Love Television & Stereo Rental, Inc

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

IN THE MATTER OF LOVE TELEVISION & STEREO RENTAL, INC., ET AL. Docket C~2245. Order, Oct. 9, 1973.

Order denying respondent’s petition for modification of consent order in lieu ®6In the case of certain products such as biologicals, where the regulatory mechanisms do not include “NDA” filings, the law judge should endeavor to limit the evidence in an equivalent fashion. Also, our disposition of this interlocutory appeal should not be regarded as removing from him authority to deal fully with other questions that may arise that bear on the subject to research evidence or other motions directed to simplification of issues. Order 83 F.T.C.

of Commission’s proposed modification, and directing compliance with the consent order issued July 11, 1972, 81 F.T.C. 86. Appearances For the Commission: Lewis H. Goldfarb.

For the respondents: Henning, Chambers & Mabry, Atlanta, Ga. ORDER IN RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR MODIFICATION On January 23, 1973 [82 F.T.C. 263], the Commission issued a proposed modification of its July 11, 1972 order in this matter granting in part and denying in part respondents’ August 7, 1972 petition for modification. The proposed modification was conditioned upon respondents’ acceptance thereof and submittal of a signed agreement containing a consent order which contained a new “Paragraph One.” Respondents rejected the proposed modification and instead, on April 3, 1973, filed a petition for modification requesting that the following language be added after Paragraph 1(b) of the July 11, 1972 order:

Provided, however, that the requirements of this Paragraph 1 shall not apply to respondents’ individualized oral responses to spontaneous telephone or in-store inquiries initiated by customers. Respondents contend that it was never intended nor contemplated by the parties to the consent agreement that the provisions of Paragraph 1 would be applicable to oral responses to spontaneous inquiries made by customers. They also contend that the requested modification will adequately protect the public interest. The Commission does not agree, however, that its decision to accept the proferred consent order contemplated that Paragraph 1 disclosures should be limited to representations or advertisements initiated by respondents. It was also the intent of the Commission to require the disclosures in every instance, regardless of who initiated the conversation. The present language of Paragraph 1 reflects the intent of the Commission in this regard. Accordingly, It is ordered, That respondents’ petition herein be denied and that respondents comply with the Commission’s consent order issued July 11, 1972. — Complaint