Document: 380 U.S. 374 85 S.Ct. 1035 13 L.Ed.2d 904 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Petitioner,v.COLGATE-PALMOLIVE CO. et al. No. 62. Argued Dec. 10, 1964. Decided April 5, 1965. [Syllabus from pages 374-375 intentionally omitted] Philip B. Heymann, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. John F. Sonnett, New York City, respondents. Mr. Chief Justice WARREN delivered the opinion of Court. 1 The basic question before us is whether it a deceptive trade practice, prohibited by § 5 Federal Trade Commission Act,1 to represent falsely that televised test, experiment, or demonstration provides viewer with visual proof product claim, regardless claim itself true. 2 case arises out an attempt respondent Colgate-Palmolive Company prove television public its shaving cream, 'Rapid Shave,' out-shaves them all. Respondent Ted Bates & Company, Inc., advertising agency, prepared Colgate three one-minute commercials designed show Rapid Shave could soften even toughness sandpaper. Each contained same 'sandpaper test.' announcer informed audience that, 'To RAPID SHAVE'S super-moisturizing power, we put right can onto this tough, dry It was apply * soak and off in stroke.' While speaking, applied substance appeared be sandpaper, immediately thereafter razor shown clean. 3 issued complaint against respondents charging were false deceptive. evidence hearing examiner disclosed sandpaper type depicted not shaved following application Shave, but required substantial soaking period approximately 80 minutes. also showed resembling fact simulated prop, 'mock-up,' made plexiglass which sand had been applied. However, found shave though short time represented commercials, if real used inadequacies transmission would have appear viewers nothing more than plain, colored paper. dismissed because neither misrepresentation—concerning actual moistening identity substance—was his material one mislead public. 4 Commission, dated December 29, 1961, reversed examiner. since within misrepresented product's moisturizing power. Moreover, undisclosed use substitute additional misrepresentation act separate distinct concerning Shave's underlying qualities. Even just as misled into believing they seen done their own eyes. As result these findings entered cease-and-desist order An appeal taken Court Appeals First Circuit rendered on November 20, 1962, 310 F.2d 89. That court sustained Commission's conclusion qualities accept forbidding future simulations commercials. set aside directed new entered. On May 7, 1963, over protest respondents, narrowing clarifying original comply court's mandate. again unsatisfactory portion dealing props refused enforce it, 326 517. We granted certiorari, 377 942, 84 1352, 12 306, consider aspect do any after application, being conceded. I. 6 A threshold presented petition certiorari filed 90 days entry judgment below 28 U.S.C. 2101(c) (1958 ed.). Respondents failure seek barred subsequent prohibiting offer claim. 7 After appeals has point law, may disagrees legal conclusion. Section 5(i) Act2 contemplates when filing passed without filed, will enter accordance mandate appeals. merely restate former position then reiterates previous objection. said Power Comm. v. Idaho Co., 344 17, 73 85, 86, 97 L.Ed. 15, 'If did no second what decided first start run judgment.' To effect see Minneapolis-Honeywell Regulator 206, 211, 245, 248, 245. held reviewing finds error administrative order, agency foreclosed upon remand enforcing legislative policy administers, provided does conflict mandate.3 8 Obviously, drafted normally best determine consistent mandate, never determining issue itself.4 resolution present requires detailed analysis various opinions, mandates orders Appeals. 9 In initial opinion, commented heart test' leave impression he actually such experiment performed. expressed view visible ability some might persuaded buy product. far-reaching discussion mock-ups relationship between 'truth' 'television salesmanship,' finally concluded prop practice. inclusive discussion. ordered both cease desist from: 10 'Representing, directly implication, describing, explaining, purporting quality merits product, pictures, depictions, demonstrations are genuine accurate representations of, product.'5 (Emphasis added.) 11 understandably concerned broad language especially established practice applying flexible standards hitherto unexplored area. breadth potentially limitless, apparently establishing per se rule all definition describe 'the merits' products. 'quite ambiguous' alleviated oral argument counsel stated prominent person saying 'I love Lipsom's iced tea,' while drinking something tea not, commercial light argument, intention prohibit agree believed 'where only untruth (the viewer) sees screen artificial, appearance otherwise correct representation itself, injured.'6 But, setting gave little specific guidance drafting one. criticized holding 'illegal se.'7 indicated 'may' too other respects well. Following decision Appeals, 'proposed final order' February 18, 1963. This accompanied explanatory admitted disposition eliminate errors explained toward prohibition misrepresenting seeing purportedly proved According tell performed, instead told themselves take seller's word it. This, mere Over vigorous objection Both 14 'Unfairly deceptively presenting (1) inducing sale, (2) conducted constitute substitution mock-up article, therein.'8 15 appealed Despite urgings limit review determination re-examined merits. recognized longer impossible under distinguish demonstration, those not. so long there portrayal attributes performance deceit instructed 'as thought before,'9 using demonstrate accomplished. 