Synopsis of Federal Trade Commission Decisions 

Concerning Textile Fiber Products

In a series of litigated decisions, the Commission has held that manufacturers and sellers

of textile fiber products must comply with the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act, 15

U.S.C. § 70, et seq. (“Textile Act”), and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder, 16

C.F.R. Part 303 (“Textile Rules”). Failure to do so constitutes a violation both of the Textile Act

and the Textile Rules, as well as a deceptive act or practice in violation of Section 5 of the

Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a).

As a general matter, in these decisions the Commission has determined that it is an unfair

or deceptive act or practice in violation of both Section 5 of the FTC Act and the Textile Act:

1. to falsely or deceptively stamp, tag, label, invoice, advertise, or otherwise identify

any textile fiber product with respect to the name or amount of constituent fibers

contained therein, see Verrazzano Trading Corporation, et al., 91 F.T.C. 888

(1978); H. Myerson Sons, et al., 78 F.T.C. 464 (1971); Taylor-Friedsam Co., Inc.,

et al., 69 F.T.C. 483 (1966); Transair, Inc., et al., 60 F.T.C. 694 (1962); and

2. to fail to affix to a textile fiber product a stamp, tag, label or other means of

identification showing in words and figures plainly legible the true percentage of

each fiber present, by its true generic name, if the weight of such fiber is 5 per

cent or more of the total weight of the product, see Verrazzano Trading

Corporation; H. Myerson Sons; Delco Carpet Mills, Inc., 70 F.T.C. 1706 (1966);

Taylor-Friedsam Co., Inc.; Transair, Inc., et al., 60 F.T.C. 694 (1962).

Further, in Transair, Inc., et al., 60 F.T.C. 694 (1962), the Commission determined that it

is a violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act, the Textile Act, and the Textile Rules for a seller to

fail to maintain proper records showing the fiber content of their textile fiber products, as

required by Section 6(a) of the Textile Act and Section 303.39 of the Textile Rules. 

 

In Taylor-Friedsam Co., Inc., et al., 69 F.T.C. 483 (1966), the Commission found that the

respondents misbranded their textile fiber products in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act and

the Textile Act and Rules by: (1) falsely stating the fiber content on their textile product labels;

(2) failing to disclose on their textile product labels the true generic names of the fibers present

in the textile products; and (3) failing to disclose on their textile product labels the percentage of

each such fiber contained in the product. In reaching this decision, the Commission determined

that it is an unfair or deceptive act or practice in violation of both Section 5 of the FTC Act and

the Textile Act to import and distribute in the United States mislabeled textile fiber products

even though the products were mislabeled by a foreign exporter and the importer did not intend

to violate the law. The Commission held that an importing distributor has an obligation either to

label its products properly or to make certain by testing or other means that the labeling

furnished by its foreign suppliers is truthful and otherwise in compliance with the Textile Act

and Rules. The Commission explained:
Page 2

The Textile Fiber Products Identification Act was passed by the Congress for the

purpose, among other things, of protecting producers and consumers against

misbranding and false advertising of the fiber content of textile fiber products. 

The evidence shows, and corporate respondent admits, that it advertised and sold

textile fiber products which bore false labels as to the percentage of fiber content

therein. The evidence further establishes that corporate respondent did not

attempt by testing or by any other means to determine whether the labels

furnished by its foreign supplier were in compliance with the Textile Act and the

regulations promulgated thereunder. . . . The circumstance that the manufacturer

placed the false labels on the ribbon and corporate respondent relied on the

manufacturer to correctly label the ribbon does not excuse nor relieve corporate

respondent from responsibility imposed by the Act. Corporate respondent sold

the ribbon which bore the false labels, thereby representing that the ribbon

contained 60% nylon and 40% rayon. The purchaser is entitled to receive that

which he believes he is getting. Vischer & Co., the manufacturer of the ribbon, is

located in Basle, Switzerland, and is not subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal

Trade Commission. By advertising and selling ribbon in the United States which

bore false labels as to textile fiber content, corporate respondent violated the

provisions of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act.

 

* * * 

The Textile Act, like the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Wool Products

Labeling Act, was enacted to protect the public against false guaranteeing,

mislabeling and other related objectionable practices. The prohibitions in those

statutes are absolute. The Acts may be violated despite the absence of actual

deception or a tendency to deceive, and regardless of whether the respondent

intended or even had knowledge of an illegality. Also, proven violations are not

excused even though they could be characterized as technical or trivial or were

merely isolated occurrences.

* * * 

Although respondent apparently did not violate the law intentionally, it cannot be

considered blameless for the mislabeling. As an importing distributor, respondent

had an obligation either itself to label its products properly or to make certain by

testing or other means that the labeling furnished by its foreign suppliers was

truthful and otherwise in compliance with the Textile Act and the Commission’s

regulations. 

(footnotes omitted). The Commission also held that it is a violation of Section 5 of the

FTC Act and of the Textile Act and Rules to furnish a false guarantee that a textile fiber

product is not misbranded or otherwise misrepresented under the provisions of the

Textile Act. 

