Concurring Statement of Chairman Joe Simons, 

Regarding the Matters of Sandpiper/PiperGear and Patriot Puck

April 17, 2019 

When companies make misleading or blatantly false “Made in U.S.A.” claims, they 

undermine and skew consumer choice, and may create an unfair competitive advantage over a 

product or service that is marketed truthfully. Today I have voted to finalize the consent orders 

to resolve the Commission’s allegations that Patriot Puck and Sandpiper/PiperGear made false 

“Made in U.S.A.” claims for imported products in violation of the FTC Act. 

These twenty year administrative consent orders prohibit Patriot Puck and 

Sandpiper/PiperGear from making deceptive “Made in U.S.A.” claims. If they violate their 

orders in the future, the FTC could pursue civil penalties of up to $42,530 per violation. 

The approach taken in these cases is consistent with that taken by the Commission for the 

last several decades under different administrations. Historically, the Commission has made the 

strategic choice to expend its limited resources to pursue administrative consent orders securing 

at least twenty years of conduct relief buttressed by the threat of significant penalties because 

they have been largely successful in keeping companies under order from making deceptive 

“Made in U.S.A.” claims. 

Last September, when I voted to submit the proposed consent agreements for public 

comment, I joined Commissioner Slaughter’s concurring statement1in which we “highlight[ed] 

the possibility that the FTC can further maximize its enforcement reach . . . through strategic use 

of additional remedies.” Specifically, we stated that in the U.S.-origin claim context, there may 

be instances in which monetary relief “may be warranted,” such as “cases in which consumers 

paid a clear premium for a product marketed as ‘Made in the U.S.A.’” Commissioner Slaughter 

now states that she misunderstood the Commission’s legal authority, but I did not. And neither 

did staff when it negotiated these settlements. 

Section 13(b) of the FTC Act allows the FTC to pursue equitable monetary relief, but not 

civil penalties. The joint concurring statement did not say, or otherwise suggest, that the 

Commission must demonstrate that consumers paid a price premium for the FTC to have the 

legal authority to seek equitable monetary relief pursuant to Section 13(b). My point was to 

consider whether our pre-existing bipartisan approach was the most effective or whether there 

were instances (without trying to define the entire universe of such cases) in which seeking 

monetary relief might be a better approach.

1 Concurring Statement of Comm’r Slaughter in re Nectar Sleep, Sandpiper/PiperGear, and Patriot Puck, joined by 

Chairman Simons, Sept. 12, 2018, 

https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements/1407368/182_3038_nectar_sandpiper_patriot_rks_a

nd_jjs_concurring_statement_0.pdf. 
2

The FTC’s enduring institutional strength has always been bolstered by our culture of 

self-reflection, our commitment to critical thinking, and our flexibility in response to changes in 

the marketplace. However, I continue to believe, as I and Commissioner Slaughter stated in 

September, that “a thoughtful review and forward-looking plan is a more effective and efficient 

use of Commission resources than re-opening and re-litigating the cases before us today.” To 

that end, the agency intends to hold a workshop later this year on its “Made in U.S.A.” 

enforcement program to consider whether the Commission is using its legal authorities as 

effectively as possible to fairly and efficiently pursue vigorous enforcement against companies 

and individuals that make deceptive U.S.-origin claims in the marketplace. This workshop—and 

not the interruption at the last second of an enforcement process based on sound legal and factual 

analysis2

—is an appropriate vehicle to consider the prudence of the ideas my colleagues raise,

such as whether the agency should undertake a rulemaking to codify a rule permitting the FTC to 

pursue civil penalties against companies and individuals that disseminate deceptive U.S.-origin 

claims, and whether to require defendants to admit liability in settlements. However, in 

considering new remedies and litigation strategies, it is important that the agency not do so in a 

vacuum. It will be crucial for the Commission to understand whether pursuing an alternative 

approach may drain resources from or otherwise undermine the FTC’s other important 

enforcement programs without commensurate benefits to consumers.

 2 As Commissioner Slaughter acknowledges, the settlements were negotiated before the current set of 

Commissioners took office. Staff thoughtfully considered the comments filed during the thirty-day public comment 

period, but the comments did not provide any relevant new facts or legal analysis that were not previously 

considered. The Commission has issued letters to each commenter addressing their specific concerns and explaining 

that the Commission: (1) believes that the most efficient use of resources at this time is to finalize the proposed 

orders; and (2) is committed to considering additional remedies in appropriate future cases.