, 1970) [77 F.1T.C. 664]. Nevertheless, we feel it appropriate here to review the basis for this conclusion in light of the arguments put forth by the various participants in this proceeding.

468 FEDERAL“ TRADE? COMMISSION” DECISIONS Opinion 81 FYE.

Congress placed::the-primary responsibility. for fashioning: such orders upon the Commission, and :Congress .expected: the. Commission to.exercise a special competence in formulating remedies to deal with problems in the general sphere of competitive practices. (Footnote omitted.) The court pointed out that if the Commission is to carry out the objectives envisioned by Congress “it cannot be required to confine its road block to the narrow lane the transgressor has traveled,” but must be able “to close all roads to the prohibited goal. ” Ruberoid, supra at 473.

Such wide latitude in determining remedy has been deemed necessary so that the Commission can effectively carry out the statutory policy of the Federal Trade Commission Act to protect consumers and maintain competitive vigor in the marketplace. As the Ninth Circuit stated i in Carter Products, Inc. v. FTC, 268 F.2d 461, 498° (9th Cir. 1959):

Shaping. a remedy i is essentially | an administrative. function. Congress has entrusted ‘the Commission with the responsibility of selecting the means of achiéving a statutory policy—the relation of remedy to > policy is peculiarly a matter for administrative competence.: » ‘ :

~ The: Seventh ‘Circuit recently’ reflected this same view in Z: G. Balfour Co.v. FTC, 442 ¥. 24.1, 24 (7th Cir. 1971): The Commission must be accorded latitude in forming its orders for “the Commission alone is empowered to develop that enforcement policy best calculated to achieve the ends contemplated by Congress and to allocate its available funds and personnel in such a way as to execute its policy efficiently and economically.” Moog Industries, Inc. v. FTC, 355 U.S. 411, 413, 78 S. Ct. 377, 379, 2 L. Hd. 2d 370 (1958).

Through the years, the Commission has exercised its discretion in fashioning a wide variety of order provisions to effectively deal with the unlawful practices it has found to exist. These orders have been upheld in the courts as falling within the broad scope of the Commis- Sion’s discretion in determining relief. Thus, Commission orders have been upheld requiring divestiture, ZL. G. Balfour Co. v. FTC, 442 F. 2d 1 (7th Cir. 1971); ordering compulsory licensing of a patent on a reasonable royalty basis, Charles Pfizer & Co., Inc. v. FTC, 401 F. 2d 574 (6th Cir. 1968), cert. denied, 394 U.S. 920 (1969) ; limiting the purchases of certain products between respondents, Luria Bros. & Co.,. Ine. v. FTC, 389 F. 2d 847 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 829 (1968), placing a dollar limitation on respondents’ consumer contracts, Arthur Murray Studio of Washington, Inc. v. FTC, No. 71-1807 (5th Cir., March 21, 1972); and ordering the refund of money to consumers if there is a recurrence of deceptive and unfair practices, Windsor Distributing Co. v. FTC, 437 ¥F. 2d 448 (8rd Cir. 1971). The courts have f “5 UPIRESTONE.: TIRE..AND -RUBBER.. CO: 469. 898 ; Opinion also held that the Commission may suppress not only illegal. activities but those that are,legal as well if such action is deemed warranted to prevent resumption of the unlawful activities. FTC v. National-Lead Co., 352 U.S. 419 (1957) ; FTC v. Mandel Bros., 359 U.S. 3885 (1959). This listing of orders which is far from complete serves merely to emphasize the Commission’ 's broad authority to insure the discontinuance of injury to the public. As this list reveals, and as the Supreme Court pointed out in FTC v. Mandel Bros., 359- U.S. at. 392: One cannot generalize as to the proper scope of these [cease and desist] orders. It depends upon the facts’ of each case and a judgment as to the extent to which a particular violator should be fenced in. , Thus the Commission’s remedial powers have emerged through the years. as broadly analogous to. the equity power of. the courts. See Pan American World Airways v. United. States, 371 U.S. 296, 312, n..17 (1963). Recently, the Supreme Court specifically likened the Commission to.a court of equity in that it must consider public values when determining. whether a violation of law has occurred. FTC v. The Sperry & Hutchinson Co., 40 U.S.L.W. 4241, 4244 (U.S. Mar. 1, 1972). It follows that in fashioning its remedies the Commission -Toust similarly function like a court of equity if it is to assure that its relief will adequately serve the public interest. — We find ANA’s and respondent’s narrow reading of prior Commission case law delineating the Commission’s authority to fashion relief completely contrary to the intent and spirit of these cases: Respondent and ANA argue, however, that the Commission is not permitted to impose orders which are solely punitive in nature, with the only purpose and effort being to impose penalties on wrongdoers for past actions. While their statement of the law is accurate, its application to the proposed order provision in the instant case is misplaced. The fact that the remedy may be deemed by the court to have severe consequences to the respondent does not in itself render the order © punitive if the order is also deemed a “needed public precaution.” All-State Industries of North Carolina, Inc. v. FTC, 423 F. 2d 423, 425 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 828 (1970). Nor does the fact that the party’s past conduct is taken into account in fashioning a remedy render the order retroactive or: punitive-in nature. Past conduct, in fact, must determine to some extent what the proper scope of relief should be. Thus the Supreme Court in reviewing the Commission’s order in FTC v. National Lead Co., 352 U.S. 419, 429 (1957), determined that the remedy was proper on the grounds, inter alia, that the originator of the unlawful practices “had been previously adjudged a violator of the antitrust laws.”