In Delco Carpet Mills, Inc., 70 F.T.C. 1706 (1966), the Commission determined that it is

a violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act, the Textile Act, and the Textile Rules to fail to disclose

on stamps, tags, labels or other means of identification affixed to textile fiber products the name,
Page 3

or other identification issued and registered by the Commission, of the manufacturer of the

textile fiber products or of one or more persons subject to Section 3 of the Textile Fiber Products

Identification Act with respect to such textile fiber products. The Commission also determined

that it is a violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act and of the Textile Act and Rules to advertise

textile fiber products (in this case, carpets that included both covered textile fibers and exempted

backings, fillings, or paddings) in a way that: (1) fails to set forth the fiber content information

in such a manner as to indicate that it applied only to the face, pile, or outer surface of the floor

coverings and not to the exempted backings, fillings, or paddings; (2) makes disclosures or

implications of fiber content while failing to set forth the required information as to fiber content

as specified by Section 4(c) of the Textile Act and in the manner and form prescribed by the

Textile Rules; (3) uses a fiber trademark without a full disclosure of the fiber content

information, required in such advertisement; and (4) uses a fiber trademark without setting forth

in immediate conjunction therewith, at least once in the advertisement, the generic name of the

fiber in type or lettering of equal size and conspicuousness. 

In H. Myerson Sons, et al., 78 F.T.C. 464 (1971), the Commission determined that the

respondents misbranded their textile fiber products. At the hearing, the respondents admitted

that, if a fabric arrived with a manufacturer’s label, the respondents left that label on and that, if

a fabric arrived without a label, they did not send those fabrics to a laboratory to be tested as to

fabric content. The Commission held that it is an unfair or deceptive act or practice in violation

of Section 5 of the FTC Act and the Textile Act and Rules: (1) to misbrand textile fiber products

as to the name or amount of the fibers contained therein; (2) to fail to disclose the true

percentage of the fibers present by weight; and (3) to fail to disclose the true generic names of

the fibers present. The Commission also held that it is a violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act

and of the Textile Act and Rules: (1) to use a fiber trademark on labels affixed to textile fiber

products without setting forth in immediate conjunction therewith the generic name of the fiber

in type or lettering of equal size and conspicuousness; and (2) to use generic names and fiber

trademarks on labels, whether required or non-required, without making a full and complete

fiber content disclosure, in accordance with the Textile Rules, the first time such generic name or

fiber trademark appears on the labels. In making its determination, the Commission held:

respondents sold fabric in their establishment and shipped in interstate commerce

fabrics purchased from them that bore marks and labels contrary to the applicable

laws and regulations. These laws and regulations are designed to protect not only

the knowledgeable purchaser from fabric stores or department stores but also the

run-of-the-mill consumer. 

In providing for them Congress determined that it would create a system

of marking and labeling, which would prevent inadvertent as well as intentional

mislabeling, and would supply to the ultimate consumer information on the fabric

tag adequate to insure that the consumer knew what fabric he or she was

purchasing. 

Motive and intent are wholly immaterial in this type of violation as is lack

of proof of actual harm to a particular consumer. 
Page 4

In Verrazzano Trading Corporation, et al., 91 F.T.C. 888 (1978), the Commission held

that it is a violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act, the Textile Act, and the Textile Rules: (1) to

label textile fiber products as containing “50% cotton, 35% polyester, 15% nylon,” when, in fact,

the products contain substantially different fibers and amounts of fibers; (2) to fail to label textile

fiber products with the true generic names of the fibers present; (3) to fail to label textile fiber

products with the true percentages of the fibers present, resulting in both overstatements and

understatements of fiber content percentages; (4) to falsely set forth or fail to set forth upon

invoices of imported textile fiber products required under Section 484 of the Tariff Act of 1930,

all information required by the Textile Act to be disclosed in connection with those products;

and (5) to falsify or perjure the consignee’s declaration required by Section 485 of the Tariff Act

of 1930 insofar as it relates to the information required to be disclosed by the Textile Act in

connection with textile fiber products. In its decision, the Commission considered the

materiality of misrepresentations of fiber content and found that:

Misstatements of the fiber content of fabrics are, by definition

‘misrepresentations,’ and that misrepresentations of more than de minimis

character may be materially misleading is, we think equally clear. The fiber

composition of a fabric is likely to affect its perceived value in the eyes of both

some manufacturers and some consumers. . . . Misrepresentations of fiber content

may thus lead manufacturers and consumers to misestimate the value of the

fabrics they are purchasing, as well as their characteristics. We believe,

accordingly, that such misrepresentations possess the capacity to mislead

consumers materially. . . . 

The same conclusion has been reached by Congress when it passed the

Wool and Textile Acts. These laws are premised upon a clear determination that

accurate fiber content information is an important factor in consumer purchase

decisions. 

In addition, the Commission determined that the following are unfair or deceptive acts or

practices in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act: (1) misrepresenting the amount by

which a fabric will shrink when it is washed; and (2) misrepresenting the amount of

constituent fibers contained in a wool or textile fiber product.