Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 72 / Friday, April 14, 1995 / Notices 19067

or employment in which the respondent

is newly engaged as well as a

description of respondent’s duties and

responsibilities in connection with the

business or employment.

V

It is further ordered that respondent

shall, within sixty (60) days after service

upon him of this order, file with the

Commission a report, in writing, setting

forth in detail the manner and form in

which he has complied with the

requirements of this order.

Analysis of Proposed Consent Order to

Aid Public Comment

The Federal Trade Commission has

accepted an agreement to a proposed

consent order from David Green, M.D.

(herein ‘‘Dr. Green’’), an individual

doing business as The Varicose Vein

Center, a sole proprietorship (herein

‘‘VVC’’). Through VVC, Dr. Green

markets a procedure commonly known

as ‘‘sclerotherapy’’ for treating venous

disease, including varicose veins and

spider veins. Proposed respondent

currently offers his sclerotherapy

services to the public at VVC’s clinic in

Bethesda, Maryland.

Dr. Green’s treatment method consists

of injecting a sclerosing solution into

the veins, followed by compression of

the area with a bandage and postprocedure ambulation by the patient. As

part of his treatment regimen, Dr. Green

refers certain patients with varicose

veins to surgeons for surgical division

and ligation of their veins procedure

prior to performing his sclerotherapy

injections. These include patients Dr.

Green has diagnosed as having truncal

varicosities with incompetence at the

saphenofemoral or saphenopopliteal

junction.

The proposed consent order has been

placed on the public record for sixty

(60) days for the reception of comments

by interested persons. Comments

received during this period will become

part of the public record. After sixty (60)

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.

The Commission’s complaint charges

that proposed respondent deceptively

advertised: (1) The permanence of the

results of his sclerotherapy treatments;

(2) the success rate for his treatments;

and (3) the painlessness of his regimen

for treating venous disease.

Permanence

The complaint alleges that proposed

respondent failed to possess a

reasonable basis for claims he has made

regarding the permanence of the results

of his treatments. In newspaper and

magazine advertisements, Dr. Green has

represented that the treatments

provided at VVC would ‘‘permanently

remove’’ or ‘‘permanently eliminate’’

varicose and spider veins. A brochure

Dr. Green provided to prospective

patients described sclerotherapy as the

‘‘non-surgical procedure used to

permanently remove spider and

varicose veins from the legs and thighs.’’

The Commission believes that these

permanence claims are deceptive

because at the time proposed

respondent made these claims, he did

not possess adequate substantiation for

those claims.

The proposed consent order seeks to

address the alleged deceptive

permanence claims cited in the

complaint by requiring Dr. Green to

possess a reasonable basis, consisting of

competent and reliable scientific

evidence, substantiating any claim that

spider veins and varicose veins are

permanently eliminated following

treatment by proposed respondent (Part

I.A.). Part I.A. of the proposed order also

requires that Dr. Green possess a

reasonable basis for any representation

he makes regarding the duration of

results following treatment by any

cosmetic or plastic surgery procedure,

including any venous disease treatment

procedure.

Success Rate

The Commission’s complaint further

alleges that proposed respondent failed

to possess a reasonable basis for his

claim, made in newspaper

advertisements, that his non-surgical

procedure has a ‘‘success rate greater

than 95%.’’ The Commission believes

this success rate claim is deceptive

because at the time proposed

respondent made it, he did not possess

adequate substantiation for this claim.

The proposed consent order seeks to

address this alleged deceptive success

rate claim by requiring that Dr. Green

possess a reasonable basis, consisting of

competent and reliable scientific

evidence, substantiating any claim that

his treatments succeed in eliminating

varicose and spider veins at a rate

greater than 95 percent (Part I.B). Part

I.B further requires that Dr. Green

possess a reasonable basis for any

representation he makes regarding the

success rate for, or the rate at which a

condition is likely to recur or return

following treatment by, any cosmetic or

plastic surgery procedure, including any

venous disease treatment procedure.

