1 

 0823199 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

 BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

COMMISSIONERS: Edith Ramirez, Chairwoman 

Julie Brill 

Maureen K. Ohlhausen 

Joshua D. Wright 

___________________________________________ 

 ) 

In the Matter of ) 

 ) 

THE NEIMAN MARCUS GROUP, INC., ) DOCKET NO. C-4407 

a corporation. ) 

 ) 

___________________________________________) 

 COMPLAINT 

Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 

' 41 et seq., and by virtue of the authority vested in it by said Act, the Federal Trade 

Commission (“Commission”), having reason to believe that Neiman Marcus Group, Inc. 

(“Neiman Marcus” or “respondent”) has violated the provisions of the Federal Trade 

Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. ' 41 et seq., the Fur Products Labeling Act, 15 U.S.C. ' 69 et seq., 

and the Rules and Regulations Under the Fur Products Labeling Act, 16 C.F.R. Part 301, and it 

appearing to the Commission that this proceeding is in the public interest, alleges: 

1. Respondent is a Delaware corporation with its principal office or place of business at 

1618 Main St., Dallas, TX 75201. 

2. The acts and practices of respondent alleged in this complaint have been in or affecting 

commerce, as commerce is defined in Section 4 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 

U.S.C. ' 44, and Section 2(j) of the Fur Products Labeling Act, 15 U.S.C. ' 69(j). 
2 

3. Respondent has advertised, offered for sale, sold, and distributed fur products, as that 

term is defined in Section 2(d) of the Fur Products Labeling Act, 15 U.S.C. ' 69(d). 

Respondent advertises and offers fur products for sale through the Internet sites 

www.neimanmarcus.com and www.bergdorfgoodman.com. 

4. In May 2009, Commission staff closed an investigation into whether respondent Neiman 

Marcus had falsely advertised coats as having faux fur that in fact contained real fur. In 

closing the investigation, staff relied in part on respondent’s assurances that it had 

reached an agreement with a third-party vendor to label products as containing either real 

fur or other material. 

CONDUCT

5. From approximately October 5, 2009, until approximately November 16, 2012, 

respondent disseminated, or caused to be disseminated, advertisements for fur products,

including, but not limited to, a Burberry Outerwear Jacket (AOuterwear Jacket@), a Stuart 

Weitzman Ballerina Flat (ABallerina Flat@), and an Alice + Olivia Kyah Faux-Fur Collar 

Coat (AKyah Coat@). 

Outerwear Jacket False Advertising

6. From approximately October 5, 2009, until October 30, 2009, respondent disseminated, 

or caused to be disseminated, the advertisement attached as Exhibit A. This 

advertisement from www.neimanmarcus.com contained the following statements 

(emphasis added): 

Outerwear Jacket 

Cardinal red. Allover quilted topstitching. Black faux-fur hood with snap-tab 

detail; zip/snap front. Long sleeves with zip cuff detail. Tonal belt at natural 

waist. Zip pockets. A-line. Polyester/polyamide. Made in Italy of imported 

material. 

7. The Outerwear Jacket had an attached label disclosing that it in fact contained “real fur.” 

8. From October 5, 2009, until October 30, 2009, respondent sold at least five Outerwear 

Jackets via its website for a total revenue of at least $6,475. 

Ballerina Flat False Advertising

9. From approximately August 3, 2011, until approximately December 1, 2011, respondent 

disseminated, or caused to be disseminated, the advertisement attached as Exhibit B. 

This advertisement from www.neimanmarcus.com contained the following statements 

(emphasis added): 
3 

A cute fur ornament decorates the toe of this basic ballerina flat by Stuart 

Weitzman. 

Sport suede upper. 

Faux fur (cotton/viscose) pom on round toe. 

Imported of Spanish and Italian material. 

Respondent’s www.bergdorfgoodman.com internet site carried a similar advertisement 

beginning on August 20, 2011. 

10. From approximately August 14, 2011, until approximately December 1, 2011, respondent 

disseminated, or caused to be disseminated, the catalog advertisement for the Ballerina 

Flat attached as Exhibit C, which contained the following statements (emphasis added): 

Black or cola “Furball” ballet flat with dyed mink (Spain) pouf, rubber sole, and 

1/2" wedge heel. 

11. From approximately November 27, 2011, until approximately December 1, 2011, 

respondent mailed to its customers a “stuffer” attached as Exhibit D that described the 

product as containing a “dyed mink (Spain) pouf” (emphasis added). 

