Three Companies Agree to FTC Settlement for False Advertising of Fake Fur, Country of Origin
The Federal Trade Commission agreed to settlements with three apparel and footwear vendors for violations of the Fur Act. According to the FTC, Neiman Marcus, DrJays.com and Eminent said its products used “faux fur,” when they instead used real fur. None of the three companies disclosed the animal from which the fur was derived, and Neiman Marcus didn’t disclose the fur’s country of origin. Per the terms of the proposed settlements, none of the companies admitted their guilt. If the settlements are finalized, each company will be prohibited for 20 years from violating the Fur Act and the Fur Rules.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
The FTC is accepting comments on the proposed settlements for the next 30 days, until April 18, after which the commission will decide whether to finalize the agreements.
According to the complaints, each company advertised products as containing “faux fur,” when in fact the fur was real. For example, Neiman Marcus advertised its “ballerina flats” as having “faux fur” when in fact they were partly made of mink fur. Neiman Marcus also didn’t disclose the country of origin of the fur, Spain, in its advertising, the FTC alleged. The other companies variously sold products with coyote and raccoon fur, but advertised the products as using “faux fur.”
Pursuant to the FTC’s January policy statement (here), If the settlements are finalized, the companies will not be liable for misrepresentations about fur products that they directly import if they don’t embellish or misrepresent claims provided by the products’ manufacturers, they do not sell the product as a private label product, and they neither know nor should have known that the product is marketed in a manner that violates the Fur Act.