McDonald's Corporation, et al., and D'Arcy Advertising Company, et al.

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

IN THE MATTER OF McDONALD’S CORPORATION, ET AL.-DOCKET C-1897 D’ARCY ADVERTISING COMPANY, ET AL-DOCKET C-1898 ORDER IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT Complaints, April 12, 1971—Dismissal order, June 5, 1978. Order reopening proceedings, vacating and setting aside orders to cease and desist, 78 F.T.C. 606 and 616 (386 F.R. 11,289 and 11,284) and dismissing proceedings against a major chain of hamburger restaurants and its advertising agency which charged them with unfair methods of competition and unfair and deceptive acts and practices in their use of a “sweepstakes” sales promotion device.

SEPARATE CONCURRING STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONERS PAUL RAND DIXON AND MARY GARDINER JONES Although we dissented from the Commission’s dismissal of the complaint in D. L. Blair Corp., we agree that because there is an identity of interest in the two matters before us and D. L. Blair Corp., fairness requires that the order be set aside as to respondents herein. We therefore, concur that the proceedings herein be vacated and set aside, and that the proceedings be dismissed. ORDER REOPENING PROCEEDINGS, SETTING ASIDE CEASE AND DESIST ORDERS AND RULING ON PETITION TO STAY McDonald’s Corporation and McDonald’s System, Inc., by a petition filed on March 26, 1978, and D’Arcy-MacManus & Masius, Inc., successor to D’Arcy Advertising Company by a petition filed on March 29, 1973, request, pursuant to Rule 3.72(b) (2) of the Order 82 F.T.C.

Commission’s Rules of Practice, that the Commission reopen these proceedings and set aside the orders to cease and desist against them which have become final [78 F.T.C. 606 and 616 for the respective cases].

Respondent D’Arcy-MacManus & Masius, Inc., has also filed a petition to stay all further requests for compliance reports pending the Commission’s consideration of its petition. The Acting Director of the Bureau of Consumer Protection and complaint counsel have filed answers to the petitions to reopen. In the answers, it is stated that complaint counsel joins with respondents in urging that the orders to cease and desist be set aside by the Commission.

The two cases have been consolidated by the Commission for the purpose of ruling on the petitions. The basis for the requests to reopen the proceedings and set aside the cease and desist orders is the Commission’s action in D. L. Blair Corp., 8 Trade Reg. Rep. 920,228 (D. 8887, 1973). There, the Commission after the hearing and initial decision by the administrative law judge, concluded that the facts did not demonstrate a violation of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act. Respondents in the instant proceedings were participants in the same activities involved in the D. L. Blair Corp., matter and were initially named in the complaint. The respondents, however, instead of litigating the allegations in the complaint signed consent agreements which resulted in the cease and desist orders.

In view of the decision in the D. L. Blair Corp. matter and the identity of the facts as they relate to respondents, it is determined by the Commission that it is not in the public interest to continue the orders here. Accordingly, It is ordered, That the proceedings be, and they hereby are, reopened and the orders to cease and desist heretofore entered in these matters be, and they hereby are, vacated and set aside and the proceedings be, and they hereby are, dismissed. It is further ordered, That the petition by respondent D’Arcy- MacManus & Masius, Inc., to stay any further requests to file compliance reports is dismissed as moot. Commissioners Dixon and Jones submitting a concurring statement.

PAPERCRAFT CORP. -1781 Order