Eugene J. Friedman

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

In THE Marrer oF EUGENE J. FRIEDMAN ET AL. TRADING AS GIBA- FRIEDMAN CONSEN'T ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRAPE COMMISSION AND THE FUR PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket C-4. Complaint, Oct. 17, 1961—Decision, Oct. 17, 1961 Consent order requiring Los Angeles furriers to cease violating the Fur Products Laheling Act by failing to disclose the true animal name of the fur Complaint 59 F.T.C.

used in fur products, and that certain fur was dyed; by setting forth fictitious prices and abbreviated information on invoices; and by failing to maintain adequate records as a basis for price and value claims. Complaint Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Fur Products Labeling Act, and by virtue of the authority vested in it by said Acts, the Federal Trade Commission, having reason to believe that Eugene .J. Friedman and John R. Giba, individually and as copartners trading as Giba-Friedman, hereinafter referred to as respondents, have violated the provisions of said Acts and the Rules and Regulations promulgated under the Fur Products Labeling Act, and it appearing to the Commission that a proceeding by it in respect thereof would be in the public interest, hereby issues its complaint stating its charges in that respect as follows: ParaGravu 1. Eugene J. Friedman and John R. Giba are individuals and copartners trading as Giba-Friedman with their office and ‘principal place of business located at 714 South Till Street. Los Angeles, California.

Par. 2. Subsequent to the effective date of the Fur Products Labeling Act on August 9, 1952, respondents have been and are now engaged in the introduction into commerce and in the sale, advertising, and offering for sale, in commerce, and in the transportation and distribution, in commerce, of fur products; and have sold, advertised, offered for sale, transported and distributed fur products which have been made in whole or in part of fur which had been shipped and received in commerce, as the terms “commerce”, “fur” and “fur product” are defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act. Par. 38. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced by respondents in that they were not invoiced as required by Section 5(b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act, and in the manner and form prescribed by the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder.

Among such falsely and deceptively invoiced fur products but. not limited thereto were invoices pertaining to such fur products which failed to disclose :

1. The true animal name of the fur used in the fur products. 2. That the fur contained in the fur products was dyed when such was the fact.

Par. 4. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced in that the respondents set out on invoices relating to fur products certain prices represented to be the usual or regular selling prices of the fur products which prices were in fact fictitious and in GIBA-FRIEDMAN 855 853 Complaint excess of the prices at which respondents regularly or usually sold such fur products in the recent regular course of business, in violation of Section 5(b) (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. Par. 5. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act in that they were not invoiced in accordance with the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in the following respects: , (a) Information required under Section 5(b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder was set forth in abbreviated form, in violation of Rule 4 of said Rules and Regulations.

Par. 6. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively advertised in that the respondents, on consignment invoices, made representations and gave notices concerning said fur products, which representations and notices were not in accordance with the provisions of Section 5(a) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder; and which representations and notices were intended to aid, promote and assist, directly or indirectly, in the sale and offering for sale of said fur products. By means of the said representations and notices contained in the consignment invoices to customers and by means of other representations and notices of similar import and meaning not specifically referred to herein, respondents falsely and deceptively advertised their fur products in that respondents thereby made representations as to the usual or regular selling prices of fur products which prices were in fact fictitious and in excess of the prices at which respondents usually or regularily sold such fur products in the recent regular course of business in violation of Section 5(a) (5) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

Par. 7. Respondents in advertising fur products for sale as aforesaid made claims and representations respecting prices and values of fur products. Said representations were of the types covered by subsections (a), (b), (c) and (d) of Rule 44 of the Rules and Regulations promulgated under the Fur Products Labeling Act. Respondents in making such claims and representations failed to maintain full and adequate records disclosing the facts upon which such claims and representations were based in violation of Rule 44(e) of said Rules and Regulations.

Par. 8. The aforesaid acts and practices by respondents, as herein alleged, were and are in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder and constitute unfair and deceptive acts and practices in commerce within the intent and meaning of the Federal Trade Commission. Act. Order 59 F.T.C.

DECISION AND ORDER The Commission having heretofore determined to issue its complaint charging the respondents named in the caption hereof with violation of the Federal] Trade Commission Act and the Fur Products Labeling Act, and the respondents having been served with notice of said determination and with a copy of the complaint the Commission intended to issue, together with a proposed form of order; 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 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 set forth in the complaint, and waivers and provisions as required by the Commission’s rules; and The Commission, having considered the agreement, hereby accepts same, issues its complaint in the form contemplated by said agreement, makes the following jurisdictional findings, and enters the following - order:

1. Respondents Eugene J. Friedman and John R. Giba are individuals and copartners trading as Giba-Friedman with their office and principal place of business Jocated at 714 South Hill Street, Los Angeles, California.

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 /t is ordered, That Eugene J. Friedman and John R. Giba, individuals and copartners trading as Giba-Friedman or under any other trade name and respondents’ representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the introduction into commerce, or the sale, advertising, or offering for sale in commerce, or the transportation or distribution in commerce of fur products: or in connection with the sale. advertising, offering for sale, transportation or distribution of fur products which are made in whole or in part. of fur which has been shipped and received in commerce, as “commerce”, “fur” and “fur product” are defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act, do forthwith cease and desist. from:

1. Falsely or deceptively invoicing fur products by : A. Failing to furnish to purchasers of fur products invoices showing al] the information required to be disclosed by each of the subsections of Section 5(b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. J. C. KRAMER FURRIER 857 853 Complaint B. Representing directly or by implication that the regular or usual price of any fur product is any amount in excess of the price at which the respondents have usually and customarily sold such products in the recent regular course of business.

C. Setting forth information required under Section 5(b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in abbreviated form.

2, Falsely or deceptively advertising fur products through the use of any advertisement, representation, public announcement or notice which is intended to aid, promote or assist, directly or indirectly, in the sale or offering for sale of fur products, and which: A. Represents directly or by implication that the regular or usual price of any fur product is any amount in excess of the price at which the respondents have usually and customarily sold such products in the recent and regular course of business. B. Misrepresents in any manner the savings available to purchasers of respondents’ fur products.

3. Making claims and representations of the types covered by subsections (2), (b), (c) and (d) of Rule 44 of the Rules and Regulations promulgated under the Fur Products Labeling Act unless there are maintained by respondents full and adequate records disclosing the facts upon which such claims and representations are based. It is further ordered, That the respondents herein shall, within sixty (60) days after service upon them of this order, file with the Commission a report in writing setting forth in detail the manner and form in which they have complied with this order.