Complaint 

No. 1:13-cv-00003 

 – 1 – 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20530 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

LEON MAX, INC., a corporation, also 

doing business as Max Studio, 

3100 New York Drive 

Pasadena, CA 91107 

 Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-00003 

COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL PENALTIES, INJUNCTIVE, AND OTHER RELIEF 

Plaintiff, the United States of America, acting upon the notification and authorization to 

the Attorney General by the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”), for its 

complaint alleges that: 

1. Plaintiff brings this action under Sections 5(a)(1), 5(m)(1)(B), 13(b), and 16(a) of 

the Federal Trade Commission Act as amended (“FTC Act”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 45(a)(1), 

45(m)(1)(B), 53(b), and 56(a), to obtain monetary civil penalties, injunctive, and other relief for 

Defendant’s violations of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act (“Textile Act”), 15 U.S.C. 

§ 70 et seq., the Rules and Regulations Under the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act, 16 

C.F.R. Part 303 (“Textile Rules”), and injunctive relief for violations of Section 5(a)(1) of the 

Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a)(1). 

Case 1:13-cv-00003 Document 1 Filed 01/03/13 Page 1 of 10
Complaint 

No. 1:13-cv-00003 

 – 2 – 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

2. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 

1337(a), 1345, and 1355, and 15 U.S.C. §§ 45(m)(1)(B), 53(b), and 56(a). This action arises 

under 15 U.S.C. § 45(a). 

3. Venue in this District is proper under 15 U.S.C. § 53(b) and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) 

and (c) and 1395(a). 

DEFENDANT 

4. Defendant Leon Max, Inc., also doing business as Max Studio, is a California 

corporation with its principal place of business at 3100 New York Drive, Pasadena, California 

91107. At all times material to this complaint, Defendant has participated in the acts and 

practices described in this complaint. Defendant transacts business in this district, including 

through its website, www.maxstudio.com, its Max Studio retail store located at 1242 Wisconsin 

Avenue, N.W., Washington, District of Columbia 20007, and other retail stores including, 

among others, Macy’s, Bloomingdale’s, Dillards, and Lord & Taylor. 

COMMERCE 

5. At all times material to this complaint, Defendant has maintained a substantial 

course of trade in or affecting commerce, as “commerce” is defined in Section 4 of the FTC Act, 

15 U.S.C. § 44. 

DEFENDANT’S BUSINESS PRACTICES 

6. Defendant markets and sells textile fiber products throughout the United States 

using its website and its retail stores, as well as through other retail department stores. 

Defendant manufactures and sells textile fiber products under its own private label, Max Studio. 

7. In advertisements for textile fiber products on its website, Defendant makes or has 

made various claims concerning the fiber content of those textile fiber products. 

8. On its www.maxstudio.com website, Defendant has claimed, without 

qualification, that the textile fiber in numerous products is “bamboo”: 

a. For example, in the product description for the “Racer Back Tank,” 

Defendant has claimed, “You can still be a green-goddess at the gym when you wear this 

Case 1:13-cv-00003 Document 1 Filed 01/03/13 Page 2 of 10
Complaint 

No. 1:13-cv-00003 

 – 3 – 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

delicious racer back tank cut from an eco-wonderful bamboo and cotton jersey. Besides 

its earth-friendly nature, the beauty of bamboo is that it is luxuriously soft, and its 

absorbent properties are just right for sweating it out at yoga, Pilates or on the run” 

(emphasis added). In the fabric description of the same product, Defendant has stated 

that the tank is “50% BAMBOO, 50% COTTON.” 

b. Similarly, in the product description for the “Silk & Bamboo Broadcloth 

Shirred Shell,” Defendant has claimed, “Soft shirring on a delicate and eco-friendly 

bamboo and silk fabric lends this top its ethereal feel,” while the fabric description for 

the product has stated that it is “65% BAMBOO, 35% SILK.” (emphasis added). 

9. In addition, on its www.maxstudio.com website, Defendant has sold textile fiber 

products labeled as “bamboo.” 

