Goldstein Company, Inc.

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

IN THE MATTER OF GOLDSTEIN COMPANY, H\C., ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC. , IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND THE FUR PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket C-1044. Complaint, March 966-Decision, March, 1.966 Consent order requiring a Birmingham, Ala., corporation to cease misbranding, falsely and deceptively invoicing, and advertising its fur products and failing to keep adequate records to support its claims. GOLDSTEIN CO. , INC., ET AL. 205 204 Complaint 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 beheve that Goldstein Company, Inc. , a corporation, and Sol L. Goldstein, individually and as an offcer of said corporation, hereinafter referred to as respondents, have violated the provisions of said Acts and the Rules and Regulations promulgated under the Fur Products Labehng Act, and it appearing to the Commission that a proceeding by it in respect thereof would be in the pubhc interest, hereby issues its complaint stating its charges in that respect as foi1ows: PARAGRAPH 1. Respondent Goldstein Company, Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Alabama.

Respondent Sol L. Goldstein is an offcer of the corporate respondent, and he formulates, directs and controls the acts, practices and poHdes of the said corporate respondent including those hereinafter set forth.

Respondents are retailers of fur products with their offce and principal place of business located at 1811 Third A venue, North Birmingham, Alabama.

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 furs which have been shipped and received in commerce, as the terms "commerce fur" and "fur product" are defined in the Fur Products Labehng Act.

PAR. 3. Certain of said fur products were misbranded in violation of Section 4(1) of the Fur Products Labehng Act in that they were falsely and deceptively labeled or otherwise falsely and deceptively identified in that labels affxed to fur products, contained representations, either directly or by implication, that the prices of such fur products were reduced from respondents former bona fide prices in the recent regular course of business and the amount of such purported reduction constituted savings to purchasers of respondents' fur products. In truth and in fact Complaint 69 F. T.

the alleged former prices were false and deceptive in that they were not the actual, bona fide prices at which respondents offered the products to the public on a regular basis for a reasonably substantial period of time in the recent regular course of business. The said fur products were not reduced in prices as represented nor were savings afforded purchasers of respondents ' fur products as represented.

PAR. 4. Certain of said fur products were misbranded in that they were falsely and deceptively labeled or otherwise falsely or deceptively identified with respect to the name of the country origin of furs contained in such fur products, in violation of Section 4 (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. Among such misbranded fur products, but not limited thereto were fur products labeled to show the country of origin of furs used in such fur products as Canada when the country of origin of such furs was, in fact, Russia.

PAR. 5. Certain of said fur products were misbranded in that they were not labeled as required under the provisions of Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and in the manner and form prescribed by the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder.

Among such misbranded fur products, but not limited thereto were fur products without labels, and fur products with labels which failed:

1. To show that the fur product contained or was composed of used fur, when such was the fact.

2. To show the country of origin of the imported furs contained in the fur product.

PAR. 6. Certain of said fur products were misbranded in violation of the Fur Products Laheling Act in that they were not labeled in accordance with the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in the following respects:

(a) The disclosure "second-hand " where required, was not set forth on labels, in violation of Rule 23 of said Rules and Regulations.

(b) Information required under Section 4 (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder was not set out on labels in a legible manner, in letters of equal size and conspicuousness, in violation of Rule 29 (a) of the said Rules and Regulations.

(c) Information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and Rules and Regulations promulgated there- GOLDSTEIN CO., INC. , ET AL. 207 204 Complaint under was not set forth in the required sequence, in violation of Rule 30 of said Rules and Regulations.

(d) Information required under Section 4 (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder was not set forth separately on labels with respect to each section of fur products composed of two or more sections containing different animals furs, in violation of Rule 36 of the said Rules and Regulations.

(e) Required item numbers were not set forth on labels, in violation of Rule 40 of said Rules and Regulations. PAR. 7. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced by the respondents in that they were not invoiced as required by Section 5 (b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated under such Act. Among such falsely and deceptively invoiced fur products, but not limited thereto, were fur products covered by invoices which failed:

1. To show the true animal name of the fur used in the fur product.

2. To disclose that the fur contained in the fur product was bleached, dyed, or otherwise artificially colored, when such was the fact.

