Dahlberg Electronics, Inc

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

IN THE MATTER OF DAHLBERG ELECTRONICS, INC.

MODIFYING ORDER IN REGARD TO ALLEGED VIOLATION OF SEC. 5 OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT Docket 8929. Final Order, Aug. 1974-Modifying Order April 11 1983 The Federal Trade Commission has reopened this matter and modified its order issued on Aug. 6, 1974 (84 F. C. 222), to permit the company to suggest resale prices to its dealers. The modified order leaves intact the prohibition against resale price maintenance.

ORDER MODIFYING DECISION AND ORDER On November 24, 1982, respondent Dahlberg, Inc., formerly known as Dahlberg Electronics, Inc, fied a Request to Reopen Proceeding and to Set Aside Consent Order. The request was fied pursuant to Section 2.51 of the Commission s Rules of Practice. It was placed on the public record for comments. No comments were received. Respondent asks the Commission to reopen this proceeding and to set aside the order to cease and desist entered on August 6 1974. The order generally prohibits respondent in the sale of its own brand name hearing aids from, among other things, employing exclusive dealerships and dealer territorial and customer restrictions and from engaging in resale price maintenance and requires respondent to deal with all persons competing with its dealers. Respondent relies on changed conditions of fact and law and the public interest in seeking to have the proceeding reopened and the order set aside. It relies principally on the Commission s recent opinion and decision in Beltone Electronics Corp. Docket No. 8928 (July , 1982) (100 F. C. 68). In that matter, the Commission dismissed a complaint against another manufacturer of hearing aids that the Commission had issued on May 8, 1973, simultaneously with the complaint issued in this matter.

The Commission has considered respondent' s request and other relevant information and determined that respondent has demonstrated that it would be in the public interest to reopen the proceeding to set aside Subparagraph Nos. 1 , and 9 of Paragraph I of the order. However, the Commission wil not be precluded from taking enforcement action concerning such practices when the Commission has reason to believe that they violate the law. The Commission has further considered whether to modify as requested by respondent Subparagraph No. 5 of Paragraph I, the prohi- Modifying Order 101 F. bition against resale price maintenance. In this regard, the Commission has determined it would be in the public interest to modify the paragraph to terminate the prohibition against suggested resale prices.

Accordingly, It is ordered That this matter be, and it hereby is, reopened and that Subparagraph Nos. 1 , 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, and 9 of Paragraph I shall be set aside as of the effective date of this order. It is further ordered That Subparagraph No. 5 of Paragraph I be modified as of the effective date ofthis order by striking "5" and " suggesting" and inserting H " after Ustabilizing, 705 Interlocutory Order