Analysis of Proposed Consent Order to Aid Public Comment

In the Matter of ICP Construction Inc., formerly known as California Products Corp., 

d/b/a/ Muralo Paints, File No. 1623081

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

approval, an agreement containing a consent order from ICP Construction Inc., formerly known 

as California Products Corp., d/b/a/ Muralo Paints, a corporation (“respondent”).

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 respondent’s marketing, sale, and distribution of purportedly “VOCfree” paints. “VOC” is the abbreviation for volatile organic compounds. VOC-free includes 

claims such as “zero VOCs,” “0 VOCs,” and “No VOCs.” According to the FTC complaint, 

respondent made unsubstantiated representations that its paints: (1) are VOC-free; (2) are VOCfree during or immediately after painting; (3) will not emit any chemical or substance, including 

VOCs, that causes material harm to consumers, including sensitive populations such as babies; 

and (4) will not emit any chemical or substance, including VOCs, during or immediately after 

painting, that causes material harm to consumers, including sensitive populations such as babies. 

The FTC also alleges that respondent used its ECO ASSURANCE seal without adequately 

disclosing that respondent awarded the seal to its own product. Consumers likely interpret the 

seal as a claim that an independent third party certified the product. The FTC further alleges that 

respondent provided independent retailers with promotional materials containing the same claims 

it made to consumers. Thus, the complaint alleges that respondent engaged in deceptive 

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

The proposed consent order contains five provisions designed to prevent respondent from 

engaging in similar acts and practices in the future. Part I prohibits emission-free and VOC-free 

claims unless both content and emission are actually zero or at trace level. The orders define 

“emission” to include all emissions (not just VOC that causes smog). This definition reflects the 

Commission’s Enforcement Policy Statement and consumer expectations: consumers are likely 

concerned about the potential health effects from exposure to chemical emission found in indoor 

air, not just VOC that affect outdoor air quality. The order defines “trace level of emission” to 

mean (1) no intentionally added VOC, (2) emission of the covered product does not cause 

material harm that consumers typically associate with emission, including harm to the 

environment or human health, and (3) emission of the covered product does not result in more 

than harmless concentrations of any compound higher than would be found under normal 

conditions in the typical residential home without interior architectural coating. Part II prohibits 

misleading representations regarding emission, VOC level, odor, and any general environmental 

and health benefit of paints. The order requires competent and reliable scientific evidence to 

substantiate these representations. Parts IV and V prohibit respondent from misrepresenting 

third-party certifications and failing to adequately disclose a material connection. Part VI 

prohibits respondent from providing third parties with the means and instrumentalities to make 
false, unsubstantiated, or otherwise misleading representations of material fact regarding paints, 

including any representation prohibited by Parts I, II, IV, or V.

To correct existing unsubstantiated zero-VOC claims and deceptive certification claims, 

Part III requires the respondent to send letters to its dealers and distributors, instructing them to 

post placards next to paint cans and at point of sale.

Parts VII through XI are reporting and compliance provisions. Part VII mandates that 

respondent acknowledge receipt of the order, distribute the order to certain employees and 

agents, and secure acknowledgments from recipients of the order. Part VIII requires that 

respondent submit compliance reports to the FTC within sixty (60) days of the order’s issuance 

and submit additional reports when certain events occur. Part IX requires that respondent must 

create and retain certain records for five (5) years. Part X provides for the FTC’s continued 

compliance monitoring of respondent’s activity during the order’s effective dates. Part XI is a 

provision “sunsetting” the order after twenty (20) years, with certain exceptions.

If the Commission finalizes the agreement’s proposed order, it plans to propose 

harmonizing with this order the consent orders issued in the PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc. 

(Docket No. C-4385) and The Sherwin-Williams Company (Docket No. C-4386) 

matters. Specifically, the Commission plans to issue orders to show cause why those matters 

should not be modified pursuant to Section 3.72(b) of the Commission Rules of Practice, 16 

C.F.R. § 3.72(b).

The purpose of the 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.