Ford Motor Company

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

IN THE MATTER OF FORD MOTOR COMPANY Docket 9001. Order, July 18, 1976 Denial of respondent’s petition for reconsideration of portions of opinion and order issued April 18, 1976 (87 F.T.C. 756], granting summary decision on issues concerning message conveyed to consumers by advertisements challenged in this proceeding.

Appearances For the Commission: Wallace S. Snyder, Heidi P. Sanchez, and Ellis M. Ratner.

For the respondent: Wald, Harkrader & Ross, Washington, D.C. and David R. Larrouy, Dearborn, Mich.

ORDER DENY:ing MOTION To RECONSIDER Ford Motor Company has petitioned the Commission to reconsider portions of its opinion and order entered April 13, 1976, granting summary decision on issues concerning the message conveyed to consumers by the advertisements challenged in this proceeding. In respondent’s view, the Commission ignored defense evidence which it believes raised genuine issues of material fact and abused its expertise in determining the meaning of respondent’s advertisements in the context of a summary decision. We have determined that respondent’s motion should be denied.

In reviewing the evidence submitted by Ford, and for purposes of interpreting the meaning of these ads, the Commission is not obliged to ignore its own expertise simply because the questions concerning how an advertisement may be perceived by the public arise in the context of a summary decision. As respondent notes, the Commission may accept extrinsic evidence to supplement its expertise, but such evidence does not supplant our expertise. Consequently, in affirming the administrative law judge’s evidence to supplement its expertise, but such evidence does not supplant ruling, the Commission, based on its own evaluation of the advertisements themselves, rejected respondent’s extrinsic evidence. Because these ads, upon analysis, indisputably, in the judgment of the Commission, contain the representation alleged in the complaint, neither the Burke study nor the conflicting opinions of the experts based on the survey data provoke a genuine controversy necessitating resolution by further adjudication. Accordingly, the matter was remanded to the administrative law judge for hearings in the public interest on issues concerning whether or not respondent had a reasonable basis for its advertising claims. Concurring Statement 88 F.T.C.

The Commission has, therefore, determined that respondent’s Motion for Reconsideration be, and it hereby is, denied. Chairman Collier concurring for the reason set forth in attached statement.

CONCURRING STATEMENT BY CHAIRMAN COLLIER Section 8.55 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice provides that a petition for reconsideration must be confined to “new questions raised by the decision or final order and upon which the petitioner had no opportunity to argue before the Commission.” Since Ford’s petition does not meet this test, I concur in its denial. NEW ENGLAND TRACTOR TRAILER TRAINING OF MASS,, INC., ET AL. 55 55 Complaint