. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

.~.~ FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

~ 600 PENNSYLVANIA A VENUE, NW

~". ." WASHINGTON, DC 20580

Division of Enforcement

Bureau of Consumer Protection

March 18, 2002

Mr. Carlos Moore

Executive Vice President

American Textile Manufacturers Institute

1130 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 1200

Washington, DC 20036-3954

Re: ReQuest for FTC Staff QRinion concerning Thread Count

Dear Mr. Moore:

This is in reply to your letter requesting a Commission staff opinion regarding the

appropriate method for determining fabric "thread count," or yams per square inch, in textile

products such as bed sheets and pillow cases. You state that some companies are marketing

bedding products with extremely high yam or thread counts, achieved by counting yams within a

ply as individual yams, thus dramatically and deceptively increasing the number of yams in a

square inch of fabric. You make specific reference to the American Society for Testing and

Materials (ASTM) test method D 3775, titled "Standard Test Method for Fabric Count of Woven

Fabric," and you express the view that this method is the long-accepted industry standard for

determining thread count.

Under the Commission's Rules of Practice, 16 C.F.R. § 1.I(a), the Commission (and,

under delegated authority, its staff) may render an advisory opinion with respect to a prospective

cburse of conduct proposed by the requesting party:

§ 1.1 Policy.

(a) Any person, partnership, or corporation may request advice

from the Commission with respect to a course of action which the

requesting party proposes to pursue.

In this instance, A TMI is not seeking advice with respect to a course of conduct it proposes to

pursue. Rather, A TMI is seeking an opinion as to whether certain representations made by some

industry members with regard to thread count might be considered deceptive under the FTC Act.

As such, the question is not appropriate for issuance of a staff advisory opinion.
Mr. Carlos Moore

page 2

,

Although we are unable to provide you with a staff advisory opinion about whether

counting yarns within a ply as individual yarns would be deceptive, we can advise you as to how

the Commission staff generally would analyze such claims. A thread count claim, like other

objective, material claims about a product, must be supported by a "reasonable basis." In

determining what constitutes a reasonable basis for claims, we would consider what experts in

the field believe is appropriate, including whether there are relevant consensus based test

procedures, such as an ASTM test procedure, or other widely accepted industry practices that

apply to the matter. If so, we would give such procedures or practices great weight in

determining whether: the advertiser has met its substantiation burden. In other related contexts,

the Commission has encouraged the use of ASTM tests. See Press Release, FTC Announces

Actions on Wool Labeling Rules, dated March 8, 1994 (copy attached) ("In its clarification of the

procedure used for testing the fiber content of wool products, the FTC said the industry members

should, where possible, use procedures established by the American Society for Testing and

Materials (ASTM).")

I also wish to bring to your attention a closing letter that is on the public record

.concerning an investigation of possibly deceptive practices in connection with the packaging of

down comforters. In that instance, the staff determined that no further Commission action was

warranted when the company notified the staff that it was changing its package product

description from "760 White Goose Down" to "finely woven 380 2-ply fabric." (copy attached).

Pursuant to Section 1.4 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 16 C.F.R.

§ 1.4, your letter, together with this response, will be placed on the public record.

I hope you will find the above information helpful.

Sincerely yours,

~U.L~ l> .Ntl<:.-<..4;

Elaine D. Kolish

Associate Director for Enforcement

Enclosures
Federal Trade Commission Washington, D.C. 20580

~ IMMEDIATE RRT.RASE: March 8. 1984

FIt= A~ES ACr I (2fS

(If M)()L t-A"RI~ 1M; BOLES

The Federal Trade Commission has decided, after reviewing

public comments, not to change its rule requiring a label stating

the minimum wool content on wool products. The Commission also

issued a clarification of the procedures it uses for testing wool

products to determine their fiber content. The FTC enforces

wool-labeling rules under the Wool Products Labeling Act.

In April 1983, the FTC sought comments on whether it should

amend its rules to allow labels to disclose the average amount,

rather than the minimum amount, of wool in fabrics that contain

recycled wool or wool blend products. Using the average amount

might provide consumers more accurate information, the FTC said,

but using the minimum assures that conswners will receive at

least the amount of wool on the label.

However, after reviewing the comments, the Commission

decided not to amend the rule, because there was no evidence on

the record to support the change.

In its clarification of the procedure used for testing the

fiber content of wool products, the FTC said the industry members

should, where possible, use procedures established by the

American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM).

The test should be made on an "oven-dry basis," with

"commercial moisture regain" added to determine the quantitive

fiber content of a wool product.

The ASTM defines oven-dry basis as "the condition of a

material that has been heated under prescribed conditions of

temperature and humidity until there is no further significant

change in its mass." Commercial moisture regain is "an arbitrary

value to be used with the oven-dry weight" when calculating "the

weight ".of a specific component in the analysis of fiber blends."

