Mr. Donald S. Clark, Secretary
U.S. Federal Trade Commission
May 23, 2005

Page 2

The ASTM, an intemational standards writing organization, addressed the thread count
issue in standard D3775-03a (see Section 9.1.4) which states that ends and picks are
counted as single units regardless of whether they are comprised of singles or plied
yams. ASTM committee D13.63 on home furnishings is working on a specific definition
of thread count for sheets and similar bedding products that would also treat multi-ply
yams as one yam, though that process is still in the preliminary stage.

Because of the competitive disadvantage imposed on companies that use the traditional
way of not considering yam plies in the final count, some of our members are
contemplating changing over to calculating thread count where each ply within a yam is
counted. We ask the Commission’s staff for its opinion on whether such a change would
be in violation of 15 U.S.C. Section 45(a)(1) of the Federal Trade Commission Act.

We will be pleased to provide any additional information to the Commission staff as it
addresses this issue which affects the many consumers who use thread count
information to make purchase decision for textile bedding products.

Sincerely,

E.Lecwel tfajhet-

£. Linwood Wright, III
Chairman,
Textile Bedding Committee


National Textile Association

. 6 Beacon Sireet * Suite 1125 * Boston, Massachusetts 02108
617 542-8220 + info@nationaltextile.org * www.nationaltextile.org * 617 542-2199 fax

TRADE COM, .
LSecenves socvnents9D ‘
s Z1V24L
JUR + 5 2005
SIFSIL

__SECRETARY

May 23, 2005
By FAX 202-326-249)

Mr. Donald S. Clark, Secretary
U.S. Federal Trade Commission
600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20580

Re: Request for Staff Opinion
Dear Mr. Secretary

Pursuant to 16. C.F.R. Section 1, the National Textile Association (“NTA’)
requests a staff opinion from the Federal Trade Commission (the “Commission’)
regarding the method for determining thread count in textile bedding products
The NTA is the largest trade association representing the U.S. Textile Industry and its
suppliers, and consists of about 125 companies that spin yarns; manufacture fabrics;
dye, finish and print fabrics; and cut and sew top-of-the-bed textile products.

The thread count (number of threads per square inch of fabric) is an important indicator
of fabric quality for consumers who purchase textile bedding products such as bed
sheets. Thread count has evolved over time as a key indicator used by consumers to
make purchasing decisions. Generally, it is perceived that the higher the thread count,
the better the end product.

The common practice in the U.S. textile bedding industry for decades has been to count
the number of threads in both the warp and filling directions. Yarns were counted as one
yarn, regardless of whether the yarn was a single ply or multi-ply yarn. (A multi-ply yam
is one yarn that has been created by twisting two or more yams together.) In recent
years, however, some textile bedding suppliers have changed the way they have
determined thread count by counting plied yams individually. This practice inflates the
thread count numbers to levels which double or triple (or more) the thread count as
determined by the long standing, traditional way. This practice has also created
confusion in the marketplace and has caused consumers to compare thread counts that
may have been calculated in two dramatically different ways

NON-PUBLIC


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20580

Division of Enforcement
Bureau of Consumer Protection

August 2, 2005

Mr. E. Linwood Wright, II
Chairman

Textile Bedding Committee
National Textile Association
6 Beacon Street, Suite 1125
Boston, MA 02108

Dear Mr. Wright:

Thank you for your letter requesting a Commission staff opinion regarding the
appropriate way to disclose fabric “thread count” (yarns per square inch) on labels or in
advertising for household textile products, such as bed sheets. Please note that this information
is not required pursuant to the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act, 15 U.S.C. § 70 et seq.,
and Commission rules and regulations under the Act, 16 C.F.R. Part 303. It is, however,
governed by Section 5 of the FTC Act, which prohibits deceptive acts or practices. 15 U.S.C.

§ 45.

You state that the thread count is an important indicator of fabric quality for consumers
who purchase textile bedding products, and that thread count has evolved over time as a key
indicator used by consumers to make purchasing decisions. In addition, you state that it is
generally understood that a higher thread count indicates a better product. Your letter describes
the specific issue with regard to description of thread count as follows:

The common practice in the U.S. textile bedding industry for decades has been to count
the number of threads in both the warp and filling directions. Yarns were counted as one
yarn, regardless of whether the yarn was a single ply or multi-ply yarn. (A multi-ply yarn
is one yarn that has been created by twisting two or more yarns together.) In recent years,
however, some textile bedding suppliers have changed the way they have determined
thread count by counting plied yarns individually. This practice inflates the thread count
numbers to levels which double or triple (or more) the thread count as determined by the
long standing, traditional way. This practice has also created confusion in the
marketplace and has caused consumers to compare thread counts that may have been
calculated in two dramatically different ways.

Finally, you state that some of your member companies have experienced competitive
disadvantage by using the traditional method of counting threads and are considering switching
to the method of multiplying by the number of plies within a yarn, thus achieving a higher thread
count. You ask for the staffs opinion as to whether the new method could violate Section 5 of
the FTC Act


Mr. E. Linwood Wright, II, page 2

You further note that ASTM, an international standards organization, has addressed this
issue in its Standard Test Method for Warp End Count and Filling Pick Count of Woven Fabric,
Designation: D3775-03a. Section 9.1.4 instructs: “Count individual warp yarns (ends) and filling
yarns (picks) as single units regardless of whether they are comprised of single or plied
components.”

A representation about thread count, 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 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 give such procedures or practices
great weight in determining whether the advertiser has met its substantiation burden.

Based upon the ASTM standard, as well as the information you have provided about
standard industry practices with regard to disclosing thread count, we believe that consumers
could be deceived or misled by the practice of stating an inflated thread count, achieved by
multiplying the actual count by the number of plies within the yarn. A possible non-deceptive
way to disclose both the thread count and the yarn ply would be to state, for example: “300
thread count, 2 ply yarn.” A representation of “600 thread count” for this same product would
likely mislead consumers about the quality of the product being purchased.

T also wish to bring to your attention a 1996 closing letter, placed on the FTC public
record, terminating 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 “finely woven 760 threads per sq. inch” to “finely woven 380 2-ply
fabric.” A copy of this closing letter is attached.

In accordance with Section 1.3(c) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure,
16 C.F.R. § 1.3(c), this is a staff opinion only and has not been reviewed or approved by the
Commission or by any individual Commissioner, and is given without prejudice to the right of
the Commission later to rescind the advice and, where appropriate, to commence an enforcement
action. In accordance with Section 1.4 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 16
C.F.R. § 1.4, your request for advice, along with this response, will be placed on the public
record.

We appreciate your taking the time to write to us. Please feel free to call Steve Ecklund
at 202-326-2841 if you have any further questions.

irjcerely yours,

Associate Director for Enforcement
Enclosure


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20580

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.
inch. . . ."

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,

Cham d. Leu:

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