United States ofAmerica 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

Office ofthe Secretary 

April 24, 2018 

The Sherwin-Williams Company 

c/o Kelley Drye & Warren LLP 

Attn.: Dana Rosenfeld, Esq. 

3050 K St. NW, Suite 400 

Washington, DC 20007 

Re: Zero VOC Claims for Paints: 

Benjamin Moore & Co., Inc., File No. 162 3079 

Imperial Paints, LLC dlb/a Lullaby Paints and Ecos Paints, File No. 162 3080 

ICP Construction Inc., f/k/a California Products Corporation, dlb/a Muralo 

Paints, File No. 162 3081 

YOLO Colorhouse, LLC, File No. 162 3082 

Dear Ms. Rosenfeld: 

Thank you for commenting on the Federal Trade Commission's proposed consent orders 

in the above-referenced proceedings ("Consent Orders"). The Commission has considered your 

comment and placed it on the public record pursuant to Rule 4.9(b)(6)(ii) ofthe Commission's 

Rules ofPractice, 16 C.F.R. § 4.9(b)(6)(ii). 

In your comment, you recommend that the Commission allow marketers to substantiate 

unqualified "zero VOC" claims for interior household paint by, inter alia, conducting: 

(1) emissions testing confirming that paint has no more than trace level of emission at six hours 

after paint application, and (2) a content review confirming that the paint does not contain any 

substance with the potential to cause material harm to the health ofthe average adult. You also 

suggest two changes to the Consent Orders: (1) that the Commission remove "produce" from the 

definition of "emission" and Section LB.; and (2) that the Commission substitute "ambient air" 

for "normal conditions in the typical residential home without interior architectural coating" as 

the baseline condition in the definition of "Trace" level of emission.1 

1The Consent Orders define "Trace" level of emission to mean: (1) a VOC has not been 

intentionally added to the covered product; (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 architectural coating. 

1 
The Commission's analysis of"zero VOC" paint claims has evolved in response to 

changes in the marketplace including changes in the content oftints and the low cost of available 

emissions testing. The 2018 Consent Orders are consistent with the Commission's evolved 

understanding ofthe marketplace. To clarify further that these Consent Orders represent the 

Commission's current view, the Commission also has rescinded the Enforcement Policy 

Statement Regarding VOC-Free Claims for Architectural Coatings ("EPS").2 

Specifically, the Consent Orders provide that, when substantiating unqualified "zero 

VOC" claims for interior household paints, marketers must demonstrate zero VOC content and 

zero emission3 at all times beginning at application. Marketers should keep in mind that 

consumers likely understand unqualified "zero VOC" claims to apply to all emissions, notjust 

VOCs.4 Consequently, the Consent Orders define emission broadly, to capture even those 

emissions that could be produced from chemical reactions with surrounding air, not just VOCs. 

Removing the word "produce" would limit the definition ofemission in a manner inconsistent 

with likely consumer understanding of an unqualified claim. 

Alternatively, a marketer may still make an unqualified "zero VOC" claim by satisfying 

the Consent Orders' three-prong "trace level of emission" test.5 The Commission is not 

prescribing what tests to perform but is indicating that this test would satisfy the marketers' 

substantiation requirements. Consumer understanding drives its application. For instance, 

consumers likely understand unqualified "zero VOC" claims to mean that painting will not 

adversely affect air quality in their homes. Therefore, under the trace level ofemission test, 

normal conditions in the typical residential unpainted home-and not ambient air, which could 

refer to outdoor conditions-is the proper basis for comparison. 

2 The Commission voted out the EPS in 2013. However, given the Commission's current view 

regarding substantiating unqualified VOC-free claims, the "trace amount test" articulated in the 

EPS is obsolete. Accordingly, the Commission has decided to rescind the BPS in conjunction 

with the approval ofthese orders. 

3 The Consent Orders define "Emission" as any compound that is emitted or produced during 

application, curing, or exposure ofa covered product. 

4 The Consent Orders defined VOC or ''volatile organic compound" to mean "any compound of 

carbon that participates in atmospheric photochemical reactions" (excluding certain compounds 

that the EPA has determined are ofnegligible photochemical reactivity). More generally, VOC 

is any carbon containing compound that evaporates at room temperature. 

5 The Consent Orders define "Trace" level of emission to mean: (1) a VOC has not been 

intentionally added to the covered product; (2) emission ofthe covered product does not cause 

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

environment or human health; and (3) emission ofthe covered product does not result in more 

than harmless concentrations ofany compound higher than would be found under normal 

conditions in the typical residential home without architectural coating. 