10. For example, on March 17, 2010, the Commission purchased a “Football Tee” 

and a “Bamboo Seersucker Stripe Scoop Yoke Dress” from the www.maxstudio.com website. 

Both items were purchased directly from, and shipped by, Defendant. The label on the plastic 

packaging containing the “Football Tee” stated that the fabric composition was “50% Bamboo 

50% Cotton.” The fiber content label sewn into the shirt also stated that the fiber content was 

“50% Bamboo 50% Cotton.” A hangtag attached to the shirt stated that it was “Bamboo” and 

that “Bamboo is a wonderful new fiber that is lustrous, absorbent and also has anti-bacterial 

properties.” Similarly, the fiber content label sewn into the “Bamboo Seersucker Stripe Scoop 

Yoke Dress” stated that the fiber content of the shell was “99% Bamboo 1% Spandex” and the 

lining was “100% Cotton.” The dress also had the same “Bamboo” hangtag as the shirt. 

11. Textile fiber products marketed and sold by Defendant as bamboo, including 

those described in Paragraphs 8 through 10 above, are rayon and not actual bamboo fiber woven 

into fabric. 

12. Rayon is the generic name for a type of regenerated or manufactured fiber made 

from cellulose. Rayon is manufactured by taking purified cellulose from a plant source, also 

called a cellulose precursor, and converting it into a viscous solution by dissolving it in one or 

// 

Case 1:13-cv-00003 Document 1 Filed 01/03/13 Page 3 of 10
Complaint 

No. 1:13-cv-00003 

 – 4 – 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

more chemicals, such as sodium hydroxide. The chemical solution is then forced through 

spinnerets and into an acidic bath where it solidifies into fibers. 

13. Many plant sources may be used as cellulose precursors for rayon fabric, 

including cotton linters (short cotton fibers), wood pulp, and bamboo. Regardless of the source 

of the cellulose used, the manufacturing process involves the use of hazardous chemicals, and the 

resulting fiber is rayon and not cotton, wood, or bamboo fiber. See 40 C.F.R. Part 63 (“National 

Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Cellulose Products Manufacturing”). 

14. “[H]azardous air pollutants (HAP) emitted from cellulose products manufacturing 

operations” include carbon disulfide, carbonyl sulfide, ethylene oxide, methanol, methyl 

chloride, propylene oxide, and toluene. 40 C.F.R. § 63.5480. 

15. Pursuant to the Textile Act and Rules, textile products must be labeled and 

advertised using the proper generic fiber names recognized or established by the Commission. 

Manufactured textile products composed, in whole or in part, of regenerated cellulose fiber must 

be labeled and advertised using a generic fiber name such as rayon. 

PRIOR COMMISSION PROCEEDINGS CONCERNING 

TEXTILE FIBER PRODUCT MISREPRESENTATIONS 

16. In August 2009, the Commission announced three settlements and one 

administrative action against marketers improperly labeling and advertising rayon textile 

products as “bamboo.” In addition to publicly announcing these cases, the Commission issued a 

Business Alert to remind marketers of the need to label and advertise textile products properly 

and to clarify that “bamboo” is not a proper generic fiber name for manufactured rayon textile 

fibers. The press release announcing the four cases and the Business Alert were disseminated 

widely throughout the marketplace. 

17. On January 27, 2010, the Commission sent Defendant a letter (“Warning Letter”), 

by express mail, informing Defendant that certain acts or practices in connection with the 

advertising and labeling of textile fiber products may violate the Textile Act and the Textile 

Rules and are unfair or deceptive under Section 5 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a)(1). 

18. Defendant received the Warning Letter on February 2, 2010. 

Case 1:13-cv-00003 Document 1 Filed 01/03/13 Page 4 of 10
Complaint 

No. 1:13-cv-00003 

 – 5 – 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

19. Enclosed with the Warning Letter was a synopsis of previous litigated decisions 

issued by the Commission, as well as instructions to contact Commission staff or to visit the 

Commission’s website at http://www.ftc.gov/bamboo to obtain complete copies of the Textile 

Act, Textile Rules, and the Commission’s Final Orders and Opinions in the proceedings 

described in the synopsis. 

