orangeleader.com (Orange, Texas)

March 21, 2013

Retailers settle charges with FTC over faux fur

Special to The Leader
The Orange Leader

WASHINGTON — Three clothing retailers have agreed to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that they misled consumers by marketing that products contained “faux fur,” when in fact, the products contained real fur.

In administrative complaints, the FTC alleged that The Neiman Marcus Group Inc., DrJays.com Inc., and Eminent Inc., doing business as Revolve Clothing violated the FTC Act and the Fur Products Labeling Act (Fur Act) by falsely claiming that some products had “faux” fur, and by not naming the animal that produced the fur. Neiman Marcus also allegedly misrepresented that a rabbit fur product had mink fur, and failed to disclose the fur country of origin for three fur products. The FTC published for public comment orders prohibiting the retailers, for 20 years, from violating the Fur Act and the Rules and Regulations Under the Fur Act.

According to the FTC, Neiman Marcus’s website misrepresented the fur content and failed to disclose the animal name and fur country of origin for three products: a Burberry Outerwear Jacket, a Stuart Weitzman Ballerina Flat shoe, and an Alice + Olivia Kyah Coat. Neiman Marcus also misrepresented the fur content of the shoe in its catalog, at bergdorfgoodman.com, and in ads mailed to consumers.

DrJays.com allegedly misrepresented the fur content and failed to disclose the animal name for three products: a Snorkel Jacket by Crown Holder with a fur-lined hood, a Fur/Leather Vest by Knoles & Carter with exterior fur, and a New York Subway Leather Bomber Jacket by United Face with fur lining.

Eminent Inc., doing business as Revolve Clothing, allegedly misrepresented the fur content and failed to disclose the animal name for four products: an Australia Luxe Collective Nordic Angel Short Boot with a fur-trimmed hood, a Mark Jacobs Runway Roebling Coat, a Dakota Xan Fur Poncho, and an Eryn Brinie Belted Faux Fur Vest.

Under proposed consent orders that apply for 20 years, the respondents are barred from violating the Fur Act and the Fur Rules.

Consistent with the Commission’s Enforcement Policy Statement announced in January, the orders provide that the respondents will not be liable for misrepresentations about fur products that they directly import if they do not 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.