12. The vendor of the Ballerina Flat had notified respondent that the product contained real 

rabbit fur before July 25, 2011. 

13. From approximately August 3 to December 1, 2011, respondent sold at least 292 

Ballerina Flats via its websites, catalog, and mailers for a total revenue of at least 

$85,000. 

Kyah Coat False Advertising

14. From approximately August 9, 2012, until approximately November 16, 2012, 

respondent disseminated, or caused to be disseminated, the advertisement attached as 

Exhibit E. This advertisement from www.neimanmarcus.com contained the following 

statements (emphasis added): 

Kyah Faux Fur-Collar Coat: Glam up your professional looks with the Alice + 

Olivia Kyah coat, which features a plush faux-fur collar. 

Crepe with faux-fur (polyester/viscose) collar. 

Self-tie waist. 

Long sleeves. 

Arched hem falls below hip. 

Virgin wool/cashmere/polyester. 

Dry clean. 

Imported. 
4 

15. The Kyah Coat had an attached label disclosing that its collar was in fact “real fur.” 

16. From approximately August 9, 2012, until approximately November 16, 2012, 

respondent sold at least 19 Kyah Coats via its website for a total revenue of at least 

$15,162. 

COUNT I

17. Through the means described in Paragraphs 6, 9, and 14, respondent represented, expressly 

or by implication, that the fur in the Outerwear Jacket, Ballerina Flat, and Kyah Coat was 

faux or fake. In truth and in fact, those products contained real fur. Therefore, the 

representations set forth in Paragraphs 6, 9, and 14 were false, deceptive, or misleading. 

18. Through the means described in Paragraphs 10 and 11, respondent represented, expressly 

or by implication, that the fur in the Ballerina Flat was mink fur. In truth and in fact, the 

Ballerina Flat contained rabbit fur. Therefore, the representations set forth in Paragraphs 

10 and 11 were false, deceptive, or misleading. 

19. Respondent’s practices, as alleged in this complaint, constitute unfair or deceptive acts or 

practices in or affecting commerce in violation of Section 5(a) of the Federal Trade 

Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. ' 45(a), and false advertising in violation of Section 5(a)(5) of 

the Fur Products Labeling Act, 15 U.S.C. '' 69c(a)(5), and Sections 301.2(c) and 301.49 of 

the Rules and Regulations Under the Fur Products Labeling Act, 16 C.F.R. '' 301.2(c) and 

301.49. Pursuant to Sections 3(a) and 3(c) of the Fur Products Labeling Act, 15 U.S.C. '

69a(a) and 69a(c), the false advertising of fur products, within the meaning of the Fur 

Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations Under Fur Products Labeling Act, is 

unlawful and an unfair and deceptive act or practice, in commerce, under the Federal Trade 

Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. ' 41, et seq. 

COUNT II 

20. Through the means described in paragraphs 6, 9-11, and 14, respondent did not disclose the 

name of the animal that produced the fur in the Outerwear Jacket, Ballerina Flat, and Kyah 

Coat as set forth in the Fur Products Name Guide, 16 C.F.R. ' 301.0. 

21. Through the means described in paragraphs 6, 9, and 14, respondent did not disclose the 

country of origin for the fur in the Outerwear Jacket, Ballerina Flat, and Kyah Coat. 

22. Respondent’s practices, as alleged in this complaint, constitute unfair or deceptive acts or 

practices in or affecting commerce in violation of Section 5(a) of the Federal Trade 

Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. ' 45(a), and false advertising in violation of Sections 5(a)(1), 

5(a)(5), and 5(a)(6) of the Fur Products Labeling Act, 15 U.S.C. '' 69c(a)(1),(5), and (6), 

and Sections 301.2(c) and 301.49 of the Rules and Regulations Under the Fur Products 

Labeling Act, 16 C.F.R. '' 301.2(c) and 301.49. Pursuant to Sections 3(a) and 3(c) of the 
5 

Fur Products Labeling Act, 15 U.S.C. ' 69a(a) and 69a(c), the false advertising of fur 

products, within the meaning of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and 

Regulations Under Fur Products Labeling Act, is unlawful and an unfair and deceptive act 

or practice, in commerce, under the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. ' 41, et seq.

WHEREFORE, THE PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Federal Trade Commission has 

caused this Complaint to be signed by its Secretary and its official seal to be hereto affixed, at 

Washington, D.C., this eighteenth day of July, 2013. 

 By the Commission. 

 Donald S. Clark 

 Secretary 

SEAL: