Block Drug Company, Inc

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

IN THE MATTER OF BLOCK DRUG COMPANY, INC., ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO ALLEGED VIOLATION OF secs. 5 AND 12 OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT Docket 9050. Complaint,' July 29, 1975 — Decision, Nov. 17, 1978 . This consent order, among other things, requires Grey Advertising, Inc., a New York City advertising firm, to cease misrepresenting or making unsubstantiated claims regarding the performance or efficacy of denture adhesives and cleansers.

Appearances For the Commission: Melvin H. Orlans and Mark A. Heller. For the respondents: Leonard Orkin and Stuart L. Friedel, Davis & Gilbert, New York City.

DECISION AND ORDER The Federal Trade Commission having issued a complaint which charges the above-named respondents with violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act; and Respondent Grey Advertising, Inc. (“Grey”) and counsel for the Commission having thereafter executed an agreement containing a consent order, an admission by respondent Grey of all the jurisdictional facts set forth in the aforesaid complaint, a statement that the signing of said agreement is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by respondent Grey 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 accepted the executed consent agreement and placed such agreement on the public record for a period of sixty (60) days, now in further conformity with the procedure prescribed in Section 2.34 of its Rules, the Commission hereby makes the following jurisdictional findings, and enters the following order:

1. Respondent Grey is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal office and place of business located at 777 Third Ave., New York, New York.

2. The Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction of the subject ' Reported in 90 F.T.C. 893.

BLOCK DRUG COMPANY, INC., ET AL. 853 852 Decision and Order matter of this proceeding and of respondent Grey, and the proceeding against respondent Grey is in the public interest. ORDER It is ordered, That respondent Grey Advertising, Inc., and its officers, representatives, agents and employees directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the advertising, offering for sale, sale or distribution of products, by the respondent in or affecting commerce, as “commerce” is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act, do forthwith cease and desist from: 1. Making any statements or representations directly or by implication concerning any performance or other characteristic or attribute of any dental product, except denture cleansers, unless respondent possessed and relied upon a reasonable basis for each such statement or representation at the time it was made or respondent can establish that it neither knew nor should have known that its basis was not reasonable. 2. .Making any comparative statements or representations directly or by implication concerning any performance attribute. of any competing denture cleanser products unless respondent possessed and relied upon a reasonable basis for each such statement or representation at the time it was made or respondent can establish that it neither knew nor should have known that its basis was not reasonable.

3. Misrepresenting in any manner the effectiveness of any denture adhesive product.

4. Representing, directly or by implication, that: a. Every user of denture adhesives, regardless of his or her particular denture holding problem, can eat any of a group of socalled “problem” foods (including, for example, apples, peanuts, carrots, steak, corn-on-the-cob, celery, thick sandwiches, fried chicken and caramels) without embarrassment or discomfort; and/or b. After the use of a denture adhesive, dentures will hold in place for every denture wearer, regardless of his or her particular denture holding problem, when the wearer eats any of the aforementioned “problem” foods.

5. As referred to herein, the term reasonable basis may consist of an opinion, where appropriate, in writing signed by a person qualified by education or experience to render the opinion that a competent scientific test(s) or other objective data exist; provided, however, that such opinion also discloses and describes the contents of such test(s) or other objective data. It is further ordered, That the respondent corporation shall Decision and Order 92 F.T.C.

forthwith distribute a copy of this order to each of its operating divisions.

It is further ordered, That respondent notify the Commission at least 30 days prior to any proposed change in the corporate respondent such as dissolution, assignment or sale resulting in the emergence of a successor corporation, the creation or dissolution of subsidiaries or any other change in the corporation which may affect compliance obligations arising out of the order. It is further ordered, That the respondent submit to the Commission, in writing, a compliance report detailing the manner and form in which it complied with this order. Such reports shall be submitted sixty (60) days after the entry of a final order and, thereafter, annually for two (2) years from the date of the first submission. In addition, any provision of this order shall abate when inconsistent with a final Federal Trade Commission trade regulation rule if the trade regulation rule specifically authorizes any claim prohibited herein.

MUA. ULV YH dui, LLVU. uuu 855 Interlocutory Order