Chambers & Chambers, Inc.

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

IN THE MATTER OF CHAMBERS & CHAMBERS, INC., ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND THE FGR PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket C-1054. Complaint, Ma?' ch J.66-Deci:sion, March 31, 1966 Consent order requiring a New York City retail furrier to cease deceptively invoicing and falsely advertising its fur products, and failing to maintain adequate records.

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 Chambers & Chambers, Inc., a corporation, and Harry J. Chambers and Wilmer C. Maurer, individually and as offcers 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 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: PARAGRAPH 1. Chambers & Chambers, Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York. Their offce and principal place of CHAMBERS & CHAMBERS, INC. , ET AL. 511 510 Complaint business is located at 370 Seventh Avenue, New York, New York. Individual respondents Harry J. Chambers and Wilmer C. Maurer are offcers of said corporation and formulate, direct and control the acts, practices and policies of said corporation including those herein set forth. Their address is the same as that of said corporation.

Respondents are retailers of fur products and operate two retaiJ stores and leased departments in five department stores in various States of the United States.

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 Hcommerce, fur" and "fur product" are defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act.

PAR. 3. 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 to show the true animal name of the fur used in the fur product.

PAR. 4. 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 on invoices in abbreviated form in violation of Rule 4 of said Rules and Regulations. (b) The term "Dyed Broadtail-processed Lamb" was not set in violation of forth on invoices in the manner required by law, Rule 10 of said Rules and Regulations.

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

Complaint 69 F. T.

(d) Required item numbers were not set forth on invoices, in violation of Rule 40 of said Rules and Regulations. PAR. 5. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced in that respondents set forth on invoices pertaining to fur products the name of an animal other than the name of the animal that produced the fur from which the said fur products had been manufactured, 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 which were invoiced as Broadtail" thereby implying that the furs contained therein were entitled to the designation "Broadtail Lamb" when in truth and in fact they were not entitled to such designation. PAR. 6. 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 and assist directly or indirectly, in the sale and 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 aforementioned advertisements, but not limited thereto, were advertisements of respondents which appeared in issues of the Providence Evening Bulletin and Journal, a newspaper published in the city of Providence, State of Rhode Island.

Among such false and deceptive advertisements, but not limited thereto were advertisements which failed: 1. To show the true animal name of the fur used in the fur product.

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

PAR. 7. By means of the aforesaid advertisement 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 that the term "Dyed Broadtail-processed Lamb" was not set forth in the manner required, in violation of Rule 10 of the said Rules and Regulations. PAR. 8. 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 CHAMBERS & CHAMBERS, INC., ET AL. 513 510 Complaint that certain of said fur products were falsely and 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" thereby implying that the furs contained therein were entitled to the designation "Broadtail Lamb" when in truth and in fact they were not entitled to such designation. PAR. 9. 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 that said advertisements represented that the prices of fur products were reduced from respondents' former prices and that the amount of such price reductions afforded savings to the purchasers of respondents' fur products when, in truth and in fact, the alleged former prices were fictitious in that they were not actual bona fide prices at which respondents offered the fur products to the public on a regular basis for a reasonably substantial period of time in the recent regular course of business and the said fur products were not reduced in price as represented and the represented savings were not thereby afforded to the purchasers, in violation of Section 5 (a) (5) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and Rule 44 (a) of the Rules and Regulations promulgated under the said Act.

PAR. 10. 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 Section 5 (a) (5) of the Fur Products Labeling Act in that the said advertisements represented through statements such as "Way Below Regular Cost" and "Save Up To $100. " either directly or by implication, that the fur products so advertised were being sold by respondents at prices which were reduced from the former bona fide prices at which the respondents offered the fur products to the public on a regular basis for a reasonably substantial period of time in the recent regular course of business and the amount of such purported reduction constituted savings to the purchasers of respondents' products, when in fact such fur products were not reduced in price and savings were not afforded purchasers of respondents' products as represented. PAR. 11. In advertising fur products for sale as aforesaid res- Decision and Order 69 F. T. pondents represented through such statements as 112 7'1'ice 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' products 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. 12. 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 of the Regulations under the Fur Products Labeling Act. Respondents in making such claims and representations failed to maintain fuIJ and adequate records disclosing the facts upon which such pricing claims and representations were based in violation of Rule 44 (e) of the said Rules and Regulations.

PAR. 13. The aforesaid acts and practices of respondents, as herein alleged, are in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder and constitute unfair and deceptive acts and practices and unfair methods of competition in commerce under the Federal Trade Commission Act.

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 respondents of all 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 law 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 CHAMBERS & CHAMBERS, INC., ET AL. 515 510 Order agreement, makes the following jurisdictional findings, and enters the following order:

1. Respondent Chambers & Chambers, Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York, with its offce and principal place of business located at 370 Seventh Avenue, New York, New York. Individual respondents Harry J. Chambers and Wilmer C. Maurer are offcers of said corporation and their address is the same as that of said corporation.

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 It is orde,' That respondents Chambers & Chambers, Inc., a corporation, and its offcers, and Harry J. Chambers and Wilmer C. Maurer, individually and as offcers of said corporation, and respondents' representatives, agents, and employees, directly 01' 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 "commerce fur" and fur product" are defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act, do forthwith cease and desist from:

A. 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 all the information required to be disclosed by each of the subsections of Section 5 (b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. 2. Setting forth on the invoices pertaining to fur prod ucts the name or names of any animal or animals other than the name of the animal producing the fur contained in the fur product as specified in the Fur Products Name Guide, and as prescribed by the Rules and Regulations.

3. Setting forth information required under Section 5 (b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules Order 69 F.

and Regulations promulgated thereunder in abbreviated form.

4. Failing to set forth the term "Dyed Broadtailprocessed Lamb" in the manner required where an election is made to use that term instead of the words "Dyed Lamb.

5. Failing to set forth the term "natural" as part of the information required to be disclosed on invoices 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.

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

B. 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 all the information required to be disclosed by each of the subsections of Section 5 (a) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

2. Falsely or deceptively identifies any such fur product as to the name or designation of the animal or animals that produced the fur contained in the fur product. 3. Fails to set forth the term "Dyed Broadtail-processed Lamb" in the manner required where an election is made to use that term instead of the words "Dyed Lamb.

4. Represents directly or by implication that any price, whether accompanied or not by descriptive terminology, is the respondents' former price of a fur product when such amount is in excess of the actual, bona fide price at which respondents offered such fur products to the public on a regular basis for a reasonably substantial period of time in the recent regular course of business.

5. Misrepresents in any manner the savings available to purchasers of respondents' fur products. 6. Falsely or deceptively represents in any manner that prices of respondents' fur products are reduced. MANGEL , ETC. 517 510 Complaint 7. Misrepresents directly or by implication through percentage savings claims that prices of fm products are reduced to afford purchasers of respondents' fur products the percentage of savings stated. C. Making claims and representations 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 unless there are maintained by respondents full and adequate records disclosing the facts upon which such claims and representations are based.

It is fUTtheT 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.