2 
The Commission recognizes that marketers may rely on other approaches to comply with 

Section 5 ofthe FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a).6 Accordingly, the Commission has determined that 

marketers may substantiate "zero VOC" claims with evidence demonstrating that the paint has 

trace level of emission at six hours or less after paint application (and thereafter), and contains no 

substance that could cause material harm to the health ofthe average adult ( or specific 

population, ifmarketed to that segment) under normal anticipated use. The content 

determination can rely upon, for example, a thorough constituent review, such as the one 

conducted in connection with the chemical hazard classification process required by state and 

federal regulatory bodies. 

Commission staffis available to provide additional guidance to any paint company 

seeking informal feedback on substantiating unqualified "zero VOC" claims. Additionally, a 

marketer may make any qualified claim about its product's emission or other attributes, provided 

the claim is truthful and substantiated. 

The Consent Orders provide clarity to industry regarding how to substantiate unqualified 

"zero VOC" claims for interior household paint. Therefore, after considering your comment, the 

Commission has determined that the relief set forth in the Consent Orders is appropriate and 

sufficient to remedy the violations alleged in the complaints. At this time, the Commission has 

determined that the public interest would best be served by issuing the Decision and Orders in 

final form without modification (except as to a minor change to the exhibit to the Benjamin 

Moore order). The final Decision and Orders and other relevant materials are available on the 

Commission's website at http://www.ftc.gov. It helps the Commission's analysis to hear from a 

variety ofsources in its work, and we thank you again for your comment. 

By direction ofthe Commission. 

Donald S. Clark 

Secretary 

6 Substantiation, of course, must be consistent with the advertising message, including simulating 

actual-use conditions. 

3 
United States ofAmerica 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

Office ofthe Secretary 

April 24, 2018 

American Coatings Association 

Attn.: Riaz Zaman, Esq. 

Counsel, Government Affairs 

Attn.: Heidi K. McAuliffe 

Vice President, Government Affairs 

901 New York Avenue NW, Suite 300 

Washington, DC 20001 

Re: Zero VOC Claims for Paints: 

Benjamin Moore & Co., Inc., File No. 162 3079 

Imperial Paints, LLC d/b/a Lullaby Paints and Ecos Paints, File No. 162 3080 

ICP Construction Inc., flkla California Products Corporation, d/bla Muralo 

Paints, File No. 162 3081 

YOLO Colorhouse, LLC, File No. 162 3082 

Dear Ms. Zaman and Ms. McAuliffe: 

Thank you for commenting on the Federal Trade Commission's proposed consent orders 

in the above-referenced proceedings ("Consent Orders''). The Commission has considered your 

comment and placed it on the public record pursuant to Rule 4.9(b)(6)(ii) ofthe Commission's 

Rules ofPractice, 16 C.F.R. § 4.9(b)(6)(ii). 

In your comment, you urge the Commission to work with the paint industry and other 

stakeholders to provide clarity regarding substantiation requirements for "zero VOC" claims. 

You note that the Consent Orders deviate from earlier consent orders with PPG and SherwinWilliams. 1 Specifically you challenge that ~dding the word "produce" to the definition of 

emission and replacing "ambient air" with "normal conditions in the typical residential home 

without interior architectural coating" as the baseline condition in the definition of "Trace" level 

of emission,2 the Consent Orders create uncertainty and could lead to industry abandonment of 

1 In re: PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc., No. C-4385 (Mar. 5, 2013); In re: The SherwinWilliams Company, No. C-4386 (Mar. 5, 2013). 

2 The Consent Orders define "Trace" level of emission to mean: (1) a VOC has not been 

intentionally added to the covered product; (2) emission ofthe covered product does not cause 

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

environment or human health; and (3) emission ofthe covered product does not result in more 

1 
"zero VOC" marketing claims. This could, in turn, deter innovation or deprive the public of 

product safety improvements. 

The Commission's analysis or··zero VOC" paint claims has evolved in response to 

changes in the marketplace including changes in the content oftints and the low cost of available 

emissions testing. The 2018 Consent Orders are consistent with the Commission's evolved 

understanding ofthe marketplace. To clarify further that these Consent Orders representthe 

Commission's current view, the Commission also has rescinded the Enforcement Policy 

Statement Regarding VOC-Free Claims for Architectural Coatings ("EPS").3 

Specifically, the Consent Orders provide that, when substantiating unqualified "zero 

VOC" claims for interior household paints, marketers must demonstrate zero VOC content and 

zero emission 4 at all times beginning at application. Marketers should keep in mind that 

consumers likely understand unqualified "zero VOC" claims to apply to all emissions, not just 

VOCs.5 Consequently, the Consent Orders define emission broadly, to capture even those 

emissions that could be produced from chemical reactions with surrounding air, not just VOCs. 