20. As detailed in the synopsis enclosed in the Warning Letter, in a series of litigated 

decisions, the Commission determined, among other things, that: 

a. both manufacturers and sellers of textile fiber products must comply with 

the Textile Act and the Textile Rules, see H. Myerson Sons, et al., 78 F.T.C. 464 (1971); 

Taylor- Friedsam Co., et al., 69 F.T.C. 483 (1966); Transair, Inc., et al., 60 F.T.C. 694 

(1962); and 

b. it is an unfair or deceptive act or practice to falsely or deceptively stamp, 

tag, label, invoice, advertise, or otherwise identify any textile fiber product regarding the 

name or amount of constituent fibers contained therein, see Verrazzano Trading Corp., et 

al., 91 F.T.C. 888 (1978); H. Myerson Sons, et al., 78 F.T.C. 464 (1971); TaylorFriedsam Co., et al., 69 F.T.C. 483 (1966); Transair, Inc., et al., 60 F.T.C. 694 (1962). 

21. The Warning Letter also notified Defendant of its potential liability for civil 

penalties under Section 5(m)(1)(B) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(m)(1)(B), for knowingly 

engaging in acts or practices determined by the Commission to be unfair or deceptive and 

unlawful, as described in Paragraph 20 of this Complaint. 

22. Even after receiving the Warning Letter, Defendant continued to market and sell 

rayon textile fiber products advertised and labeled as “bamboo.” As a result, on April 13, 2010, 

the Commission issued a civil investigative demand (“CID”) to Defendant, seeking documents 

and information relating to its advertising, labeling, and sales of such textile products, including 

samples of any such products that Defendant contended were composed of actual bamboo fiber 

and not of rayon. Defendant produced no such samples and has not otherwise asserted that any 

of the textile fiber products it sells are “bamboo.” 

// 

Case 1:13-cv-00003 Document 1 Filed 01/03/13 Page 5 of 10
Complaint 

No. 1:13-cv-00003 

 – 6 – 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

23. Despite the Commission’s public announcements and the Warning Letter, 

Defendant continued to engage in practices, such as those described in Paragraphs 8 through 10 

above. 

24. The practices described in Paragraphs 8 through 10 above are violations of the 

Textile Act and the Textile Rules, and are deceptive acts or practices in violation of Section 

5(a)(1) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a)(1). 

VIOLATIONS OF THE TEXTILE ACT AND THE TEXTILE RULES 

25. The Textile Act governs, inter alia, the labeling and advertising of textile fiber 

products manufactured, sold, advertised, or offered for sale in commerce. See 15 U.S.C. § 70a. 

26. Under the Textile Act, a textile fiber product is “misbranded if it is falsely or 

deceptively stamped, tagged, labeled, invoiced, advertised, or otherwise identified as to the name 

or amount of constituent fibers contained therein.” 15 U.S.C. § 70b(a). 

27. Pursuant to section 70e of the Textile Act, 15 U.S.C. § 70e(c), the Commission 

promulgated the Textile Rules, which state: 

a. all textile fiber products must carry affixed labels stating the recognized 

generic names of the constituent fibers, 16 C.F.R. §§ 303.15; 303.16(a)(1); 

b. no generic name for a manufactured fiber may be used until such generic 

name has been “established or otherwise recognized by the Commission,” 16 C.F.R. 

§ 303.8; 

c. “[w]ords, coined words, symbols or depictions, (a) which constitute or 

imply the name or designation of a fiber which is not present in the product . . . [may] not 

be used in such a manner as to represent or imply that such fiber is present in the 

product.” 16 C.F.R. § 303.18. Any term used in advertising, including internet 

advertising, that constitutes or connotes the name or presence of a textile fiber is deemed 

to be an implication of fiber content, 16 C.F.R. § 303.40; and 

d. any information or representation included in advertising or labeling of a 

textile fiber product that is not required under the Textile Act or the Textile Rules “shall 

in no way be false, deceptive, or misleading as to fiber content and shall not include any 

Case 1:13-cv-00003 Document 1 Filed 01/03/13 Page 6 of 10
Complaint 

No. 1:13-cv-00003 

 – 7 – 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

names, terms, or representations prohibited by the [Textile] Act and regulations.” 16 

C.F.R. § 303.42(b); 16 C.F.R. § 303.41(d); see also 16 C.F.R. § 303.17. 

