[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 71 (Wednesday, April 13, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20669-20671]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-8757]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

[File No. 102 3033]


Oreck Corporation; Analysis of Proposed Consent Order To Aid 
Public Comment

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.

ACTION: Proposed consent agreement.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The consent agreement in this matter settles alleged 
violations of federal law prohibiting unfair or deceptive acts or 
practices or unfair methods of competition. The attached Analysis to 
Aid Public Comment describes both the allegations in the draft 
complaint and the terms of the consent order--embodied in the consent 
agreement--that would settle these allegations.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 9, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Interested parties are invited to submit written comments 
electronically or in paper form. Comments should refer to a ``Oreck, 
File No. 102 3033'' to facilitate the organization of comments. Please 
note that your comment--including your name and your state--will be 
placed on the public record of this proceeding, including on the 
publicly accessible FTC Web site, at http://www.ftc.gov/os/publiccomments.shtm.
    Because comments will be made public, they should not include any 
sensitive personal information, such as an individual's Social Security 
Number; date of birth; driver's license number or other State 
identification number, or foreign country equivalent; passport number; 
financial account number; or credit or debit card number. Comments also 
should not include any sensitive health information, such as medical 
records or other individually identifiable health information. In 
addition, comments should not include any ``[t]rade secret or any 
commercial or financial information which is obtained from any person 
and which is privileged or confidential. * * *,'' as provided in 
Section 6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and Commission Rule 
4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2). Comments containing material for which 
confidential treatment is requested must be filed in paper form, must 
be clearly labeled ``Confidential,'' and must comply with FTC Rule 
4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The comment must be accompanied by an explicit request for 
confidential treatment, including the factual and legal basis for 
the request, and must identify the specific portions of the comment 
to be withheld from the public record. The request will be granted 
or denied by the Commission's General Counsel, consistent with 
applicable law and the public interest. See FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 
4.9(c).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 20670]]

    Because paper mail addressed to the FTC is subject to delay due to 
heightened security screening, please consider submitting your comments 
in electronic form. Comments filed in electronic form should be 
submitted by using the following weblink: https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/oreck and following the instructions on 
the Web-based form. To ensure that the Commission considers an 
electronic comment, you must file it on the Web-based form at the 
weblink https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/oreck. If this Notice 
appears at http://www.regulations.gov/search/index.jsp, you may also 
file an electronic comment through that Web site. The Commission will 
consider all comments that regulations.gov forwards to it. You may also 
visit the FTC Web site at http://www.ftc.gov/ to read the Notice and 
the news release describing it.
    A comment filed in paper form should include the ``Oreck, File No. 
102 3033'' reference both in the text and on the envelope, and should 
be mailed or delivered to the following address: Federal Trade 
Commission, Office of the Secretary, Room H-113 (Annex D), 600 
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20580. The FTC is requesting 
that any comment filed in paper form be sent by courier or overnight 
service, if possible, because U.S. postal mail in the Washington area 
and at the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security 
precautions.
    The Federal Trade Commission Act (``FTC Act'') and other laws the 
Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to 
consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. The Commission will 
consider all timely and responsive public comments that it receives, 
whether filed in paper or electronic form. Comments received will be 
available to the public on the FTC Web site, to the extent practicable, 
at http://www.ftc.gov/os/publiccomments.shtm. As a matter of 
discretion, the Commission makes every effort to remove home contact 
information for individuals from the public comments it receives before 
placing those comments on the FTC Web site. More information, including 
routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, may be found in the FTC's 
privacy policy, at http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/privacy.shtm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matthew Gold (415-848-5176), FTC, 
Western Region, San Francisco, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20580.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 6(f) of the Federal 
Trade Commission Act, 38 Stat. 721, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and Sec.  2.34 of 
the Commission Rules of Practice, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is hereby given 
that the above-captioned consent agreement containing a consent order 
to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to 
final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record 
for a period of thirty (30) days. The following Analysis to Aid Public 
Comment describes the terms of the consent agreement, and the 
allegations in the complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of 
the consent agreement package can be obtained from the FTC Home Page 
(for April 7, 2010), on the World Wide Web, at http://www.ftc.gov/os/actions.shtm. A paper copy can be obtained from the FTC Public 
Reference Room, Room 130-H, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, 
DC 20580, either in person or by calling (202) 326-2222.
    Public comments are invited, and may be filed with the Commission 
in either paper or electronic form. All comments should be filed as 
prescribed in the ADDRESSES section above, and must be received on or 
before the date specified in the DATES section.