470 FEDERAL TRADE’ COMMISSION “DECISIONS Opinion . 81 FL:

“'Thé Comiiission recently. expanded: upon thé distinction between prospective and retrospective relief in ‘its opinion in J” re Curtis Publishing Co.;'3 CCH Trade Reg. Rep. q19, 719 at 21,757 (PTC 1971) [78 F.T. G. 1472]:

‘Every Commission order is “retrospective,” in the sense that it looks to and is based’ upon the causes: ‘and. results of the ‘acts found to violate the statute, and at. the samé ‘time:it is’ “prospective” in the sense that its design, purpose, and effect is to:dissipate any lingering effects of the past violations and to . prevent . their recurrence in the future. In réality, the “prospective/retrospective” formulation seems based upon concern that the Commission ' in. structuring its orders might go beyond: the bounds ‘of’ what is reasonably’ necessary “to eradicate the violations found to exist and impose ‘requirements ‘that are in essence punitive because they are superfluous. - Dy, tas 2 2D og, ~ In short, the Commission riecessorily ‘inust, take: into: account: the | past: acts: and practices of ‘Tespondents i in order’ to ‘fashion. effective relief. MAES : Pe OANA and respondent contend that 4 céritéctive, advertising oder’ ‘is retrospective arid‘ therefore unlawful because it seeks to dissipate the effects of illegal conduct: In our view, ‘however, such‘an order:is quite obviously’ ‘not: retrospective - if‘ its ‘purpose ‘and: effect “i ‘18 to’ ‘terminate continuing injury to the:public. This continuing injury’ may be in the. form of lingering effects which’ a misrepresentation ’ ‘May have ori consumers’ minds or in the form of a lessening of competitive vigor. in the marketplace due to the deceptive practices. Under such circumstances, the’ ‘appropriate relief ‘is. that which will terminate the | continuing injury to the public.

Both ANA and respondent. argue, however, that past Commission orders have been ‘aimed at’ terminating illegal conduct and that the Commission’s authority does not include the power to terminate the effects of past conduct. If this were true, of course, the Commission would be severely limited in designing effective relief. Its job is to terminate the continuing’ injury to the public in whatever form it is found to continue.

In the’ past, the Commission has, of course,. frequently framed its orders in terms of stopping particular conduct which it found injurious to the public. This should not be interpreted, however, as precluding other types of ‘relief where injury continues in forms other than active conduct. See In re Curtis Publishing Co., supra; L.G. Balfour Co., FTC Docket No. 8435 (July 29, 1968), af d, 442 F. 2d 1 (7th Cir. 197 1). The purpose and effect of Commission orders to terminate public injury are the same whether the particular order goes to conduct or to the continuing effects of the conduct found to be unlawful. It becomes in the end an argument over semantics as to _ FIRESTONE: TIRE AND RUBBER. CO.° ~ A471 398 ot Opinion whether the continuing operation of an advertising theme should be regarded as conduct: or as the effect. of conduct. Applicable relief .to protect’ the public interest’ cannot rest on such esoteric matters. of fiction. We find respondent’s and ANA’s argument that the Commission’s authority extends to conduct but not to its effects to be completely without merit.

