M. Levy Co., Inc., of Shreveport

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

IN THE MATTER OF M. LEVY CO. INC. OF SHREVEPORT TRADING AS M. LEVY, ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC. , IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND THE FUR PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket C-1498. C01nplnint, Feb. 20, 1969-Decision, Feb. 20, 196.9 Consent order requiring a Shreveport, La. , retailer of ready-to-wear garments for men, women, children and infants to cease falsely advertising and invoicing its fur products and failing to maintain required 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 M. Levy Co. Inc., of Shreveport, a corporation, trading as M. Levy, and Albert N. Elmer individually and as an oflicer 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. Respondent M. Levy Co. Inc. of Shreveport is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Louisiana and trading under the name of M. Levy.

Respondent Albert N. Elmer is an offcer of the corporate respondent. He formulates, directs and controls the acts, practices and policies of the said corporate respondent including those hereinafter set forth.

358 Complaint Respondents are retailers of ladies' ready- to-wear, men s and boys' apparel and boys, children s and infants' wear with their omce and principal place of business located at 42!J Milam Street Shreveport, Louisiana.

PAR. 2. Respondents are now and for some time last past have been 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 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 such fur products.

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) 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.

(b) Hequired item numbers were not set forth on invoices in violation of Rule 40 of said Hules and Regulations. PAR. 5. 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 aforesaid advertisements but not limited thereto, were advertisements of respondents which appeared in issues of the Shreveport Times, a newspaper published in the city of Shreveport, State of Louisiana and having a wide circulation in Louisiana and in other States of the United States. Complaint 75 F.

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, that the prices of such fur products were reduced from respondents former prices and the amount of such purported reductions constituted savings to purchasers of respondents' fur products. 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 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 savings were not afforded purchasers of respondents' said fur products, as represented. PAR. 6. 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 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. 7. By means of the aforesaid advertiscments and others of similar import and meaning not specifically referred to here- , 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) 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.

(b) All parts of the information required under Section 5(a) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder were not set forth in type of equal size and conspicuousness and in close proximity with each other, in violation of Rule 38(a) of the aforesaid Rules and Regulations.

PAR. 8. The aforesaid acts and practices of respondents, as 358 Decision and Order herein alleged, are in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder and constitute unfair methods of competition and unfair and deceptive acts and practices in commerce under the Federal Trade Commission Act.

DECISION AND ORDER The Federal Trade Commission having initiated an investigation of certain acts and practices of the respondents named in the caption hereof, and the respondents having been furnished thereafter with a copy of a draft of complaint which the Bureau of Textiles and Furs proposed to present to tho Commission for its consideration and which, if issued by the Commission, would charge respondents with violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Fur Products Labeling Act; 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 aforesaid draft of 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 alleged in such complaint, and waivers and other provisions as required by the Commission s Rules; and The Commission having thereafter considered the matter and having determined that it had reason to believe that the respondents have violated the said Acts, and that complaint should issue stating its charges in that respect, and having thereupon accepted the executed consent agreement and placed such agreement on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days, now in further conformity with the procedure prescribed in 34 (b) of its Rules, the Commission hereby issues its complaint, makes the following jurisdictional findings, and enters the following order:

1. Respondent M. Levy Co. Inc. of Shreveport is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Louisiana and trading under the name of M. Levy, with its offce and principal place of business located at 429 Milam Street, Shreveport, Louisiana. Respondent Albert N. Elmer is an offcer of said corporation and his address is the same as that of said corporation. 2. The Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction of the sub- Decision and Order 75 F.T.C.

ject matter of this proceeding and of the respondents, and the proceeding is in the public interest.

ORDER It is ordered, That respondents M. Levy Co. Inc. of Shreveport, a corporation, and its officers, trading as M. Levy or any other name, and Albert N. Elmer, individually and as an officer of said corporation, 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. Falsely or deceptively invoicing any fur product by: 1. Failing to furnish an invoice, 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. Failing to set forth the term “natural” as part of the information required to be disclosed on an invoice under the Fur Products Labeling Act and Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder to describe such fur product which is not pointed, bleached, dyed, tipdyed, or otherwise artificially colored. 8. Failing to set forth on an invoice the item number or mark assigned to such fur product. B. Falsely or deceptively advertising any fur product 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 such fur product, and which: 1. Represents, directly or by implication, that any price, whether accompanied or not by descriptive terminology is the respondents’ former price of such fur product unless such price is the price at which such fur product has been sold or offered for sale in good faith by the respondents in the recent regular course of busi- 353 VCCISlOn ana uraer ness, or otherwise misrepresents the price at which any such fur product has been sold or offered for sale by respondents.

2. Falsely or deceptively represents that savings are afforded to the purchaser of any such fur product or misrepresents in any manner the amount of savings afforded to the purchaser of such fur product. 3. Falsely or deceptively represents that tbe price of any such fur product is reduced.

4. 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 such fur product which is not pointed, bleached, dyed, tipdyed or otherwise artificially colored. 5. Fails to set forth all parts of the information required under Section 5 (a) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in type of equal size and conspicuousness and in close proximity with each other.

C. Failing to maintain full and adequate records disclosing the facts upon which pricing claims and representations of the types described in subsections (a), (b), (c) and (d) of Rule 44 of the Rules and Regulations under the Fur Products Labeling Act are based.

It is further ordered That the respondent corporation shall forthwith distribute a copy of this order to each of its operating divisions.

It is further ordered That the respondents herein shall, withfilein sixty (60) days after service upon them of this order, with the Commission a report, in writing, setting forth in detail the manner and form in which they have complied with this order.

Complaint 75 F.