28. A violation either of the Textile Act or of the Textile Rules constitutes an unfair 

or deceptive act or practice in violation of the FTC Act. See 15 U.S.C. §§ 70a and 70e. 

COUNT I 

29. As set forth in Paragraphs 8 through 10, Defendant 

a. markets and sells or has marketed and sold textile fiber products labeled as 

“bamboo;” and 

b. advertises or has advertised the fiber content of textile fiber products using 

the terms “bamboo” and “bamboo fiber.” 

30. In truth and in fact, as set forth in Paragraph 11, in numerous instances these 

textile fiber products are not bamboo fiber but instead rayon, a regenerated cellulose fiber. 

31. Therefore, through the means described in Paragraphs 8 through 10, Defendant 

has introduced, advertised, offered for sale, or sold textile fiber products that are mislabeled or 

falsely or deceptively advertised, in violation of Sections 70a and 70b of the Textile Act, 15 

U.S.C. §§ 70a and 70b, and Sections 303.6, 303.8, 303.16, 303.17, 303.18, 303.33, 303.34, 

303.40, 303.41, and 303.42 of the Textile Rules, 16 C.F.R. Part 303. 

32. Defendant’s violations of the Textile Act and of the Textile Rules constitute 

deceptive acts or practices, in or affecting commerce, in violation of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act. 

See 15 U.S.C. §§ 70a and 70e. 

VIOLATIONS OF PRIOR COMMISSION DETERMINATIONS CONCERNING 

UNFAIR OR DECEPTIVE ACTS OR PRACTICES IN COMMERCE 

33. Pursuant to Section 5(m)(1)(B) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(m)(1)(B), if the 

Commission has determined in a proceeding under section 5(b) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 

§ 45(b), that an act or practice is unfair or deceptive by issuing a final cease and desist order 

other than a consent order, then a person, partnership, or corporation which engages in such act 

or practice with actual knowledge that such act or practice is unfair or deceptive shall be liable 

for a civil penalty of not more than $16,000 for each violation. 

Case 1:13-cv-00003 Document 1 Filed 01/03/13 Page 7 of 10
Complaint 

No. 1:13-cv-00003 

 – 8 – 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

34. In prior litigated decisions, the Commission has determined that it is an unfair or 

deceptive act or practice to offer for sale or sell textile fiber products that are falsely or 

deceptively labeled as to the name or amount of constituent fiber contained therein. The 

Commission also has determined that it is an unfair or deceptive act or practice to falsely or 

deceptively advertise textile fiber products including, but not limited to, falsely or deceptively 

advertising the name or amount of constituent fiber contained within a textile fiber product. See

Paragraph 20. 

COUNT II 

35. As set forth in Paragraphs 17 through 20, at least since receiving the Warning 

Letter on February 2, 2010, Defendant has had actual knowledge that offering for sale or selling 

falsely or deceptively labeled textile products and that falsely or deceptively advertising textile 

fiber products are unfair or deceptive acts or practices subject to civil penalties. 

36. As set forth in Paragraphs 8 through 10, Defendant has offered for sale and sold 

textile products labeled as “bamboo” and has represented, directly or indirectly, expressly or by 

implication, that certain textile fiber products it advertises and sells are “bamboo.” 

37. In truth and in fact, as set forth in Paragraph 11, in numerous instances these 

textile fiber products are not bamboo fiber but instead rayon, a regenerated cellulose fiber. 