3. To show the country of origin of imported furs used in fur products.

PAR. 8. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced with respect to the name of the country of origin of the imported furs used in the fur products, in violation of Section 5(b) (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. Among such falsely and deceptively invoiced fur products, but not limited thereto, were fur products invoiced to show the name of the country of origin of furs contained in fur products as A. when the country of origin of such furs was, in fact, Canada.

PAR. !t. 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 Rules and Regulations promulgated in vio-thereunder was set forth on invoices in abbreviated form, lation of Rule 4 of the said Rules and Regulations. (b) The disclosure "second-hand " where required, was not set Complaint 69 F. T.

forth on invoices, in violation of Rule 23 of said Rules and Regulations.

(c) Required item numbers were not set forth on invoices, in violation of Rule 40 of said Rules and Regulations. PAR. 10. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively advertised in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act in that certain advertisements intended to aid, promote or assist, directly or indirectly, in the sale, or offering for sale of such fur products were not in accordance with the provisions of Section 5 (a) of the said Act.

Among and included in the aforesaid advertisements, but not limited thereto, were advertisements of respondents which appeared in issue of the Birmingham News, a newspaper published in the city of Birmingham, State of Alabama. Among such false and deceptive advertisements, but not limited thereto, were advertisements which failed to show the fur contained in the fur products was bleached, dyed, or otherwise artificia1Jy colored, when such was the fact.

PAR. 11. By means of the aforesaid advertisements and other advertisements of similar import and meaning not specifically referred to herein, respondents falsely and deceptively advertised fur products, in violation of Section 5 (a) (5) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and Rule 44 (a) of the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder by representing directly or by implication through statements appearing in newspapers such as "Save %, to 112 and More Off Furs Offered For Sale in September 1963 and not sold. Natural Ranch Mink % Coat $1995-Fiesta Clearance $775, that the prices of such fur products were reduced from the actual, bona fide prices at which respondents offered the products to the public at a particular period of time in the recent regular course of business and the amount of such purported reduction constituted savings to purchasers of respondents' fur products. In truth and in fact the a1Jeged former prices were fictitious in that they were not reduced from the actual, bona fide prices at which respondents had offered the product to the public at a particular period of time in the recent regular course of business and the said fur products were not reduced in prices as represented and savings were not afforded purchasers of respondents' fur products as represented.

PAR. 12. Respondents falsely and deceptively advertised fur products in violation of Section 5 (a) (5) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and Rule 44 (a) of the Rules and Regulations promul- , GOLDSTEIN CO. , INC. , ET AL. 209 204 Complaint gated thereunder by affxing labels thereto which represented either directly or by implication that the prices of such fur products were reduced from respondents' former bona fide prices in the recent regular course of business and the amount of such purported reduction constituted savings to purchasers of respondents' fur products. In truth and in fact, the alleged former prices were false and deceptive in that they were not the acutal bona fide prices at which the respondents offered the products to the public on a regular basis for a reasonably substantial period of time in the recent regular course of business. The said fur products were not reduced in prices as represented, nor were savings afforded purchasers of respondents' fur products as represented.

PAR. 13. In advertising fur products for sale as aforesaid, respondents represented through such statement as "Save %. to 1; and More" that prices of fur products were reduced in direct proportion to the percentages stated and that the amount of said reduction afforded savings to the purchasers of respondents' fur product" when in fact such prices were not reduced in direct proportion to the percentages stated and the represented savings were not thereby afforded to the said purchasers, in violation of Section 5(a) (5) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. PAR. 14. By means of the aforesaid advertisements and others of similar import and meaning not specifically referred to herein respondents falsely and deceptively advertised fur products in that certain or said fur products were falsely or deceptively identified with respect to the name or designation of the animal or animals that produced the fur from which the said fur products had been manufactured, in violation of Section 5 (a) (5) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

Among such falsely and deceptively advertised fur products but not limited thereto, were fur products advertised as "Broadtail Lamb" when the fur contained in such fur products was, in fact Dyed Broadtail-processed Lamb.

PAR. 15. In advertising fur products for sale as aforesaid, respondents made pricing claims and representations of the types covered by subsections (a), (b), (c) and (d) of Rule 44 (e) of the Regulations 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.

Decision and Order 69 F.