Thus we conclude that an order’ requiring corrective advertising i 1s well within the arsenal of relief provisions which the Commission may draw upon in fashioning effective remedial measures.to bring about. a termination of the acts or practices found to-have been unfair or deceptive: If such relief is warranted to prevent continuing: injury to the public, it is neither. punitive nor retrospective. Finally, ANA argues that in addition to the Commission’s lack. of authority: to issue corrective advertising orders, such orders would be. unlawful-for the. reason that they would conflict with the First Amendment guarantee of free speech. ANA argues that the remedy | is so harsh that.jt will have a “chilling effect” upon respondent’s freedom: to advertise truthfully. It argues that First. Amendment protection does not depend upon-the form of the utterance, ¢.¢., book, pamphlet.-or.paid:advertisement, “but. rather’ upon.-the: nature of its . content.”. (ANA: :Ans., Br, 383:) ‘ANA maintains that: where.the .advertisement: contains “matters of public importance,” it should be subject to full. First Amendment protection, whether or not its’ purpose is mercenary, é.¢., to sell the product. ANA indicates that matters of public importance would include all types of product information, especially in connection with items relating to “health, safety, en-. vironment, ecology, the young, the aged, the poor, and the rational exercise of purchase decisions.” (ANA Ans. Br., 36.) Thus, ANA would grant. immunity to a wide variety of commercial advertising claims, ‘which we believe cannot be immune from challenge precisely because they involve “matters of public: importance.” The public importance of an advertising claim is simply another way of saying that the claim is material. Tt i is clear that material claims made by an advertiser. are precisely those which demand regulation in order to protect the public from false and deceptive claims. Moreover, AN A’s contentions are at variance with existing case law where issues of the First Amendment’s relationship to advertising have been involved. The regulation of false commercial advertising has been repeatedly upheld as constitutional. Donaldson v. Read Magazine, Inc., 333 U.S. 178 (1948); Murray Space Shoe Corp. v. FTC, 304 F. 2d 270, 272 (2d Cir. 1962); L.F. Drew & Co. v. FTO, 235 F. 2d 735, 739-40 (2d Cir. 1956), cert. denied, 352 U.S. 969 (1957) ; 472 FEDERAL ‘TRADE: COMMISSION. DECISIONS Opinion 81 FTC.

American Medicinal Products, Inc. v. FTO; 136.F. 20 426, 427 (9th Cir. 1943).'The courts have recognized that the public interest would hardly be served by an interpretation of the First Amendment which would permit deceptive and fraudulent advertising claims to be.perpetrated upon the public. Donaldson, 333 U.S. at 191-2. Furthermore, in Valentine v. Chrestensen, 316 U.S. 52, 54 (1942), the Supreme Court: expressly held that the First Amendment. does not protect “purely commercial advertising,” which in that case amounted to the hand bills promoting and soliciting visitors to respondent’s business. As the Court also made clear in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 266 (1964), “purely commercial advertising” is. distinguishable from other forms of speech in terms of the applicability of the First: Amendment. In that case the Court decided that a paid advertisement would.be protected under the First Amendment which “communicated information, expressed opinion, recited grievances, protested claimed abuses and sought financial support on behalf of a movement: whose existence and objectives are matters of the highest public interest and concern.” 376 U.S. 266. Since the _ views expressed were of a nature falling within the First Amendment protections, it mattered not that it was a paid advertisement, since this was simply a means by which the constitutionally protected views could be widely published. The Court was careful to point out, however, that this ad was not a “commercial” ad in the sense in which that word was used in Valentine, supra. We cannot agree, as ANA would have us do, that merely because respondent chose to make product claims of importance to consumers that it thereby entered the realm of free speech fully protected by the First Amendment. Nor has ANA cited any cases in support of its position that respondent’s advertisement aimed solely at promoting its product as a business pursuit must receive First Amendment - protection. To so find would make a mockery of the case law and of the congressional mandate to the Federal Trade Commission to prohibit advertising claims which are unfair or deceptive. Advertisers would merely need to append to their ads “a civil appeal, or a moral platitude, to achieve immunity from the law’s command.” Valentine, 316 U.S. at 55. One circuit court has summarized the reasons for denying commercial advertising the protection of the First Amendment in the following manner: _ ~ As a rule [promoting the sale of a product] does not affect the political process, does not contribute to the exchange of ideas, does not provide information on matters of public importance, and is not, except perhaps for the ad-men, a form of individual self-expression. It is rather a form of merchandising subject to limitations for public purposes like other business practices. Banzhaf v. F.C.C., _FIRESTONE TIRE AND. RUBBER CO, . 473 398. Opinion -:

405 F, 2d 1082, 1101-1102 (D.C. Cir. 1968), cert. denied, 8nd nonv.: Tobacco Institute, Inc. v. F.C.C., 396 U.S. S42 (1969). ea ANA. contends, however, that the. argument. that the First ‘Amendment does not, protect false advertising is not at issue here because the chilling effect of corrective advertising would curtail truthful as well as false claims.*° This argument proceeds essentially, .on.the premise— which.we have found. inapplicable. .to. the advertisement here. in question—that. the .First ‘Amendment guarantees, apply | to .commercial speech. Moreover, the argument fails even if viewed on. the basis of its own factual premises. The order here is designed to cure the effects of unfair and deceptive advertising. ANA argues that it is so difficult to determine whether a claim is accurate that advertisers will’ shy away from making any ‘factual claims at all for fear of prosecution by the Commission. Weare hard put’ to understand the basis for such ‘an argument in the instarit case and’ even more to the point to accept the logic of such an argument as a basis for not ordering a relief measure which in our judgment is required. How an advertiser reacts to a particular order } provision is clearly within his province. But his dire predictions that'it will lead him'to. discontinue advertising or to eliminate factual claims from his advertisement i is hardly a basis on which we could justify ordering a particular relief measure which in our judgment was less effective than another. The courts have been singularly unimpressed with the relevance of arguments of this nature to the fashioning of effective relief. As the court in £. F. Drew & Co. v. FTC, 235 F. 2d 735, 740 (2d Cir. 1956), cert. denied, 352 U.S. 969 (1957) pointed out, in advertising one’s products, “fijt is not difficult to choose statements, designs and devices which will not deceive.”

