Lustrasilk Corporation of America, Inc

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

IN THE MATTER OF LUSTRASILK CORPORATION OF AMERICA, INC., ET AL. MODIFYING ORDER, IN REGARD TO ALLEGED VIOLATION OF SECS. 5 AND 12 OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT Docket C-2894. Decision, Jan. 27, 1976 — Modifying Order, July 18, 1978. This is an order which modifies a cease and desist order issued January 27, 1976, 41 FR 7744, 87 F.T.C. 145, to conform with the product coverage of a consent order issued against a competitive company, by substituting the words “hair straightening products” for the word “cosmetics” in Sections I and II of the original order, and “is ” for “are” in the It is ordered paragraph in Section I; and by deleting the words “as ‘cosmetic’ is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act” in the It is further ordered paragraph in Section II. ORDER MopIFYING ORDER To CEASE AND DESIST ORDER* On April 26, 1977, respondents in this matter requested by letter that the Commission order of January 27, 1976, be modified, first by limiting the product coverage of the order to “hair straightening products” which would replace the broader “cosmetics” products description, and second, by excluding the individually named respondents from the order.

Complaint counsel support the limitation on product coverage and oppose the exclusion of the individually named respondents. We agree that the product coverage should be limited as requested. After entry of its order in this matter the Commission issued. a consent order against Revlon, Inc., a competitor of Lustrasilk in the sale of hair relaxers. The Revlon order’s product coverage is identical to that recommended by complaint counsel here. For this reason the Commission believes that it is in the public interest to grant the modification of product coverage sought by Lustrasilk. We reject respondents’ request that the individually named respondents be released from the order. Nothing that respondents have cited indicates a change of facts or law that would warrant the exclusion of the two individually named respondents from the reach of the order, nor does it appear that the public interest would be served by their exclusion. To the contrary, because the corporation is run as the proprietorship of the two named individuals, we find it necessary to continue to hold them responsible under the order. Accordingly, * Reported as modified by Commission Order Correcting Order Modifying Order to Cease and Desist issued August 7, 1978.

- LUSTRASILK CORP. OF AMERICA, INC., ET AL. 185 184 Modifying Order It is ordered, That the proceeding be, and it hereby is, reopened. It is further ordered, That the order to cease and desist be, and it hereby is, modified by substituting the words “hair straightening products” for the word “cosmetics” in Sections I and II of the order, by substituting “is” for “are” in the It is ordered paragraph in Section I, and by deleting the words “as ‘cosmetic’ is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act” in the Jt is further ordered paragraph in Section II. , It is further ordered That the order to cease and desist be, and it hereby is, modified by substituting “any hair straightening product” for “any such product” in Paragraph I.A.3; by deleting the words “safety or” and substituting “hair straightening product” for “cosmetic” in Paragraph I.B.; and adding a new Paragraph I.C. and renumbering subsequent paragraphs accordingly, as follows: “Representing, in any manner, the safety of any hair care product, or the ingredients therein, unless at the time such representation is made respondents have in their possession a reasonable basis, consisting of competent and reliable controlled tests, to support such representation; or misrepresenting in any manner the nature of any such product or its ingredients or the effect of any such product or its ingredients on hair or skin or any other structure of the body.”

Commissioner Pitofsky did not participate. Complaint 92 F.T.C.