Removing the word "produce" would limit the definition of emission in a manner inconsistent 

with likely consumer understanding ofan unqualified claim. 

Alternatively, a marketer may still make an unqualified "zero VOC" claim by satisfying 

the Consent Orders' three-prong '<trace level of emission" test. The Commission is not 

prescribing what tests to perform but is indicating that this test would satisfy the marketers' 

substantiation requirements. Consumer understanding drives its application. For instance, 

consumers likely understand unqualified "zero VOC" claims to mean that painting will not 

adversely affect air quality in their homes. Therefore, under the trace level of emission test, 

normal conditions in the typical residential unpainted home-and not ambient air, which could 

refer to outdoor conditions-is the proper basis for comparison. 

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

conditions in the typical residential home without architectural coating. 

3 The Commission voted out the EPS in 2013. However, given the Commission's current view 

regarding substantiating unqualified VOC-free claims, the '<trace amount test" articulated in the 

EPS is obsolete. Accordingly, the Commission has decided to rescind the EPS in conjunction 

with the approval ofthese orders. 

4 The Consent Orders define "Emission" as any compound that is emitted or produced during 

application, curing, or exposure of a covered product. 

5 The Consent Orders define VOC or ''volatile organic compound" to mean "any compound of 

carbon that participates in atmospheric photochemical reactions" ( excluding certain compounds 

that the EPA has determined are ofnegligible photochemical reactivity). More generally, VOC 

is any carbon-containing compound that evaporates at room temperature. 

2 
The Commission recognizes that marketers may rely on other approaches to comply with 

Section 5 ofthe FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a).6 Accordingly, the Commission has determined that 

marketers may substantiate "zero VOC" claims with evidence demonstrating that the paint has 

trace level of emission at six hours or less after paint application (and thereafter), and contains no 

substance that could cause material harm to the health ofthe average adult (or specific 

population, ifmarketed to that segment) under normal anticipated use. The content 

determination can rely upon, for example, a thorough constituent review, such as the one 

conducted in connection with the chemical hazard classification process required by state and 

federal regulatory bodies. 

Commission staff is available to provide additional guidance to any paint company 

seeking informal feedback on substantiating unqualified "zero VOC" claims. Additionally, a 

marketer may make any qualified claim about its product's emission or other attributes, provided 

the claim is truthful and substantiated. 

The Consent Orders provide clarity to industry regarding how to substantiate unqualified 

"zero VOC" claims for interior household paint. Therefore, after considering your comment, the 

Commission has determined that the relief set forth in the ConsentOrders is appropriate and 

sufficient to remedy the violations alleged in the complaints. 7 At this time, the Commission has 

determined that the public interest would best be served by issuing the Decisions and Orders in 

final form without modification ( except as to a minor change to the exhibit to the Benjamin 

Moore order). The final Decisions and Orders and other relevant materials are available on the 

Commission's website at http://www.ftc.gov. It helps the Commission's analysis to hear from a 

variety ofsources in its work, and we thank you again for your comment. 

By direction ofthe Commission. 

Donald S. Clark 

Secretary 

6 Substantiation, of course, must be consistent with the advertising message, including simulating 

actual-use conditions. 

7 Your comment also states that the Consent Orders may conflict with the EPA' s air quality 

regulations, but companies can comply simultaneously with both EPA requirements and the 

Consent Orders by qualifying or separating any EPA-required language so that consumers do not 

interpret it as a "no harmful emission" claim. 

3 
United States ofAmerica 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

Office ofthe Secretary 

April24,2018 

Coatings Research Group Inc. 

Attn.: Richard M. Scott, Executive Director 

125 Pelret Industrial Parkway 

Berea, OH 44017 

Re: Zero VOC Claims for Paints: 

Benjamin Moore & Co., Inc., File No. 162 3079 

Imperial Paints, LLC dlbla Lullaby Paints and Ecos Paints, File No. 162 3080 

ICP Construction Inc., flk/a California Products Corporation, dlbla Muralo 

Paints, File No. 162 3081 

YOLO Colorhouse, LLC, File No. 162 3082 

Dear Mr. Scott: 

Thank you for commenting on the Federal Trade Commission's proposed consent 

agreements in the above-referenced proceedings ("Consent Orders"). The Commission has 

considered your comment and placed it on the public record pursuant to Rule 4.9(b)(6)(ii) ofthe 

Commission's Rules ofPractice, 16 C.F.R. § 4.9(b)(6)(ii). 

