Amway Corporation, Inc., et. al. Final Order, Opinion, etc. in regard to Alleged Violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act (1979)
Bestline Products Corporation, et. al. Consent Order in regard to Alleged Violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act Docket C-1986 (1971)
Bestline Products Corporation, et. al. Modified Order in regard to Alleged Violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act Docket C?1986 (1975)
Chemical Associates, Inc., etc., in regard to Alleged Violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act and Sec. 2(a) of the Clayton Act Docket C-1826 (1970)
Fortuna Alliance (1996)
FutureNet, Inc. (1998)
Ger-Ro-Mar, Inc., Order, Opinion, etc. in regard to Alleged Violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act Docket 8872 (1971)
Holiday Magic, Inc., Order, Etc., in regard to Alleged Vilation of Sec. 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act and Sec. 2(a) of the Clayton Act Docket 8834 (1974)
Sandra Lee Jacobson
JewelWay International, Inc. (1997)
Memorandum in Support of the FTC’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order Against JewelWay International, Inc.
(Please note, this is a 5.7 MB Adobe Acrobat PDF file.)
Koscot Interplanetary, Inc., Order, Opinion, etc. in regard to Alleged Violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act and Sec. 2 of the Clayton Act (1975)
FTC Advisory Opinion Digest No. 404. Franchise Sales Promotion Plan With Pyramiding Franchises and ‘Functional Override’ Commission Implications (1970)
Wiliam O. Menefee Consent Order, Etc., in regard to Alleged Violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act and Sec. 2 of the Clayton Act Docket C-1827
New Vision International, Inc.
Nu Skin International, Inc. Agreement Containing Consent Order to Cease and Desist File No. 912 3071 (1993)
AJM Packaging Corporation, et al. [File No. 922-3170; May 6, 1994]. The FTC charged AJM with falsely claiming that its paper plates were recyclable after ordinary use, although there are virtually no facilities that accept used paper plates for recycling. The FTC also contended that AJM made unsubstantiated claims concerning the plates’ degradability and the environmental benefits that could be obtained when disposed (i.e., that they would completely break down, decompose and return to nature)
Amoco Chemical Company, et al. [File No. 932-3053; May 27, 1994]. The FTC claimed that Amoco falsely represented that its polystyrene cups, plates and other food service products were recyclable, although there were only a few collection facilities nationwide that would accept them for recycling.
Benckiser Consumer Products, Inc. [File No. 932-3310; March 13, 1996]. The FTC alleged that Benckiser made unfair or deceptive claims in connection with the advertising and promotion of its EarthRite household cleaning products in that Benckiser falsely claimed that it donated a portion of the sales revenues from EarthRite products to non-profit environmental groups.
Chemopharm Laboratory, Inc., d/b/a CP Industries [File No. 932-3135; September 27, 1994]. The FTC alleged that Chemopharm made unsubstantiated claims that its Sno-N-Ice Melter did not harm or damage the environment and, in fact, was beneficial to the environment (e.g., “environmentally safe,” and “protects the total environment”). Unfortunately for Chemopharm, Sno-N-Ice Melter contained almost 95% sodium chloride (rock salt).
Creative Aerosol Corp. [File No. 922-3197; October 31, 1994]. The FTC claimed that Creative claimed its Funny Color Foam soap which was sold in an aluminum aerosol can with a high-density polyethylene plastic cap was “environmentally safe” and “contains no fluorocarbons.” Creative further claimed that because Funny Color Foam did not contain fluorocarbons, it would not deplete the earth’s ozone layer or otherwise harm the atmosphere. Funny Color Foam contained chlorodifluoromethane (HCFC-22), a harmful ozone-depleting substance. Creative also claimed that its can and plastic cap were recyclable, although the vast majority of consumers could not recycle them because there were virtually no collection facilities that accept aluminum aerosol cans and only a few facilities nationwide that accepted the cap for recycling.
Oak Hill Industries Corp., et al. [File No. 922-3162; May 6, 1994]. The FTC asserted that Oak Hill and one of its officers falsely represented that Oak Hill’s plastic plates, bowls, and utensils were recyclable, although there were only a few collection facilities nationwide that would accept non-foam polystyrene plates, bowls, and utensils for recycling.
Safe Brands Corporation, et al. [File No. 942-3012; December 12, 1995]. The FTC claimed that the manufacturer (and others) of Sierra antifreeze made unsubstantiated claims about the safety and environmental benefits of Sierra./410ftc-qvc-nr.html”>News Release