Copies of the Federal Register notice on the minimum wool

content rulemaking decision are available from the FTC's Public

Reference Branch, Roam 130, 6th st. and Pennsylvania Ave. N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20580; 202-523-3598; TTY 202-523-3638. News

media copies are available from the Office of Public Affairs,

Room 496, same address; 202-523-1892.

# # #

MEDIA CONTACT: Susan Ticknor, Office of Public Affairs,

202-523-1892

STAFF-CONTACT: Jerry McDonald, Bureau of Conswner Protection,

202-376-2800 (labels)

Earl Johnson, Bureau of Conswner Protection,

202-376-2891 (test methods)

-
. ." 'IC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

.~ j'~~ FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

~ WASHINGTON, D.C. 20580 " ". .'1:-

Division of Enforcement

Bureau of Consumer Protection

April 8, 1996

Jeffrey Goldman, President

California Feather & Down Corporation

11842 S. Alameda St.

Lynwood, CA 90262

Re: California Feather & Down Corporation, 9523373

Dear Mr. Goldman:

The Commission has conducted an investigation involving your

company's possible violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act

through the use of unfair acts or deceptive acts or practices in

connection with the packaging of down comforters.

By letter dated March 12, 1996, Mr. N. Frank Wiggins stated

that your company is removing the reference to "760" from the

packaging and labeling of your "White Knights 760 White Goose

Down Comforter." Further, Mr. Wiggins' August 12, 1995, letter

stated that the company had revised the text of the packaging for

this product to say that the White Knights 760 White Goose Down

Comforter contains "finely woven 380 2-ply fabric. ..." The

former packaging had stated "finely woven 760 threads per sq.

. h "

lnc Upon further review of this matter, it now appears that no

further action is warranted by the Commission at this time.

Accordingly, the investigation has been closed. This action is

not to be construed as a determination that a violation has not

occurred, just as the pendency of an investigation should not be

construed as a determination that a violation has occurred. The

Commission reserves the right to take such further action as the

public interest may require.

Sincerely,

C---l.La..l-l'&... ~ ~ ~1C_{-<...a-\"

Elaine D. Kolish

Associate Director

cc: N. Frank Wiggins, Esq.

Venable, Baetjer, Howard & Civiletti, LLP

1201 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 1000

Washington, DC 20005-3917
FEDERAL TRA.DE COMMISSION

A

_t)IVISION 

~

ENFORCEMENT

AMERICAN TEXTILE

MANUFACTURERS INSTITUTE

January 31, 2002

Mr. Steve Ecklund

Federal Trade Commission

Division of Enforcement

Washington, DC 20580

Re: Request for FTC Staff

Opinion on Yarn Count

Dear Mr. Ecklund:

It has come to our attention again that. some companies are marketing bed

sheets and pillowcases to U.S. consumers where extremely high yarn or thread

counts are claimed -some as high as 1000 count. We believe these products

are mislabeled, creating deceptive information for the consumer.

Labeling these products based on a count that includes each ply in plied yarns

deceives the customer into believing that bedding products with higher counts

are better when, in fact, they might be inferior because of the method used to

determine the count. We wrote to the Commission regarding this same issue on

February 24, 1997 (copy enclosed) and provided a fabric sample and

independent lab report verifying our position.

In many cases, these extremely high counts are achieved by counting yams

within a ply as individual yams, thus dramatically increasing the number of yarns

in a square inch of fabric. A plied yarn is one in which two or more yarns are

twisted together to form a single strand.

ATMI believes this method of labeling products based on counting each

individual yarn in plies to be a deceptive practice, which misleads the American

. 1130 Connecticut Ave., NW. Suite 1200. Washington, DC 20036-3954

202-862-0500 .fax: 202-862-0570. http://www.atmi.org

fax on demand: 202-862-0572
,

public into making decisions to purchase items, based on false and misleading

information.

ASTM method D 3775-96 (Standard Test Method for Fabric Count of Woven

Fabric) is the long-accepted industry standard for determining count. This

method has been in use in this country for many years and serves as the

industry's standard way to report the count of many woven textile fabrics,

including sheeting. It is based on the number of yarns in the warp direction and

filling direction, regardless of ply, and has become an important parameter used

by consumers to judge the quality of sheeting products, since the higher the

count, the more luxurious the product.

ATMI believes that any information provided to the consumer should be true and

correct so as not to be deceptive or mis-leading. We believe that plied yarns are

properly counted as only one yarn. For example, a fabric containing 250

individual four ply yarns in a square inch would be described as a "250 thread

count fabric, even though each thread or yarn contained four plies twisted

together." It would be false and mis-leading to describe this as a 1000 thread

count product.

ATMI requests a staff opinion from the Federal Trade Commission on this issue.

We believe that manufacturers, importers and retailers of bed sheets should rely

on the ASTM D3775-96 standard test method to determine count.

a:;;el# ~

Carlos Moore

Executive Vice President

Enclosure

-