Pain

The complaint also alleges that

proposed respondent failed to possess a

reasonable basis for his claims that the

treatments he provides through VVC are

painless. In newspaper advertisements,

Dr. Green has claimed that his

treatments are ‘‘Painless, Safe, NonSurgical’’ and that his ‘‘non-surgical, inoffice procedures’’ are ‘‘painless.’’ The

Commission believes these claims about

the pain associated with the treatments

provided at VVC are deceptive because

at the time proposed respondent made

them, he did not possess adequate

substantiation for these claims.

The proposed consent order addresses

these deceptive claims about pain by

requiring that Dr. Green possess a

reasonable basis, consisting of

competent and reliable scientific

evidence, substantiating any claim that

patients do not experience any pain in

connection with proposed respondent’s

regimen for treating their varicose and

spider veins (Part I.C). In addition, Part

I.C of the proposed consent requires that

proposed respondent possess a

reasonable basis for any representation

he makes regarding the nature, duration

or intensity of pain associated with any

cosmetic or plastic surgery procedure,

including any venous disease treatment

procedure.

Part I.D. of the proposed order further

requires proposed respondent to possess

substantiation, consisting of competent

and reliable scientific evidence, for any

representation regarding the efficacy of,

or the risks, side-effects, or recovery

period associated with, any cosmetic or

plastic surgery procedure, including any

venous disease treatment procedure.

Finally, Paragraphs II, III and IV of the

proposed order contain the standard

recordkeeping and notification

provisions required by the Commission

in consent orders.

The purpose of this analysis is to

facilitate public comment on the

proposed order, and it is not intended

to constitute an official interpretation of

the agreement and proposed order or to

modify in any way their terms.

Benjamin I. Berman,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–9266 Filed 4–13–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6750–01–M

[Dkt. C–2929]

Interco Incorporated, et al.; Prohibited

Trade Practices and Affirmative

Corrective Actions

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.

ACTION: Modifying order.
19068 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 72 / Friday, April 14, 1995 / Notices

1Copies of the Modifying Order and

Commissioner Starek’s statement are available from

the Commission’s Public Reference Branch, H–130,

6th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20580.

SUMMARY: The order reopens a 1978

consent order that settled allegations

that the respondents had engaged in

anticompetitive practices, including

illegally fixing resale prices for their

products. This order modifies the

consent order so that the respondents

are permitted to implement lawful

price-restrictive cooperative advertising

programs and to unilaterally terminate

resellers for failure to adhere to

previously announced resale prices or

sales periods.

DATES: Consent order issued September

26, 1878. Modifying order issued March

27, 1995.1

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Daniel Ducore, FTC/S–2115,

Washington, DC 20580. (202) 326–2526.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the

Matter of Interco Incorporated, et al. The

prohibited trade practices and/or

corrective actions as set forth at 43 FR

48991, are changed, in part, as indicated

in the summary.

(Sec. 6, 38 Stat. 721; 15 U.S.C. 46. Interpret

or apply sec. 5, 38 Stat. 719, as amended;

Sec. 2, 49 Stat. 1526; 15 U.S.C. 45, 13; Sec.

3, 38 Stat. 731; 15 U.S.C. 14)

Benjamin I. Berman,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–9264 Filed 4–13–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6750–01–M

[File No. 932 3332]

Mattel, Inc.; Proposed Consent

Agreement With Analysis To Aid

Public Comment

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.

ACTION: Proposed consent agreement.

SUMMARY: In settlement of alleged

violations of federal law prohibiting

unfair acts and practices and unfair

methods of competition, this consent

agreement, accepted subject to final

Commission approval, would prohibit,

among other things, a California-based

corporation from representing that any

aerosol product it sells offers any

environmental benefit, unless it can

substantiate the claim.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before June 13, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

directed to: FTC/Office of the Secretary,

Room 159, 6th St. and Pa. Ave., N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20580.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michael Dershowitz, FTC/S–4002,

Washington, D.C. 20580. (202) 326–

3158.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant

to Section 6(f) of the Federal Trade

Commission Act, 38 Stat. 721, 15 U.S.C.