16 hold disregard Appeals' good-faith incorporate principles therein. examination accompanying shows overriding emphasis articulate precision found. result, surprising 'ambiguous,' interpreted commercial, rested premise se.' true interested means statement occurred discussed contention 'Lipsom's tea' clear directive remove 'fundamental (which) permeates order'10—i.e., every 17 find inconceivable successfully sought judgment. Had so, forced argue either unintended theory, should reinstate theory own, Securities Exchange Chenery Corp., 332 194, 196, 67 1575, 1577, 1760, 91 1995. 18 Support given our refusal declare inconsistent somehow construed matter law convince himself claims, acted reasonably construing narrowly. vague spawned correspondingly If meant say attributed until clearly articulated reasoning. Therefore, at least resolved ambiguity first, requested dates See II. 19 substantive issues case, well remember respective roles courts administration Act. When created Congress 1914, prevent '(u)nfair methods competition commerce.'11 amended Act 1938 extend jurisdiction include 'unfair acts practices commerce'12—a significant amendment showing Congress' concern consumers competitors. important note generality illegality; proscriptions flexible, 'to defined particularity myriad cases field business.' Motion Picture Advertising Service 392, 394, 361, 363, 426. 20 statutory scheme necessarily gives influential role interpreting facts particular arising unprecedented situations. deals continually area, often better 'deceptive' meaning frequently great weight courts.13 admonition respect allegedly finding violation rests heavily inference pragmatic Nevertheless, judicial dependent enlightenment gained experience, last words 'deceptive practices' forth standard must get construction. Cf. R. Keppel Bro., 291 304, 314, 54 423, 427, 78 814. 21 speed upheld challenged here. advertiser honestly believes certain convey themselves, mock-ups. 22 involved public: Shave; verified claim; (3) himself. admit two made, deny third was. however, contrary, and, resting drawn sustained.14 For purposes review, assume true; focus consideration false. parties prohibits intentional factor purchaser's buy.15 They differ, conception 'facts' 'material factor' buy. submit, effect, deal product.16 hand, submits materially induces deception 5. 23 Comission's interpretation seems line Algoma Lumber 67, 78, 315, 320, 655: '(T)he entitled chooses, choice dictated caprice fashion perhaps ignorance.' considered state ordinarily sells inflated price offered special reduced price, represents value purchaser receiving money's worth.17 Applying respondents' arguments cases, buyers paid worth advertised, misstatement immaterial. 24 seller misrepresent business, way affects Royal Milling 288 212, 216, 53 335, 336, 77 706: 25 dealers prefer purchase article manufacturer class manufacturers, cannot satisfied imposing exactly similar equally good, having different origin.' 26 reasoning merchandising reprocessed products good new, disclosure reprocessed.18 And misappropriate name another.19 27 irrelevant involve misrepresentations related manner message communicated. distinction misses mark reasons. place, mode communication, objective above word. Secondly, like consumer purchased, perform up expectations. strong similarity arguably concealing reprocessed, misappropriating another's trademark. each break down regards annoying irrational habit buying public—the preference manufacturers known brands qualities, prejudice goods, desire verification reasons broken buyer receives. Yet, Lumber, end permitted. need ourselves already mentioned situations illustrate correctness case. generally accepted received testimonial respected source.20 addition, consistently sellers stating claims 'certified.'21 indistinguishable sufficient truth But rely validity experiment. immaterial difference celebrity authority respects, another testing perception simulation. 29 insist above, independent submitted written observed, but, inability camera transmit accurately paper written, reproduces viewing audience. analogy ignores hypothetical offered, conducted, exist; viewer's exist. Thus, hypothetical, unlike proof. 30 therefore, unpersuasive objections impractical inform think ingenious world unable, desires, conform insistence misinformed. If, becomes truthful manner, indicates medium lends survive costs. Similarly discriminates whose 'verified' simulations. All favor seller. inherent limitations method permit compensate limitations. 31 reached decide properly abstract question. element said, distinct, fail why sheltered engaged another. 32 object absence adequate record sustain finding. stages about given. beginning, prejudicially considered. Nor necessary conduct survey tendency mislead, authorized, bounds reason, infer Raladam 316 149, 152, 62 966, 968, 86 1336. support findings. III. 33 turn attention now Commission. repeatedly wide discretion cope unfair found, e.g., Jacob Siegel Co. Comm., 327 608, 611, 66 758, 759, 888, placed primary responsibility fashioning National Lead 352 419, 429, 502, 509, 438. 'lightly modify' orders. Cement Institute, 333 683, 726, 68 793, 815, 92 1010. warned order's prohibitions 'should precise understood whom directed,' supra, '(t)he severity possible penalties prescribed violations become underlines necessity are, outset, sufficiently avoid raising serious questions application.' Henry Broch 368 360, 367—368, 82 431, 436, 353. 