Advertising law news briefs
Care Labeling Rule at Issue in Wedding Gown Manufacturer Case - News Brief.
Your News Your Way: Every Day!







NOTE: Here is where you can find advertising law information based on news briefs that appeared in past issues of Advertising Compliance Service.



Milady Bridals, Inc.--a manufacturer of wedding gowns, bridesmaid gowns, and evening gowns--agreed to pay a $10,000 civil penalty to settle charges that it violated FTC's Care Labeling Rule by using labels provided by Continental Gown stating "Dryclean Only by Zurcion Method." In 1998, FTC settled similar charges against three other wedding gown manufacturers.

In May 1998, FTC issued an administrative complaint against the drycleaning operation, Continental Gown Cleaning Service, alleging that it violated the FTC Act by providing gown manufacturers and importers with care labels such as "Dry Clean Only by Zurcion Method." According to FTC, these labels did not comply with the requirements of the Care Labeling Rule and misled consumers by making unsubstantiated claims that gowns with those labels could only be cleaned by the Zurcion Method. In June 1999, the Commission accepted for public comment a proposed consent agreement with Continental Gown to settle these charges.

The Care Labeling Rule, which has been in effect since 1972, requires manufacturers and importers of clothing to attach care labels that state what regular care is needed for ordinary use of the garment.

According to the FTC, the labels used by Milady violated the Care Labeling Rule since they gave a drycleaning instruction but failed to name a drycleaning solvent that could be used without damaging the gowns and failed to warn that certain modifications should be made to the normal drycleaning process for delicate gowns such as wedding gowns. Also, the complaint alleges that Milady did not have a reasonable basis for instructing that the gowns could be adequately cleaned by the Zurcion Method and for warning that the gowns could not be cleaned by any other method of drycleaning or by washing.

Under the terms of the settlement, Milady Bridals and its president, Eve Muscio would be required to pay a $10,000 civil penalty.

The Commission vote to file the complaint and the proposed settlement was 4-0. The complaint and settlement were filed at the FTC's request by the Department of Justice in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on September 1, 1999. The consent decree is subject to court approval.

NOTE: Consent decrees are for settlement purposes only and do not constitute an admission by the defendants of a law violation. Consent decrees have the force of law when signed by the judge.

(Milady Bridals, Inc., FTC File No. 982 3188, September 1, 1999.)


A federal district court granted FTC's request to modify a 1996 consent decree that bars Telebrands Corporation and its president, Ajit Khubani, from violating FTC's Mail or Telephone Order Rule. The modified order resolves FTC allegations that the defendants violated the rule and the 1996 order in many sales transactions after January 1, 1997, and routinely failed to comply with the recordkeeping provisions of the 1996 order.

The modified consent decree supersedes the 1996 order. Among other things, it bars defendants from violating the Mail Order Rule in the future and requires them to pay $800,000 in civil penalties. Telebrands and Khubani agreed to the modified order without admitting wrongdoing.

The Mail or Telephone Order Merchandise Rule requires a company that takes orders for merchandise by mail, telephone or computer to ship ordered merchandise within the time stated in its advertising. If no time is stated, the company must send the merchandise within 30 days of receiving the properly completed order.

FTC's court pleading alleges that the defendants repeatedly violated the rule and the recordkeeping provisions of the 1996 order in the processing and selling of their products, such as the Static Duster, the Moving Train Watch, the Sky Glider (a glider type indoor exerciser), the Fuji Pillow, and Total Perfection (an electric depilatory device). The company advertised these products nationally on TV and in print ads in publications such as TV Guide, USA Today, Family Circle and newspapers such as the Chicago Tribune, St. Louis Post- Dispatch and the Denver Post. FTC alleged that the defendants violated the Mail or Telephone Order by sending delay notices late, delaying shipment without getting the consumer's agreement to do so, or shipping merchandise after the revised shipment date and without the consumer's consent to further the delay.

The Commission vote to authorize the Department of Justice to file the modified consent decree on behalf of the FTC was 4-0. The modified consent decree was filed on September 1, 1999 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia, Roanoke Division, and signed by Judge James C. Turk.

NOTE: This consent decree is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by the defendants of a law violation. Consent decrees have the force of law when signed by the judge.

(Telebrands Corporation, et al., FTC Matter No. 982 3106, Civil Action No. 96-0827-R, September 2, 1999.)

INTERNET MATERIALS: Materials relating to these FTC matters are available on the Internet at FTC's World Wide Web site at:



'96 News | '97 News | '98 News | '99 News | '00 News | '01 News


Archived 1999 News:

January | February | March | April | May | June
July | August | September | October | November | December




Lawyers specializing in marketing law - including in-house counsel and outside counsel - help their clients comply with laws involving false, unfair and deceptive acts.

© Copyright 1999-2012 JLCom Publishing Co., L.L.C. All rights reserved.

IMPORTANT NOTICE: Materials included in this Web Site are intended for general information purposes only and are not intended to provide - and do not constitute - legal or other advice. Persons who need legal or other services should contact a duly licensed professional. Inclusion of links on this Web Site are to Web Sites maintained by third parties over whom JLCom Publishing Co., LLC has no control. Such links do not imply endorsement of the material that is contained therein. JLCom Publishing Co., LLC makes no claims, representations, or warranties as to the accuracy, completeness, or appropriateness of these Web sites or the information these websites contain. Read this disclaimer and our privacy statement before using this site.