46 and § 2.34 of the Commission’s Rules

of Practice (16 CFR 2.34), notice is

hereby given that the following consent

agreement containing a consent order to

cease and desist, having been filed with

and accepted, subject to final approval,

by the Commission, has been placed on

the public record for a period of sixty

(60) days. Public comment is invited.

Such comments or views will be

considered by the Commission and will

be available for inspection and copying

at its principal office in accordance with

§ 4.9(b)(6)(ii) of the Commission’s Rules

of Practice (16 CFR 4.9(b)(6)(ii)).

In the matter of Mattel, Inc., a corporation.

File No. 932–3332.

Agreement Containing Consent Order to

Cease and Desist

The Federal Trade Commission

having initiated an investigation of

certain acts and practices of Mattel, Inc.,

a corporation (‘‘proposed respondent’’),

and it now appearing that proposed

respondent is willing to enter into an

agreement containing an order to cease

and desist from the acts and practices

being investigated,

It is hereby agreed by and between

Mattel, Inc., by its duly authorized

officer, and its attorney, and counsel for

the Federal Trade Commission that:

1. Proposed respondent Mattel, Inc. is

a corporation organized, existing and

doing business under and by virtue of

the laws of the State of Delaware, with

its principal office or place of business

at 333 Continental Blvd., El Segundo,

California, 90245–5012.

2. Proposed respondent admits all the

jurisdictional facts set forth in the draft

of complaint.

3. Proposed respondent waives:

(a) Any further procedural steps;

(b) The requirement that the

Commission’s decision contain a

statement of findings of fact and

conclusions of law;

(c) All rights to seek judicial review

or otherwise to challenge or contest the

validity of the order entered pursuant to

this agreement; and

(d) All claims under the Equal Access

to Justice Act.

4. This agreement shall not become a

part of the public record of the

proceeding unless and until it is

accepted by the Commission. If this

agreement is accepted by the

Commission, it, together with the draft

of the complaint contemplated hereby,

will be placed on the public record for

a period of sixty (60) days and

information in respect thereto publicly

released. The Commission thereafter

may either withdraw its acceptance of

this agreement and so notify proposed

respondent, in which event it will take

such action as it may consider

appropriate, or issue and serve its

complaint (in such form as the

circumstances may require) and

decision, in disposition of the

proceeding.

5. This agreement is for settlement

purposes only and does not constitute

an admission by proposed respondent

that the law has been violated as alleged

in the draft complaint or that the facts

as alleged in the draft complaint, other

than the jurisdictional facts, are true.

6. This agreement contemplates that,

if it is accepted by the Commission, and

if such acceptance is not subsequently

withdrawn by the Commission pursuant

to the provisions of § 2.34 of the

Commission’s Rules, the Commission

may without further notice to proposed

respondent, (1) issue its complaint

corresponding in form and substance

with the draft of complaint and its

decision containing the following order

to cease and desist in disposition of the

proceeding, and (2) make information

public in respect thereto. When so

entered, the order to cease and desist

shall have the same force and effect and

may be altered, modified or set aside in

the same manner and within the same

time provided by statute for other

orders. The order shall become final

upon service. Delivery by the U.S.

Postal Service of the decision containing

the agreed-to order to proposed

respondent’s address as stated in this

agreement shall constitute service.

Proposed respondent waives any right it

might have to any other manner of

service. The complaint may be used in

construing the terms of the order, and

no agreement, understanding,

representation, or interpretation not

contained in the order or in the

agreement may be used to vary or

contradict the terms of the order.

7. Proposed respondent has read the

complaint and the order contemplated

hereby. It understands that once the

order has been issued, it will be

required to file one or more compliance

reports showing it has fully complied

with the order. Proposed respondent

further understands that it may be liable

for civil penalties in the amount

provided by law for each violation of

the order after it becomes final.