Analysis of Proposed Consent Order to Aid Public Comment 

In the Matter of Bollman Hat Company and SaveAnAmericanJob, LLC, jointly d/b/a 

American Made Matters, File No. 172 3197 

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

approval, an agreement containing a consent order from Bollman Hat Company and 

SaveAnAmericanJob, LLC, jointly d/b/a American Made Matters (“respondents”). 

The proposed consent order has 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 

agreement and the comments received, and will decide whether it should withdraw from the 

agreement or make final the agreement’s proposed order. 

This matter involves respondents’ marketing, sale, and distribution of hats with claims 

that the products are of U.S.-origin, and respondents’ marketing, sale, and distribution of 

memberships in their “American Made Matters” (“AMM”) program to companies wishing to 

make U.S.-origin claims for their products. 

According to the FTC’s complaint, respondents represented that their products are “Made 

in USA.” In fact, many of the respondents’ hats are wholly imported, and others contain 

significant imported content. Therefore, this representation was false or misleading. 

The complaint further alleges that the AMM seal represents by implication that 

respondents’ products have been endorsed or certified by an independent third party. AMM, 

however, is a fictitious name for respondents, who created the AMM seal and use it in 

connection with the sale of their own products. Therefore, these representations were false or 

misleading. 

The complaint next alleges that respondents made implied claims that products and 

entities using their AMM seal were independently and objectively evaluated for compliance with 

respondents’ certification standard. These claims were false or misleading. 

Finally, the complaint alleges that respondents claimed that all AMM members sell 

products that are all or virtually all made in the United States. Because respondents awarded the 

AMM certification to any company that self-certified that at least 50% of the cost of one of their 

products was incurred in the United States, with final assembly or transformation in the United 

States, this claim was false or misleading, or unsubstantiated at the time it was made. 

Based on the foregoing, the complaint alleges that respondents engaged in deceptive acts 

or practices in violation of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act. 

The proposed consent order contains provisions designed to prevent respondents from 

engaging in similar acts and practices in the future. Consistent with the FTC’s Enforcement 

Policy Statement on U.S. Origin Claims, Part I prohibits respondents from making U.S.-origin 

claims for their products unless either: (1) the final assembly or processing of the product occurs 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

in the United States, all significant processing that goes into the product occurs in the United 

States, and all or virtually all ingredients or components of the product are made and sourced in 

the United States; or (2) a clear and conspicuous qualification appears immediately adjacent to 

the representation that accurately conveys the extent to which the product contains foreign parts, 

ingredients or components, and/or processing. 

Part II prohibits respondents from making any representation about any user or endorser 

of any product, package, certification, service, practice, or program, unless respondents disclose 

clearly and conspicuously any material connection between a user or endorser and (1) 

respondents or (2) any other individual or entity affiliated with the product or service. 

Part III prohibits respondents from representing, expressly or by implication, that a 

product or service meets respondents’ certification standard, unless: (1) an entity with no 

material connection to that covered entity conducted an independent and objective evaluation to 

confirm that the certification standard was met; or (2) respondents’ certification and marketing 

materials disclose clearly and conspicuously that the certification standard may be met through 

self-certification. 

Part IV prohibits respondents from making any country-of-origin claim about a product 

or service unless the claim is true, not misleading, and respondents have a reasonable basis 

substantiating the representation. In the alternative, for country-of-origin representations made 

through AMM marketing materials, respondents may make such claims if (1) they neither know 

or have reason to know that the self-certification is misleading, and (2) disclose clearly and 

prominently that products or services meet the certification standard through self-certification. 

Part V prohibits respondents from providing third parties with the means and 

instrumentalities to make the claims prohibited in Parts I, III, or IV. 

Parts VI through IX are reporting and compliance provisions. Part VI requires 

respondents to acknowledge receipt of the order, to provide a copy of the order to certain current 

and future principals, officers, directors, and employees, and to obtain an acknowledgement from 

each such person that they have received a copy of the order. Part VII requires the filing of 

compliance reports within one year after the order becomes final and within 14 days of any 

change that would affect compliance with the order. Part VIII requires respondents to maintain 

certain records, including records necessary to demonstrate compliance with the order. Part IX 

requires respondents to submit additional compliance reports when requested by the Commission 

and to permit the Commission or its representatives to interview respondents’ personnel. 

Finally, Part X is a “sunset” provision, terminating the order after twenty (20) years, with 

certain exceptions. 

The purpose of this analysis is to aid public comment on the proposed order. It is not 

intended to constitute an official interpretation of the proposed order or to modify its terms in 

any way.