Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, Inc., the Great
Volume 85 · 85 F.T.C. 601
deceptive advertisingbait and switch
Cite this decision
Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, Inc., the Great, 85 F.T.C. 601 (1975). Consumer Law Library, https://consumerlawlibrary.org/decisions/v085-0075
Report an error in this record (decision id v085-0075)
Cited by 0 later FTC decisions
Cites
Text (OCR of the scan at left; may contain errors)
IN Tile MATTER OF THE GREAT ATLANTIC & PACIFIC TEA COMPANY INC.
ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO ALLEGED VIOLATION OF FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT Docket 8916. Complaint, Feb. , 197.'1 - Final Order, Ma1', ZS, 1975 Order requiring one of the nation s two largest supermarket chains, headquartered in Montvale, N.J" among other things to have advertised items readily available for sale at or below advertised prices, Appearances For the Commission: Michael C. McCarey, Joel P. Bennett and Rosalind A. Lazarus.
For the respondent: Donald J. Mulvihill, Cahill, Gordon Reindel Wash., D.
COMPLAINT Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act and by virtue of the authority vested in it by that Act, the Federal Trade Commission, having reason to believe that The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, Inc., a corporation, hereinafter sometimes referred to as respondent, has violated the provisions of said Act, and it appearing to the Commission that a proceeding by it in respect thereto would be in the public interest, hereby issues its complaint stating its charges in that respect as follows:
PARAGRAPH I. Respondent The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea ::11;- 11 - 3 601 Complaint text of the order requires substantiation for only two classes of claims: (1) those that deal with ability of a Crown product to reduce motor vehicle exhaust, and (2) claims regarding a "quality, performance abilty or other characteristic" of a gasoline or gasoline additive product. Requiring supporting scientific tests these two categories of claims is reasonably related to the violation found. Respondent' avowed concern that it wil have to conduct scientific tests before mentioning even the "price" or "availabilty" of its gasoline in advertisements is misplaced. References to price and availabilty of its products are not quality or performance "characteristics" under the order.
It is ordered That the aforesaid petition be, and it hereby is, denied.