In your comment, you urge the Commission to provide specific guidance to industry 

regarding the definition and measurement of V OCs. You note that, without such guidance, 

uncertainty could lead to industry abandonment of "zero VOC" marketing claims. This could, in 

turn, deter innovation or deprive the public ofproduct safety improvements. 

The Commission's analysis of "zero VOC" paint claims has evolved in response to 

changes in the marketplace including changes in the content oftints and the low cost of available 

emissions testing. The 2018 Consent Orders are consistent with the Commission's evolved 

understanding ofthe marketplace. To clarify further that these Consent Orders represent the 

Commission's current view, the Commission also has rescinded the Enforcement Policy 

Statement Regarding VOC-Free Claims for Architectural Coatings ("EPS"). 1 

1 The Commission voted out the EPS in 2013. However, given the Commission's current view 

regarding substantiating unqualified VOC-free claims, the "trace amount test" articulated in the 

EPS is obsolete. Accordingly, the Commission has decided to rescind the EPS in conjunction 

with the approval ofthese orders. 

1 
Specifically, the Consent Orders provide that, when substantiating unqualified "zero 

VOC" claims for interior household paints, marketers must demonstrate zero VOC content and 

zero emission2 at all times beginning at application. Marketers should keep in mind that 

consumers likely understand unqualified "zero VOC" claims to apply to all emissions, not just 

VOCs.3 Consequently, the Consent Orders define emission broadly, to capture even those 

emissions that could be produced from chemical reactions with surrounding air, not just VOCs. 

Alternatively, a marketer may still make an unqualified "zero VOC" claim by satisfying 

the Consent Orders' three-prong "trace level ofemission" test.4 The Commission is not 

prescribing what tests to perform but is indicating that this test would satisfy the marketers' 

substantiation requirements. Consumer understanding drives its application. For instance, 

consumers likely understand unqualified "zero VOC" claims to mean that painting will not 

adversely affect air quality in their homes. Therefore, under the trace level of emission test, 

normal conditions in the typical residential unpainted home-and not ambient air, which could 

refer to outdoor conditions-is the proper basis for comparison. 

The Commission recognizes that marketers may rely on other approaches to comply with 

Section 5 ofthe FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a).5 Accordingly, the Commission has determined that 

marketers may substantiate "zero VOC" claims with evidence demonstrating that the paint has 

trace level of emission at six hours or less after paint application (and thereafter), and contains no 

substance that could cause material harm to the health ofthe average adult ( or specific 

population, ifmarketed to that segment) under normal anticipated use. The content 

determination can rely upon, for example, a thorough constituent review, such as the one 

conducted in connection with the chemical hazard classification process required by state and 

federal regulatory bodies. 

Commission staffis available to provide additional guidance to any paint company 

seeking informal feedback on substantiating unqualified "zero VOC" claims. Additionally, a 

2 The Consent Orders define "Emission" as any compound that is emitted or produced during 

application, curing, or exposure of a covered product. 

3 The Consent Orders define VOC or "volatile organic compound" to mean "any compound of 

carbon that participates in atmospheric photochemical reactions" ( excluding certain compounds 

that the EPA has determined are of negligible photochemical reactivity). More generally, VOC 

is any carbon containing compound that evaporates at room temperature. 

4 The Consent Orders define "Trace" level ofemission to mean: (1) a VOC has not been 

intentionally added to the covered product; (2) emission ofthe covered product does not cause 

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

environment or human health; and (3) emission ofthe covered product does not result in more 

than harmless concentrations ofany compound higher than would be found under normal 

conditions in the typical residential home without architectural coating. 

5 Substantiation, ofcourse, must be consistent with the advertising message, including simulating 

actual-use conditions. 

2 
marketer may make any qualified claim about its product's emission or other attributes, provided 

the claim is truthful and substantiated. 