Analysis of Agreement Containing Consent Order To Aid Public Comment

    The Federal Trade Commission (``FTC'' or ``Commission'') has 
accepted, subject to final approval, an Agreement Containing Consent 
Order from Oreck Corporation (``respondent''). The proposed consent 
order has been placed on the public record for thirty (30) days for 
receipt of comments by interested persons. Comments received during 
this period will become part of the public record. After thirty (30) 
days, the Commission will again review the agreement and the comments 
received, and will decide whether it should withdraw from the agreement 
and take appropriate action or make final the agreement's proposed 
order.
    This matter involves the advertising, marketing, and sale of the 
Oreck Halo vacuum cleaner and the Oreck ProShield Plus portable air 
cleaner. Oreck has marketed these products directly to consumers 
through numerous Web sites, as well as through company-owned and 
franchised retail stores and third-party retail outlets.
    The Oreck Halo is an upright vacuum cleaner that has a built-in 
light chamber and a HEPA filter bag. The light chamber generates 
ultraviolet light in the C spectrum onto floor surfaces while 
vacuuming. According to the FTC complaint, Oreck has promoted the Oreck 
Halo as effective, through normal use, in killing virtually all 
bacteria, viruses, germs, mold and allergens that exist on carpets and 
other floor surfaces.
    Specifically, the FTC complaint alleges that respondent 
represented, in various advertisements, that the Oreck Halo: (1) 
Substantially reduces the risk of or prevents the flu; (2) 
substantially reduces the risk of or prevents other illnesses or 
ailments caused by bacteria, viruses, molds, and allergens, such as the 
common cold, diarrhea, upset stomachs, asthma, and allergy symptoms; 
and (3) will eliminate all or virtually all common germs and allergens 
found on the floors in users' homes. The complaint also alleges that 
Oreck claimed that the Oreck Halo's UV-C light is effective against 
germs, bacteria, dust mites, mold and viruses embedded in carpets. The 
complaint alleges that all of these claims are unsubstantiated and thus 
violate the FTC Act.
    The FTC complaint also alleges that Oreck represented, in various 
advertisements, that the Oreck ProShield Plus portable air cleaner: (1) 
Substantially reduces the risk of or prevents the flu; (2) 
substantially reduces the risk of or prevents other illnesses or 
ailments caused by bacteria, viruses, molds, and allergens, such as the 
common cold, asthma, and allergy symptoms; and (3) will eliminate all 
or virtually all airborne particles from a typical household room under 
normal living conditions. The complaint alleges that all of these 
claims are unsubstantiated and thus violate the FTC Act.
    The complaint further alleges that Oreck claimed that scientific 
tests prove that users of the Oreck Halo will eliminate or virtually 
eliminate many common germs and allergens found on the floors in their 
homes; and that scientific tests prove that the Oreck ProShield Plus 
will eliminate or virtually eliminate many common viruses, germs and 
allergens from a typical household room under normal living conditions. 
According to the complaint, these claims are false and thus violate the 
FTC Act.
    Finally, the complaint alleges that Oreck provided advertisements 
to its franchised stores for use in their marketing and sale of the 
Oreck Halo and the Oreck ProShield. According to the complaint, Oreck 
thereby provided means and instrumentalities to distributors of its 
products in furtherance of the deceptive and