PAR. 16. By means of the aforesaid advertisements and others of similar import and meaning not specifically referred to herein respondents falsely and deceptively advertised fur products in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act in that the said fur products were not advertised in accordance with the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in the following respects: (a) Information required under Section 5 (a) 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 the said Rules and Regulations.

(b) The term " natural" was not used to describe fur products which were not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed or otherwise artificially colored, in violation of Rule 19 (g) of the said Rules and Regulations.

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 therean ad- after executed an agreement containing a consent order, mission by respondents of al1 the jurisdictional facts set forth in the complaint to issue herein, a statement that the signing of said agreement is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by respondents that the Jaw has been violated as set forth in such 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. Respondent Goldstein Company, Inc. , is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and byvirtue of the laws of the State of Alabama, with its offce and principal place of business located at 1811 Third Avenue, Korth, in the city of Birmingham, State of Alabama.

Respondent Sol L. Goldstein is an offcer of said corporation and his address is the same as that of said corporation. GOLDSTEIN CO. , INC. , ET AL. 211 204 Order 2. The Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction of the su bject matter of this proceeding and of the respondents, and the proceeding is in the public interest.

ORDER It is ordered That respondents Goldstein Company, Inc., a corporation, and its offcers and Sol L. Goldstein, individually and as an offcer of said corporation, 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 any fur product; or in connection with the sale, advertising, offering for sale, transportation or distribution of any fur product which is made in whole or in part of fur which has been shipped and received in commerce, as the terms "commerce fur" and "fur product" are defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act, do forthwith cease and desist from:

A. Misbranding fur products by:

1. Representing, directiy or by implication on labels that any price whether accompanied or not by descriptive terminology is the respondents' former price of fur products when such price is in excess of the price at which such fur products have been sold or offered for sale in good faith by the respondents in the recent regular course of business, or otherwise misrepresenting the price at which such fur products had been sold or offered for sale by respondents.

2. Misrepresenting in any manner on labels or other means of identification the savings available to purchasers of respondents' fur products.

3. Falsely or deceptively labeling or otherwise identifying any such fur product as to the country of origin of furs contained in such fur products.

4. Failing to affx labels to fur products showing in words and in figures plainly legible al1 of the information required to be disclosed by each of the subsections of Section 4 (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. 5. Failng to disclose that fur products contain or are composed of second-hand used fur.

6. Failng to set forth information required under Section 4 (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Order 69 F.

Rules and Regulations thereunder in a legible manner, in letters of equal size and conspicuousness. 7. Failing to set forth information required under Section 4 (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder on labels in the sequence required by Rule 30 of the aforesaid Rules and Regulations.

8. Failing to set forth separately information required under Section 5 (b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder with respect to each section of fur products composed of two or more sections containing different animal furs. 9. Failing to set forth on labels the item number or mark assigned to a fur product.

B. Falsely or deceptively invoicing fur products by: 1. Failing to furnish invoices, as the term "invoice " is defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act, showing in words and figures plainly legible a11 the information required to be disclosed in each of the subsections of Section 5 (b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. 2. 1Iisrepresenting in any manner on invoices, the country of origin of the fur contained in fur products. 3. 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.

4. Failing to disclose that fur products contain or are composed of second-hand used fur.

5. Failing to set forth on invoices the item number or mark assigned to fur products.

C. 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 any fur product, and which:

1. Fails to set forth in words and figures plainly legible a11 the information required to be disclosed by each of the subsections of Section 5 (a) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

2. Represents, directly or by implication, that any price, whether accompanied or not by descriptive terminology is the respondents ' former price of fur products LEVY-ABRAMS CO. ET AL. 213 204 Complaint when such price is in excess of the price at which such fur products have been sold or offered for sale in good faith by the respondents in the recent regular course of business, or otherwise misrepresenting the price at which such fur products have been sold or offered for sale by respondents.

3. Misrepresents in any manner the savings available to purchasers of respondents' fur products. 4. . Sets forth information required under Section 5(a) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in abbreviated form. 5. Fails to set forth the term "natural" as part of the information required to be disclosed in advertisements under the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder to describe fur products which are not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed or otherwise artificially colored.

D. Making claims and representations of the types covered by subsections (a), (b), (c) and (d) of Rule 44 (e) 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.