The Consent Orders provide clarity to industry regarding how to substantiate unqualified 

"zero VOC" claims for interior household paint. Therefore, after considering your comment, the 

Commission has determined that the relief set forth in the Consent Orders is appropriate and 

sufficient to remedy the violations alleged in the complaints. At this time, the Commission has 

determined that the public interest would best be served by issuing the Decision and Orders in 

final form without modification ( except as to a minor change to the exhibit to the Benjamin 

Moore order). The final Decision and Orders and other relevant materials are available on the 

Commission's website at http://www.ftc.gov. It helps the Commission's analysis to hear from a 

variety ofsources in its work, and we thank you again for your comment. 

By direction ofthe Commission. 

Donald S. Clark 

Secretary 

3 
United States ofAmerica 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

Office ofthe Secretary 

April 24, 2018 

ICP Construction Inc. 

c/o Crowell Moring 

Attn.: Peter B. Miller, Esq. 

1001 Pennsylvania Ave. NW 

Washington, DC 20004 

Re: Zero VOC Claims for Paints: 

Benjamin Moore & Co., Inc., File No. 162 3079 

Imperial Paints, LLC dlb/a Lullaby Paints and Ecos Paints, File No. 162 3080 

ICP Construction Inc. , f/kla California Products Corporation, dlb/a/ Muralo 

Paints, File No. 162 3081 

YOLO Colorhouse, LLC, File No. 162 3082 

Dear Mr. Miller: 

Thank you for commenting on the Federal Trade Commission's proposed consent 

agreements in the above-referenced proceedings ("Consent Orders"). The Commission has 

considered your comment and placed it on the public record pursuant to Rule 4.9(b)(6)(ii) ofthe 

Commission's Rules ofPractice, 16 C.F.R. § 4.9(b)(6)(ii). 

In your comment, you note that the Consent Orders deviate from earlier consent orders 

with other paint companies, 1 and express concern that :finalization - without clarification that the 

2018 final orders represent current guidance on how to make "zero VOC" claims consistent with 

Section 5 ofthe FTC Act - could confuse the marketplace or create an uneven playing field for 

the settling Respondents. You request that the Commission publicly state that the Consent 

Orders represent the Commission's analysis of "zero VOC" claims. 

The Commission's analysis of"zero VOC" paint claims has evolved in response to 

changes in the marketplace including changes in the content oftints and the low cost of available 

emissions testing. The 2018 Consent Orders are consistent with the Commission's evolved 

understanding ofthe marketplace. To clarify further that these Consent Orders represent the 

1 In re: PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc., No. C-4385 (Mar. 5, 2013); In re: The SherwinWilliams Company, No. C-4386 (Mar. 5, 2013). 

1 
Commission's current view, the Commission also has rescinded the Enforcement Policy 

Statement Regarding VOC-Free Claims for Architectural Coatings ("EPS").2 

Specifically, the Consent Orders provide that, when substantiating unqualified "zero 

VOC" claims for interior household paints, marketers must demonstrate zero VOC content and 

zero emission3 at all times beginning at application. Marketers should keep in mind that 

consumers likely understand unqualified "zero VOC" claims to apply to all emissions, not just 

VOCs.4 Consequently, the Consent Orders define emission broadly, to capture even those 

emissions that could be produced from chemical reactions with surrounding air, not just VOCs. 

Alternatively, a marketer may still make an unqualified "zero VOC" claim by satisfying 

the Consent Orders' three-prong ''trace level of emission" test.5 The Commission is not 

prescribing what tests to perform but is indicating that this test would satisfy the marketers' 

substantiation requirements. Consumer understanding drives its application. For instance, 

consumers likely understand unqualified "zero VOC" claims to mean that painting will not 

adversely affect air quality in their homes. Therefore, under the trace level ofemission test, 

normal conditions in the typical residential unpainted home-and not ambient air, which could 

refer to outdoor conditions-is the proper basis for comparison. 

The Commission recognizes that marketers may rely on other approaches to comply with 

Section 5 ofthe FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a).6 Accordingly, the Commission has determined that 

marketers may substantiate "zero VOC" claims with evidence demonstrating that the paint has 

trace level of emission at six hours after paint application (and thereafter), and contains no 

2 The Commission voted out the EPS in 2013. However, given the Commission's current view 

regarding substantiating unqualified VOC-free claims, the ''trace amount test" articulated in the 

EPS is obsolete. Accordingly, the Commission has decided to rescind the EPS in conjunction 

with the approval ofthese orders. 

3 The Consent Orders define "Emission" as any compound that is emitted or produced during 

application, curing, or exposure of a covered product. 