[[Page 20671]]

misleading acts or practices alleged in the complaint.
    The proposed consent order contains provisions designed to prevent 
respondent from engaging in similar acts or practices in the future. 
Specifically, Part I of the proposed order addresses the allegedly 
unsubstantiated claims regarding the Oreck Halo. Part I covers any 
representation that the Oreck Halo or any other vacuum cleaner: (1) 
Reduces the risk of or prevents the flu; (2) reduces the risk of or 
prevents illnesses or ailments caused by bacteria, viruses, molds, or 
allergens, such as the common cold, diarrhea, upset stomachs, asthma 
and allergy symptoms; (3) will eliminate all or virtually all germs, 
bacteria, dust mites, molds, viruses or allergens from a user's floor; 
and (4) will eliminate any percent or numerical quantity of germs, 
bacteria, dust mites, molds, viruses or allergens from a user's floor. 
Part I also applies to representations that ultraviolet light is 
effective against germs, bacteria, dust mites, molds, viruses or 
allergens embedded in carpets. Part I prohibits Oreck from making any 
of the above representations unless the representation is non-
misleading and, at the time of making such representation, Oreck 
possesses and relies upon competent and reliable scientific evidence 
that is sufficient in quality and quantity based on standards generally 
accepted in the relevant scientific fields, when considered in light of 
the entire body of relevant and reliable scientific evidence, to 
substantiate that the representation is true. The proposed order 
defines ``competent and reliable scientific evidence'' as ``tests, 
analyses, research or studies that have been conducted and evaluated in 
an objective manner by qualified persons and are generally accepted in 
the profession to yield accurate and reliable results.''
    Part II of the proposed order addresses the allegedly 
unsubstantiated claims regarding the Oreck ProShield Plus. Part II 
covers any representation that the Oreck ProShield Plus or any other 
air cleaner: (1) Reduces the risk of or prevents the flu; (2) reduces 
the risk of or prevents illnesses or ailments caused by bacteria, 
viruses, molds, or allergens, such as the common cold, asthma and 
allergy symptoms; (3) will eliminate all or virtually all indoor 
airborne particles under normal living conditions; and (4) will 
eliminate any percent or numerical quantity of indoor air contaminants 
under normal living conditions. Part II prohibits Oreck from making any 
of the above representations unless the representation is non-
misleading and, at the time of making such representation, Oreck 
possesses and relies upon competent and reliable scientific evidence 
that is sufficient in quality and quantity based on standards generally 
accepted in the relevant scientific fields, when considered in light of 
the entire body of relevant and reliable scientific evidence, to 
substantiate that the representation is true.
    Part III of the proposed order prohibits respondent from making 
representations, other than representations covered under Parts I or 
II, about the absolute or comparative health benefits of any product, 
unless the representation is non-misleading, and, at the time of making 
such representation, respondent possesses and relies upon competent and 
reliable scientific evidence that is sufficient in quality and quantity 
based on standards generally accepted in the relevant scientific 
fields, when considered in light of the entire body of relevant and 
reliable scientific evidence, to substantiate that the representation 
is true.
    Part IV of the proposed order addresses the allegedly false claims 
that scientific tests prove that the Oreck Halo or ProShield Plus 
eliminate or virtually eliminate many common germs, viruses or 
allergens from the user's floor or air. Part IV prohibits respondent, 
when advertising any product, from misrepresenting the existence, 
contents, validity, results, conclusions, or interpretations of any 
test, study, or research.
    Part VI of the proposed order requires the payment of $750,000 
intended for redress to consumers. To facilitate the payment of 
redress, Part V of the proposed order requires Oreck to provide to the 
Commission a searchable electronic file containing the name and contact 
information of all consumers who purchased the Oreck Halo or the Oreck 
ProShield Plus from January 1, 2009 through August 31, 2010.
    Part VII of the proposed order requires Oreck to send a letter to 
all of its franchisees requesting that they immediately stop using all 
advertising and marketing materials previously provided to them by 
Oreck. The required letter is appended to the proposed order as 
Attachment A.
    Parts VIII, IX, X and XI of the proposed order require respondent 
to keep copies of relevant advertisements and materials substantiating 
claims made in the advertisements; to provide copies of the order to 
its personnel; to notify the Commission of changes in corporate 
structure that might affect compliance obligations under the order; and 
to file compliance reports with the Commission. Part XII provides that 
the order will terminate after twenty (20) years, with certain 
exceptions.
    The purpose of this analysis is to facilitate public comment on the 
proposed order, and it is not intended to constitute an official 
interpretation of the agreement and proposed order or to modify their 
terms in any way.

    By direction of the Commission.
Donald S. Clark,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-8757 Filed 4-12-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6750-01-P