Accordingly, we find no merit in ANA’s contention. We conclude that corrective advertising orders where necessary and appropriate will violate neither the letter nor the spirit of the First Amendment guarantees of free speech and press and are clearly within the remedial authority of the Commission.

We turn now to the question of whether a corrective advertising order is warranted on the basis of the record in this case. Commissioners Kirkpatrick, Dixon, MacIntyre and Dennison do not believe that the order in this case should contain a corrective advertising provision. Accordingly Soup’s request. for such a provision is rejected * To support this contention of the “chilling effect,” ANA points to the testimony of Walter Bregman to the effect that the threat of corrective advertising would probably move advertisers into the area of general image, non-specific product claims such as “this is a nice product, why don’t you buy it, kind of thing.” (Tr. 1815.) 494-841—73 31 474. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ‘DECISIONS Final Order 81 F.T.C.

and the order as proposed by complaint counsel with the amendments noted in this opinion will be entered. Commissioners Kirkpatrick, Dixon, MacIntyre and Dennison concurred in part and did not concur in part in the findings of the Commission as set forth in the Opinion of Commissioner Jones, and each submitted separate statements setting forth their positions. Commissioner Jones dissented ‘in part from the order entered and submitted a separate statement setting forth her position. Finat Order This matter having been heard by the Commission upon the appeals from the initial decision of respondent, complaint counsel, and intervenor SOUP (Students Opposing Unfair Practices, Inc.) and upon briefs and oral argument in support thereof and in opposition thereto; and The Commission having concluded that on this record and the facts and circumstances set. forth therein that the appeals should be granted i in part and denied .in part Lt is ordered:

(1). That the initial decision be, and it hereby i is, adopted as the decision of the Commission to the extent consistent with, and rejected to the extent inconsistent with, the accompanying opinion ;

(2) That the following order be, and it hereby is, substituted for the order contained in the initia] decision: It is ordered, That respondent the Firestone Tire & Rubber Company, a corporation, its successors, assigns, officers, representatives and employees directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the advertising, offering for sale, sale, or distribution of automobile tires or any other product, in commerce, as “commerce” is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act, do forthwith cease and desist from :

1. Representing, directly or by implication, that every purchaser of tires bearing the brand name “Firestone,” or any other brand name, is assured of receiving tires free from defects in materials or workmanship or other manufacturing defects. 2. Misrepresenting, in any manner, the effectiveness of respondent’s quality control or inspection procedures. -3. Using the words, “The safe tire,” or any other word or phrase of similar import or meaning to describe or designate respondent’s tires or otherwise representing directly or by implication, that respondent’s tires will be safe under all conditions of use. FIRESTONE TIRE AND RUBBER CO. AT5 398 Final Order 4. Making any representation, directly or by implication, regarding the safety of respondent’s tires without disclosing clearly and conspicuously and in close conjunction with such representation that the safety of any tire is affected by conditions of use, such as inflation pressure, vehicle weight, wear, and other operating conditions.

5. Representing, directly or by implication, that any of respondent’s automobile tires have any safety or performance characteristic or are superior in quality or performance to. _other products unless each such characteristic was fully. and completely substantiated by competent scientific tests, with the results of the test, the original test data collected in the course of the test, and a detailed description of how the test was performed. ‘available in written form for inspection for at least three years following _ the final use of the representation.

It is further ordered, That the charges iii the complaint relating to the advertising of prices be, and. they hereby are, dismissed. It is further ordered, That respondent deliver a copy of this order to each of its operating departments, divisions, and subsidiaries: engaged in the advertising, offering for sale, sale, or distribution to the public at retail of automobile tires or other merchandise and to the manager of each present and every future retail outlet owned and operated by respondent. lt 1s further ordered, That respondent notify the Commission at least thirty (80) 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 i in the corporation that may affect the compliance obligations arising out of the order. It is further ordered, That respondent shall, within sixty (60) days after service upon it of this order, file with the Commission a report, in writing, setting forth in detail the manner and form in which it. has complied witht the order to cease and desist. Commissioners Kirkpatrick, Dixon, MacIntyre, Jones and Dennison concurring in part and not concur ring in part, as set forth in; their attached separate statements.

A76 FEDERAL: -TRADE: COMMISSION. DECISIONS Complaint | 81 FDC.