4 The Consent Orders define VOC or "volatile organic compound" to mean "any compound of 

carbon that participates in atmospheric photochemical reactions" (excluding certain compounds 

that the EPA has determined are ofnegligible photochemical reactivity). More generally, VOC 

is any carbon containing compound that evaporates at room temperature. 

5 The Consent Orders define "Trace" level ofemission to mean: (1) a VOC has not been 

intentionally added to the covered product; (2) emission ofthe covered product does not cause 

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

environment or human health; and (3) emission ofthe 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 architectural coating. 

6 Substantiation, of course, must be consistent with the advertising message, including simulating 

actual-use conditions. 

2 
substance that could cause material harm to the health ofthe average adult (or specific 

population, ifmarketed to that segment) under normal anticipated use. The content 

determination can rely upon, for example, a thorough constituent review, such as the one 

conducted in connection with the chemical hazard classification process required by state and 

federal regulatory bodies. 

Commission staff is available to provide additional guidance to any paint company 

seeking informal feedback on substantiating unqualified "zero VOC" claims. Additionally, a 

marketer may make any qualified claim about its product's emission or other attributes, provided 

the claim is truthful and substantiated. 

The Consent Orders provide clarity to industry regarding how to substantiate unqualified 

"zero VOC" claims for interior household paint. Therefore, after considering your comment, the 

Commission has determined that the reliefset forth in the Consent Orders is appropriate and 

sufficient to remedy the violations alleged in the complaints. At this time, the Commission has 

determined that the public interest would best be served by issuing the Decisions and Orders in 

final form without modification ( except as to a minor change to the exhibit to the Benjamin 

Moore order). The final Decisions and Orders and other relevant materials are available on the 

Commission's website at http://www.ftc.gov. It helps the Commission's analysis to hear from a 

variety ofsources in its work, and we thank you again for your comment. 

By direction ofthe Commission. 

Donald S. Clark 

Secretary 

3 
United States ofAmerica 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

Office of the Secretary 

April24,2018 

PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc. 

c/o ReedSmith 

Attn.: John P. Feldman, Esq. 

1301 K Street NW, Suite 1000 East 

Washington, DC 20005 

Re: Zero VOC Claims/or Paints: 

Benjamin Moore & Co., Inc., File No. 162 3079 

Imperial Paints, LLC d/b/a Lullaby Paints and Ecos Paints, File No. 162 3080 

ICP Construction Inc., f/k/a California Products Corporation, d/b/a Muralo 

Paints, File No. 162 3081 

YOLO Colorhouse, LLC, File No. 162 3082 

Dear Mr. Feldman: 

Thank you for commenting on the Federal Trade Commission's proposed Consent Orders 

in the above-referenced proceedings ("Consent Orders"). The Commission has considered your 

comment and placed it on the public record pursuant to Rule 4.9(b)(6)(ii) ofthe Commission's 

Rules ofPractice, 16 C.F.R. § 4.9(b)(6)(ii). 

In your comment, you note that, in contrast with the Commission's earlier consent orders 

with PPG and Sherwin Williams,1.the Consent Orders do not specifically address the need for 

paint companies to qualify "zero VOC" claims for base paints if the addition oftints would 

significantly increase the paint's VOC level. Accordingly, you urge the Commission to add 

language to the Consent Orders specifically addressing this issue. You also request that the 

Commission revise the Consent Orders ifprovisions prohibiting deceptive environmental benefit 

claims are narrower than parallel provisions in the PPG and Sherwin-Williams orders. 

After considering your comment, the Commission declines to add specific language to 

the Consent Orders distinguishing between "zero VOC" claims for base paints and tinted paints. 

Specifically, although the distinction between base paints and tinted paints was at the heart ofthe 

2013 PPG and Sherwin-Williams matters,2 the Commission's analysis of "zero VOC" paint 

1 In re: PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc., No. C-4385 (Mar. 5, 2013); In re: The SherwinWilliams Company, No. C-4386 (Mar. 5, 2013). 

2 See Press Release Announcing PPG and Sherwin-Williams Consent Orders (Oct. 25, 2012), 

available at https:/ /www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2012/10/sherwin-williams-ppgsettle-ftc-charges-they-misled-consumers. 

