1

Analysis of Proposed Consent Orders to Aid Public Comment

In the Matter of The Neiman Marcus Group, Inc., File No. 082 3199

In the Matter of DrJays.com, Inc., File No. 122 3063

In the Matter of Eminent, Inc., doing business as Revolve Clothing, File No. 122 3065

The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”) has accepted, subject to final

approval, agreements containing consent orders from The Neiman Marcus Group, Inc. (“Neiman

Marcus”), DrJays.com, Inc. (“DrJays”), and Eminent, Inc., doing business as Revolve Clothing

(“Revolve”).

The proposed consent orders have 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 

agreements and the comments received, and decide whether it should withdraw from the

agreements or make the proposed orders final.

Proposed Complaints

These matters involve violations of Section 5(a) of the Federal Trade Commission Act,

15 U.S.C. § 45(a) (“FTC Act”), Section 5(a)(5) of the Fur Products Labeling Act, 15 U.S.C.

§ 69c(a)(5) (“Fur Act”), and Sections 301.2(c) and 301.49 of the Rules and Regulations Under

Fur Products Labeling Act, 16 C.F.R §§ 301.2(c) and 301.49 (“Fur Rules”). In 2010, Congress

enacted the Truth in Fur Labeling Act, which amended the Fur Act by, among other things,

eliminating an exemption for items containing fur valued at no more than $150. As a result, the

Fur Act now requires disclosure of any fur content in wearing apparel.

The proposed complaints allege that Neiman Marcus, DrJays, and Revolve each

advertised products containing real fur as containing “faux fur” on its Internet site. The

proposed complaints further allege that the advertisements failed to disclose the names, as set

forth in the Fur Products Name Guide, 16 C.F.R. § 301.0, of the animals that produced the fur in

each product. They also allege that most of the products had labels correctly identifying the fur

content. 

The proposed complaint against Neiman Marcus alleges that the company’s website

misrepresented the fur content and failed to disclose the animal name for three products: an

Outerwear Jacket, a Ballerina Flat by Stuart Weitzman, and a Kyah Faux Fur-Collar Coat. In

addition to falsely advertising the Ballerina Flat online as “faux” fur, Neiman Marcus’ catalog

and mail advertising falsely represented that the product’s fur was mink when it was in fact

rabbit. The proposed complaint further alleges that Neiman Marcus sold at least 316 units of the

three products. Finally, it alleges that Neiman Marcus failed to disclose the country of origin of

each product.
2

The proposed complaint against DrJays alleges that the company misrepresented the fur

content and failed to disclose the animal name for three products: a Snorkel Jacket by Crown

Holder; a Fur/Leather Vest by Knoles & Carter; and a New York Subway Leather Bomber

Jacket by United Face. It further alleges that DrJays sold at least 241 units.

 

The proposed complaint against Revolve alleges that the company misrepresented the fur

content and failed to disclose the animal name for four products: an Australia Luxe Collective

Nordic Angel Short Boot; a Marc Jacobs Runway Roebling Coat; a Dakota Xan Fur Poncho; and

an Eryn Brinie Belted Faux Fur Vest. It further alleges that Revolve sold at least 158 units of the

products.

Proposed Orders

The proposed orders are designed to prevent Neiman Marcus, DrJays, and Revolve from

engaging in similar acts and practices in the future. 

Paragraph I bars each proposed respondent from violating the Fur Act and Rules by,

among other things, misrepresenting in mail, catalog, or Internet advertisements that the fur in

any product is faux or fake or misrepresenting the type of fur. Paragraph I also contains a

proviso incorporating the Enforcement Policy Statement that the Commission announced on

January 3, 2013. The proviso and Statement provide a safe harbor when a retailer cannot legally

obtain a guaranty, as long as the retailer meets certain requirements, including that it neither

knew nor should have known of the violation.

Paragraphs II though IV will help the Commission ensure that the proposed respondents

comply with Part I by requiring them to keep copies of advertisements and materials relied upon

in disseminating any representation covered by the orders (Paragraph II); provide copies of the

orders to certain personnel having responsibility for the advertising or sale of fur and fake fur

products (Paragraph III); and provide certain notices and compliance reports to the Commission

(Paragraph IV). 

Finally, Part V provides that the orders will terminate after twenty (20) years, with

certain exceptions.

The purpose of this analysis is to facilitate public comment on the proposed orders. It is

not intended to constitute an official interpretation of the complaints or the proposed orders, or to

modify the proposed orders’ terms in any way.