34 reference 'test, demonstration' capable practical interpretation. extolled goodness ice cream giving picture scoop mashed potatoes appearing cream. understand difficulty. potato purpose give made. invited, explicitly cream's rich texture full color, compare 'rival product,' us. Clearly, depicts happy actors delightedly eating coffee covered order. 35 crucial terms order—'test, claim' circumstances permit. come close permits, specifically intending cross area proscribed seem require who deliberately goes perilously shall risk line.' Boyce Motor Lines, Inc. United States, 342 337, 340, 72 329, 331, 96 367. where word, perception, fear makes invites demonstrative aware strategic places deception. believe difficulty vast majority contemplated situation sincerely unable proposed course action violate can, complying rules,22 oblige definitive advice action, pursued, compliance 36 Finally, defect provision engaging 'any product' advertise. propriety depends interfere except remedy selected reasonable relation unlawful exist.23 produced employed basis inclined frame broadly enough similarly illegal advertisements. Ruberoid 343 470, 473, 800, 803, 1081: limited form existed past.' Having caught violating Act, 'must expect fencing in.' 510, 37 remanded 38 Reversed remanded. 39 HARLAN, STEWART joins, dissenting part. 40 Under grant simple execute appears television. here techniques essential viewer. valid, technique projecting boundaries, falls purely advertiser's art. warrant police verity itself. 41 I 'mock-ups' Further, justifies remedial further proceedings. 42 'MOCK-UPS' AS SUCH. 43 faulty Court's focuses entirely taking place studio rather screen. eyes studio, electronic image. image reproduction naked performed him home hardly legally sense. undoubtedly possesses content discretion, recognizes, unbridled, 'in construction' (ante, p. 385). assuming quickly sand-covered plexiglass, wants entertain friends duplicating wished himself, beard really tough part morning ablutions saw 44 how acceptable term. attempts 'celebrity' endorsing copy air manufacturer. states 'hypothetical': 'In exist.' Ante, 390. 'see himself,' endorsed product; other, sandpaper; proof; exist, test misrepresentation, 45 readily glamorous pp. 392—393); indeed, potato-lover smile face tiger' naturally served 46 commonly presents distortions broadcasting industry compensate. white towel look dingy gray television, blue sparkling white. analysis, achieve accuracy results inaccurate projected led proper somehow, medium, looks life. 89, 94; 517, 523, n. 16. 47 commonplace example suggests itself: Would Colgate, laundry detergent, 'demonstrate' effectiveness major competitor's detergent washing sheets; 'before eyes,' wash (not blue) sheet detergent? washed ineffective detergent. happened converse: altered instance 48 short, me kind concerns advertised 49 THE COMMISSION'S REMEDY. 50 demonstration'—in Bates, relating products—as constituted misrepresentation. affirm disputed here, namely, 51 concluding, observations called for. brings suggestion difficult reliability demonstrations, further, cause advertisers demonstrated propensity policing certainly sweep brush inheres involving tests experiments. Although doubtless remedies 395), banning justified score 'policing.' 52 There indication, troubles past (see 59 F.T.C. 1452, 1473 30). pattern creates portray experiments permitted continue mock-ups, justified. opportunity make findings, unnecessary mistaken end, vacate proceedings opinion. Stat. 719, amended, 111, 45(a)(1) ed.): 'Unfair commerce, declared unlawful.' 114, 45(i) modified appeals, allowed expired duly denied, affirmed Supreme Court, expiration thirty rendered, unless party instituted corrected accord event corrected.' 200, 1579, 1995; Communications Pottsville Broadcasting 309 134, 145, 60 437, 442, 656. Labor Relations Board Donnelly Garment 330 219, 227, 756, 761, 854; 3, 141, 440. 1477—1478. 94. Ibid. 7736, FTC, clause added benefit recognition positions clients agencies, information client has. reads: 'provided, defense hereunder knew nor reason know prop.' 523. 719 (1914), 111 (1938), See, 396, 364; Universal Camera Corp. Board, 340 474, 488, 71 456, 464, 95 456; Pacific States Paper Ass'n, 273 52, 63, 255, 258, 534. Brief Petitioner, 13; 22; 14. 16: 'What buyer) buys set.' Id., 17: '(A) buyer's promises him, them.' 20: confuse conveyed.' 2—3: reader advertisement asserts do, misrepresentation?' 13—14: portrayed test. claim.' 25: 'It purchase, strained implied realistic, plainly immaterial.' Standard Education Society, 302 112, 115—117, 58 113, 115, 141; Kalwajtys 237 654, 656, 65 A.L.R.2d 220 (C.A.7th Cir. 1956), cert. 1025, 591, 597. Kerran 265 246 (C.A.10th 1959), denied sub nom. Double Eagle Ref. 361 818, 61, 64; Mohawk 263 818 (C.A.3d 814, 53, 61. E.g., Niresk Industries, 278 337 1960), 364 883, 81 173, 104. 19; Howe 148 561 (C.A.9th 1945), 741, 442. Stipulation 9083, 55 2101 (1958); 8966, 1953 (1957). rules, CFR 3.26 (1964 Supp.), provide: '(b) Any subject request pursued writing Secretary complete regarding action. submitted, available '(c) reconsider approval report section interest requires, rescind revoke prior advice. notice intent revoked submit views proceed faith reliance section, relevant fully, completely promptly discontinued notification rescission revocation approval.' 509; 803; 612, 760.

Category: 7