1 
claims has evolved in response to changes in the marketplace including changes in the content of 

tints and the low cost of available emissions testing. The 2018 Consent Orders are consistent 

with the Commission's evolved understanding ofthe marketplace. To clarify further that these 

Consent Orders represent the Commission's current view, the Commission also has rescinded the 

Enforcement Policy Statement Regarding VOC-Free Claims for Architectural Coatings 

("EPS").3 The Consent Orders do not specifically address tinting because they cover all "zero 

VOC" claims, whether they relate to base paints or to tinted paints. Marketers that wish to make 

qualified claims distinguishing between emissions ofbase and tinted paints may continue to do 

so, provided that they can substantiate their claims with competent and reliable scientific 

evidence, and the claims are not otherwise misleading. 

The Commission has also considered your question whether the injunctive relief in the 

Consent Orders is narrower than the relief in the 2013 orders. Your specific concern was that 

use ofthe word "including" in Section II might limit the covered environmental benefit claims to 

only those relating to VOC, emission, or chemical composition. The Commission clarifies this 

provision is not narrower than the parallel provision in the 2013 orders, and, in fact, is broader 

because it also covers health benefit claims. Section II prohibits misleading and unsubstantiated 

claims regarding VOC, emission, odor, and "[a]ny other health benefit," "environmental 

benefit," or "attribute of' the covered product, "including those related to VOC, emission, or 

chemical composition." Thus, the phrase is intended to be illustrative, not limiting, and should 

be construed as "including, but not limited to." 

After considering your comment, the Commission has determined that the relief set forth 

in the Consent Orders is appropriate and sufficient to remedy the violations alleged in the 

complaints. At this time, the Commission has determined that the public interest would best be 

served by issuing the Decisions and Orders in final form without modification (except as to a 

minor change to the exhibit to the Benjamin Moore order). The final Decisions and Orders and 

other relevant materials are available on the Commission's website at http://www.ftc.gov. It 

helps the Commission's analysis to hear from a variety of sources in its work, and we thank you 

again for your comment. 

By direction ofthe Commission. 

Donald S. Clark 

Secretary 

3 The Commission voted out the EPS in 2013. However, given the Commission's current view 

regarding substantiating unqualified VOC-free claims, the "trace amount test" articulated in the 

EPS is obsolete. Accordingly, the Commission has decided to rescind the EPS in conjunction 

with the approval ofthese orders. 

2 
United States ofAmerica 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

Office ofthe Secretary 

April 24, 2018 

Washington Legal Foundation 

Attn.: Cory L. Andrews 

Attn.: Richard A. Samp 

2009 Massachusetts Ave. NW 

Washington, DC 20036 

Re: Zero VOC Claims for Paints: 

Benjamin Moore & Co., Inc., File No. 162 3079 

Imperial Paints, LLC d/b/a Lullaby Paints and Ecos Paints, File No. 162 3080 

ICP Construction Inc., f/k/a California Products Corporation, d/b/a/ Muralo 

Paints, File No. 162 3081 

YOLO Colorhouse, LLC, File No. 162 3082 

Dear Mr. Andrews and Mr. Samp: 

Thank you for commenting on the Federal Trade Commission's proposed Consent Orders 

in the above-referenced proceedings ("Consent Orders"). The Commission has considered your 

comment and placed it on the public record pursuant to Rule 4.9(b)(6)(ii) ofthe Commission's 

Rules ofPractice, 16 C.F.R. § 4.9(b)(6)(ii). 

In your comment, you recommend that, instead offinalizing the Consent Orders, the 

Commission open a review ofits Guides for the Use ofEnvironmental Marketing Claims 

("Green Guides" or "Guides''), 16 C.F.R. Part 260, and initiate a notice-and-comment period for 

proposed amendments relating to "zero VOC" paint claims. 

Specifically, your comment raises concerns that inconsistencies among the Green Guides, 

earlier consent orders with PPG and Sherwin-Williams, 1 and the Consent Orders could lead to 

uncertainty in the industry or an uneven playing field. These concerns could be alleviated, you 

state, by amending the Green Guides through a notice-and-comment process that would give 

industry notice ofchanges to the Commission's analysis and opportunities to provide input into 

how to comply with Section 5 ofthe FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a). You further state that, because 

1 In re: PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc., No. C-4385 (Mar. 5, 2013); In re: The SherwinWilliams Company, No. C-4386 (Mar. 5, 2013). 

1 
the Commission previously initiated notice-and-comment proceedings to promulgate and amend 

the Green Guides, the Guides should now be treated as enforceable rules, and the Commission 

should not amplify covered topics through litigation. 