38. Defendant has engaged in the acts and practices described in Paragraphs 36 and 

37 with the actual knowledge, as set forth in Paragraph 35, that such acts and practices have been 

determined by the Commission in a final cease and desist order, other than a consent order, to be 

unfair and deceptive under Section 5(a) of the FTC Act. Defendant, therefore, has violated 

Section 5(m)(1)(B) of the FTC Act. 15 U.S.C.§ 45(m)(1)(B). 

CONSUMER INJURY 

39. Consumers have suffered and will continue to suffer substantial injury as a result 

of Defendant’s violations. In addition, Defendant has been unjustly enriched as a result of its 

unlawful acts or practices. Absent injunctive relief by this Court, Defendant is likely to continue 

to injure consumers, reap unjust enrichment, and harm the public interest. 

// 

Case 1:13-cv-00003 Document 1 Filed 01/03/13 Page 8 of 10
Complaint 

No. 1:13-cv-00003 

 – 9 – 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

CIVIL PENALTIES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 

40. Violations of the Textile Act constitute deceptive acts or practices, in or affecting 

commerce, in violation of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act. See 15 U.S.C. §§ 70a and 70e. The FTC 

“is authorized to direct and prevent any person from violating the provisions of the [Textile Act] 

in the same manner, by the same means, and with the same jurisdiction, powers, and duties as 

though all applicable terms and provisions of the [FTC Act] were incorporated” therein, and any 

“person violating the [Textile Act] shall be subject to the penalties” provided in the FTC Act. 15 

U.S.C. § 70e(b). 

41. Under Section 13(b) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 53(b), this Court is authorized to 

issue a permanent injunction to restrain violations of the FTC Act, as well as such ancillary relief 

as is necessary. 

42. Section 5(m)(1)(B) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(m)(1)(B), authorizes the 

Court to award monetary civil penalties of not more than $16,000 for each violation of prior 

Commission determinations concerning unfair and deceptive acts or practices in commerce, as 

described in Paragraphs 16–24 and 35–38. 

43. Pursuant to Section 5(m)(1)(B) of the FTC Act, for the purpose of computing civil 

penalties, each and every instance that Defendant has introduced, advertised, offered for sale, or 

sold a misbranded textile fiber product, since February 2, 2010, constitutes an act or practice that 

the Commission has determined in a prior proceeding to be unfair or deceptive. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §§ 45(a)(1), 45(m)(1)(B), and 53(b) and 

the Court’s own equitable powers, requests that the Court: 

1. Enter judgment against Defendant and in favor of Plaintiff for each violation of 

the Textile Act and the Textile Rules alleged in this complaint; 

2. Award Plaintiff monetary civil penalties pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 45(m)(1)(B); 

3. Enter a permanent injunction to prevent future violations of the Textile Act and 

the Textile Rules; and 

// 

Case 1:13-cv-00003 Document 1 Filed 01/03/13 Page 9 of 10
Complaint 

No. 1:13-cv-00003 

 – 10 – 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4. Award Plaintiff the costs of bringing this action, as well as such other and 

additional relief as the Court may determine to be just and proper. 

DATED: January 3, 2013 

Of Counsel: 

JAMES A. KOHM 

Associate Director for Enforcement 

ROBERT S. KAYE 

Assistant Director for Enforcement 

KORIN EWING FELIX 

MEGAN A. BARTLEY 

Attorneys 

Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

Mail Drop M-8102B 

Washington, D.C. 20580 

(202) 326-3556; kewing@ftc.gov 

(202) 326-3424; mbartley@ftc.gov 

Respectfully submitted, 

STUART F. DELERY 

Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General 

MAAME EWUSI-MENSAH FRIMPONG 

Deputy Assistant Attorney General 

MICHAEL S. BLUME 

Director 

 /s/ Shannon L. Pedersen 

SHANNON L. PEDERSEN 

Trial Attorney 

Consumer Protection Branch 

U.S. Department of Justice 

P.O. Box 386 

Washington, DC 20044 

Tel: (202) 532-4490 

Fax: (202) 514-8742 

Shannon.L.Pedersen@usdoj.gov 

Case 1:13-cv-00003 Document 1 Filed 01/03/13 Page 10 of 10