Mota-Nu, Inc

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

| IN THE MATTER OF MOTA-NU, INC., ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE. ALLEGED VIOLATION ” Dees _OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION. ACT me Docket C-2503. Complaint, Mar. 20, 1974—Decision, Mar 20, 1974 Consent order requiring -a Fort -Worth, Tex., manufacturer of gasoline and -other. oil’ . additives for internal combustion engines, among other things to cease misrepresent- a ing the performance or effectiveness of its products, and failing to maintain adequate ~ on records bo substantiate its claims. : i . Appearances 7 For the Commission: Joseph L. Hickman.

For the respondents: James T. Blanton, Fort: Worth, Tex. COMPLAINT Pursuant to the provisions ‘of the Federal Trade Commission Act, and by virtue of the authority vested in it by said Act, the Federal Trade Commission, having reason to believe that Mota-Nu, Inc., a corpora- ‘tion, and Joe F. Williams, individually and as an officer of said corporation, hereinafter sometimes referred to as respondents, have violated the provisions of said 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 Mota-Nu, Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of - _ the State of Texas with its principal office and place of business located at 2909 Evans Street, Fort Worth, Tex.

Respondent Joe F. Williams is an officer of the corporate respondent. He formulates, directs and controls the acts and practices of the corporate respondent including the acts and practices hereinafter set forth. His address is the same as that of the corporate respondent. PAR, 2. Respondents are now, and for some time last past have been engaged in the manufacturing, advertising, offering for sale, sale and distribution of gasoline and oil additives for internal combustion engines to the public: Respondents advertise that the gasoline additive, when combined with the “secret metal pellet,” will clean the engine, fill in’ - scratched, worn and pitted surfaces of pistons, rings, valves, cylinder walls, will increase engine compression, and decreases oil burning. PAR. 3. In the course and conduct of their business, respondents ship or cause to be shipped products from their facilities in the State of Texas

MOTA-NU, INC., ET AL. 1469 1467 Decision and Order have represented, directly or by implication, that each of the statements respecting the reconditioning of engines by using said product has been substantiated by respondents by adequate and well-controlled testing in the United States, Mexico and Europe. PAR. 6. In truth and in fact, the aforesaid statements respecting the said product, “Mota-Nu” have not been substantiated by respondents by adequate and well-controlled tests prior to the making of such statements.

Therefore, the representations as set forth in Paragraph Four hereof were and are false, misleading and deceptive. PAR. 7. The making of any statement or representation, directly or by implication, that Mota-Nu will give one’s car or truck a ring and “valve-plating” job while driving, or any other statement or representation regarding the performance or effectiveness of such product, when such statements or representations are not supported by prior, fully documented, adequate, and well-controlled scientific studies or tests is in itself an unfair practice.

PAR. 8. Respondents at all times mentioned herein have been and now are in substantial competition in commerce with individuals, firms and corporations engaged in the sale and distribution of gasoline additives of the same general kind and nature as that sold by respondents. PAR. 9. The use by respondents of the aforesaid misleading and deceptive statements, representations and practices has had, and now has, the capacity and tendency to mislead members of the purchasing public into the purchase of substantial quantities of respondents’ product. As a result thereof, substantial trade has been and is being unfairly diverted to respondents from their competitors. PAR. 10. The aforesaid acts and practices of respondents, as herein alleged, were and are all to the prejudice and injury of the public and of respondents’ competitors and constituted, and now constitute, unfair methods of competition in commerce and unfair and deceptive acts and practices in commerce in violation of Section 5 of 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 Dallas Regional Office proposed to present to the Commission for its consideration and which, if issued by the Commission, would charge respondents with violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act; and The respondents and counsel for the Commission having thereafter Decision and Order 83 F.T.C.

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 Act, 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 Section 2.34(b) of its rules, the Commission hereby issues its complaint, makes the following jurisdictional findings, and enters the following order:

1. Respondent Mota-Nu, Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Texas, with its office and principal place of business located at 2909 Evans — Street, city of Fort Worth, State of Texas. Respondent Joe F. Williams is an officer of said corporation. He formulates, directs and controls the policies, acts and practices of said corporation, and his principal office and place of business is located at the above-stated address.

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 ordered, That respondents Mota-Nu, Inc., a corporation, its successors and assigns, its officer, and Joe F. Williams, individually and as an officer, and respondents’ agents, representatives and employees directly or through any corporation, subsidiary, division or other device, in connection with the advertising, offering for sale or distribution of additives for automobile fuel, lubricating or cooling substances, or any other product in commerce as “commerce” is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act do forthwith cease and desist from: 1. Making, directly or by implication, any statement or representation regarding the performance or effectiveness of such product unless such statement or representation is based upon and supported by prior, fully documented, adequate and well-controlled scientific studies or tests;

2. Failing to maintain copies of all documentation for the studies CHARLES REYNOLDS HAIR CENTER, ET AL. L401 1471 Complaint or tests referred to in Subparagraph (1) of this paragraph. It is further. ordered, That the respondent corporation shall forthwith distribute a copy of this order to each of its employees and advertising agencies, now and in the future, involved in the writing or placement of advertising or sales. :

It is further ordered, That the individual respondent named herein promptly notify the Commission of the discontinuance of his present business or. employment and of his affiliation with a new business or employment. Such notice shall include respondent’s current business address and a statement as to the nature of the business or employment in which he is engaged as well as a description of his duties and responsibilities.

It is further ordered, That respondents notify the Commission at least thirty (30) days prior to any proposed change in the corporate respondent such as dissolution, assignment or sale resulting in the emergence of a successor corporation, the creation or dissolution of subsidiaries or any other change in the corporation which may affect compliance obligations arising out of the order.

It 1s further ordered, That respondents shall, within sixty (60) days after service of the order upon it, file with the Commission a report, in writing, signed by such respondents, setting forth in detail the manner and form of its compliance with the order to cease and desist.