The Green Guides are not independently enforceable and "do not confer any rights on 

any person and do not operate to bind the FTC or the public." 16 C.F .R. § 206.1. Instead, the 

Guides provide general guidance without regard to product, substance, or industry. As the 

Commission explained in its 2012 Statement ofBasis and Purpose, the Guides are designed to 

help marketers in making non-deceptive environmental claims, but cannot always anticipate 

which specific claims will, or will not, be deceptive because ofincomplete conswner perception 

evidence and because perception often depends on context.2 The Commission brings cases in 

particular contexts, such as here, pursuant to Section 5 when a particular act or practice is unfair 

or deceptive. Agencies "must retain power to deal with problems on a case-by-case basis." SEC 

v. Chenery, 332 U.S. 194,202 (1947). The Commission is not required to engage in rulemaking 

even where an administrative decision may "affect agency policy and have general prospective 

application." POM Wonderful, LLC v. FTC, 777 F.3d 478,497 (D.C. Cir. 2015). 

The Commission's analysis of"zero VOC" paint claims has evolved in response to 

changes in the marketplace including changes in the content oftints and the low cost of available 

emissions testing. The 2018 Consent Orders are consistent with the Commission's evolved 

understanding ofthe marketplace. 

After considering your comment, the Commission has determined that the relief set forth 

in the Consent Orders is appropriate and sufficient to remedy the violations alleged in the 

complaints. At this time, the Commission has determined that the public interest would best be 

served by issuing the Decisions and Orders in final form without modification { except as to a 

minor change to the exhibit to the Benjamin Moore order). The final Decisions and Orders and 

other relevant materials are available on the Commission's website at http://www.ftc.gov. It 

helps the Commission's analysis to hear from a variety of sources in its work, and we thank you 

again for your comment. 

By direction ofthe Commission. 

Donald S. Clark 

Secretary 

2 See The Green Guides Statement ofBasis and Purpose (Oct. 2012), available at 

https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/attachments/press-releases/ftc-issues-revised-greenguides/ greenguidesstatement. pdf. 

2 
United States ofAmerica 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

Office ofthe Secretary 

April 24, 2018 

Theodore Voight, Jr. 

Re: Zero VOC Claims for Paints: 

ICP Construction Inc., f/kla California Products Corporation, d/b/a/ Mura/o 

Paints, File No. 162 3081 

Dear Mr. Voight: 

Thank you for commenting on the Federal Trade Commission's proposed consent order 

in the above-referenced proceeding ("Consent Order"). The Commission has considered your 

comment and placed it on the public record pursuant to Rule 4.9(b)(6)(ii) ofthe Commission's 

Rules ofPractice, 16 C.F.R. § 4.9(b)(6)(ii). 

In your comment, you do not propose any revisions to the draft complaint or the Consent 

Order. Therefore, after considering your comment, the Commission has determined that the 

relief set forth in the Consent Order is appropriate and sufficient to remedy the violations alleged 

in the complaint. 

At this time, the Commission has determined that the public interest would best be served 

by issuing the Decision and Order in final form without modification. The final Decision and 

Order and other relevant materials are available on the Commission's website at 

http://www.ftc.gov. It helps the Commission's analysis to hear from a variety ofsources in its 

work, and we thank you again for your comment. 

By direction ofthe Commission. 

Donald S. Clark 

Secretary 
United States ofAmerica 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

Office ofthe Secretary 

April24,2018 

Theodore Voight, Jr. 

Re: Zero VOC Claims for Paints: 

JCP Construction Inc., f/kla California Products Corporation, d/b/a/Muralo 

Paints, File No. 1623081 

Dear Mr. Voight: 

Thank you for commenting on the Federal Trade Commission's proposed consent order 

in the above-referenced proceeding ("Consent Order"). The Commission has considered your 

comment and placed it on the public record pursuant to Rule 4.9(b)(6)(ii) ofthe Commission's 

Rules ofPractice, 16 C.F.R. § 4.9(b)(6)(ii). 

In your comment, you do not propose any revisions to the draft complaint or the Consent 

Order. Therefore, after considering your comment, the Commission has determined that the 

relief set forth in the Consent Order is appropriate and sufficient to remedy the violations alleged 

in the complaint. 

At this time, the Commission has determined that the public interest would best be served 

by issuing the Decision and Order in fmal form without modification. The fmal Decision and 

Order and other relevant materials are available on the Commission's website at 

http://www.ftc.gov. It helps the Commission's analysis to hear from a variety ofsources in its 

work, and we thank you again for your comment. 

By direction ofthe Commission. 

Donald S. Clark 

Secretary 

1