Document: 382 U.S. 46 86 S.Ct. 219 15 L.Ed.2d 128 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Petitioner,v.MARY CARTER PAINT CO. et al. No. 15. Argued Oct. 12, 1965. Decided Nov. 8, Nathan Lewin, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. David W. Peck, New York City, respondents. Mr. Justice BRENNAN delivered the opinion of Court. 1 Respondent Mary Carter Paint Company1 manufactures and sells paint related products. The Federal Trade Commission ordered respondent to cease desist from use certain representations found by be deceptive in violation § 5 Act, 38 Stat. 719, as amended, 52 111, U.S.C. 45 (1964 ed.). 60 F.T.C. 1830, 1845. appeared advertisements which stated various ways that every can respondent's purchased a buyer, would give buyer 'free' equal quality quantity. Court Appeals Fifth Circuit set aside Commission's order. 333 F.2d 654. We granted certiorari, 379 957, 85 661, 13 553. reverse. 2 Although there is some ambiguity opinion, we cannot say its holding constituted departure policy regarding commercially exploitable word 'free.' Initial efforts define term decisions2 were followed 'Guides Against Deceptive Pricing.'3 These informed businessmen they might advertise an article 'free,' even though purchase another was required, so long terms offer clearly stated, price required not increased, quantity diminished. With specific reference two-for-the-price-of-one offers, Guides either sales two 'the advertiser's usual customary retail single recent, regular course his business,' or where advertiser has previously sold article, 'usual customary' one relevant trade areas. These, course, guides, fixed rules such, designed inform factors guide decision. seems have attempted tailor come within their terms, it failed; complied appearance only. 3 gist reasoning hearing examiner's finding, adopted, 4 each not, now, designated advertisement ($6.98) but was, substantially less than such price. second is, given gift gratuity. on contrary, cans advertised purporting list can.' F.T.C., at 1844. In sum, had no history selling paint; marketing twins, allocating what fact can, yet calling misrepresented. It true permitted show matched those paints usually customarily sell $6.98 range, purchasers estimate are charged. If both claims established, arguable any deception limited representation paint, when However, courts whether this violates Act. '(T)he often better position determine practice 'deceptive' meaning Act.' Comm'n v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., 380 374, 385, 1035, 1043, 904. There substantial evidence record support finding; determination here neither arbitrary nor wrong. should sustained it. supra; Products, Inc. Comm'n, Cir., 323 523, 528. 6 advises us brief believes appropriate 'to remand case clarification order.' judgment therefore reversed remanded court with directions 7 ordered. 8 Judgment Commission. 9 JUSTICE STEWART took part decision case. 10 HARLAN, dissenting. 11 my basis action too opaque justify upholding order A summary discussion facts proceedings will suffice why I subscribe majority's disposition. 12 Since 1951 enterprise now known Company been manufacturing products direct distribution through own outlets franchised dealers. For most all period, establish prices per-can customer without further charge purchased. Carter's advertisements, while disclosing first pair must bought listed price, always described 'free'; typical slogans are: 'Buy get free' 'Every free.' advertising condemns unfair under U.S.C.A. To extent may rest proposition because receipt 'tied' manifestly inconsistent governing maintained over decade. No suggests additional free sense conditions attached receipt, FTC forsook unrealistic definition 1953. year, Walter J. Black, Inc., 50 225, then general statement, CCH Reg.Rep. 40,210, sanctioned describe item extra condition plainly 'tying' product increased occasion decreased quality. prefaced these Black saying '(t)he United States entitled clear unequivocal answer' represented new until Congress decided otherwise. 232, 235. 14 presently failed comply statement continued force affecting Carter. Rather, greater period operations could properly claim relied FTC's official pronouncement establishing 'every slogan public mind, investment seemingly lost. Without inflexibly promise avowed position, certainly solid justification demanded before agree 'arbitrary, capricious, (or) abuse discretion.' Administrative Procedure 10(e), 243, 1009(e) At very least demonstrate real injury allows evaluate assurance latest views; standards met Department regards implying regularly present giving free;1 premise, argued, conclude similarly priced rivals whom competed past, making appear excellent bargain. But does really suggest pricing policy. Certainly nothing publicity states 'new' bargain asserts opportunity lapse near future. number separately treated Commission, affirmatively extra-can continue Far trying imply represents temporary saving customer, striven years associate itself irrevocably mind notion free; catchphrase appears form nearly ads imprinted top cans. Finally, irony presumably seeking protect consumer unfounded ultimate conclusions good high-priced rivals, rejected proof company scientifically superior leading same level bonus Actually, suggestion volume complaints received, deepens mystery frail proceeding ever initiated.2 16 temptation gloss analytical failings rationale asserted relying agency exertise short-lived Any findings particular phrasings inexplicit, distinction taken between question, conduct proscribed never sharply identified. Surely resort uninvoked expertise buttress unarticulated theory. 17 opaqueness makes approval difficult other reasons. bite order, recognizes unclear; how upheld told exactly means indeed puzzling question. Additionally, failing spell out breeds suspicion merely ad hoc3 quite possibly irreconcilable reaffirmed proceeding. able write cure defects draw plain distinctions necessary assure fair warning treatment advertisers, done yet. 18 administering context many elusive questions raised modern advertising, duty speak rule law-abiding know stand. proscribing uncomplained public, effectively harmless consumer, allowed long-established only hairbreadth away practices permit, think instance fallen far short entitle enforcement. 19 reasons disturb setting Hereinafter respondent. Book-of-the-Month Club, 48 1297 (1952); 225 (1953); Puro 454 778 (1954); Ray S. Kalwajtys, 721, enforced Kalwajtys 237 654 (1956). Pricing, Guide V, adopted October 2, 1958, 23 Fed.Reg. 7965; see also December 3, 1953, 40,210. current guide, IV, effective January 1964, 29 180. Such implication thought run counter spirit now-superseded 7965 (1958), requiring articles sale one. reasonably letter V; assuming substance, sum purchaser pay acquire can. few occasions customers paying tolerated put argument arise gallon quart Conceivably, receive unneeded gallon, realizing quarts plus smaller sum. ignored Government expressly disclaims reliance argument. Moreover, prices. Of post-1952 cases cited note (ante, p. 47), none authority condemning advertising. (1953), enforced, 654, 65 A.L.R.2d 220 (C.A.7th Cir. 1956), involved deceptions items (1954), exculpate sellers finally appearing 1953 whose complied.

Category: 8