FOR RELEASE: JANUARY 31, 1992
DAVID DU PONT FOUND LIABLE IN MODELING AGENCY SCAM:
Court orders him to pay $2.3 million for redress
A federal court has upheld Federal Trade Commission charges
against Dupont Model Management, Inc., and its president David L.
du Pont, finding that they misrepresented the employment
assistance and opportunities Dupont offered consumers, and mis-
represented its principal source of income. In fact, Dupont did
not make any significant effort to promote models, and rarely, if
ever, obtained modeling employment for customers, according to
the judge's findings. The court also found that the defendants
derived almost all their income from the sale of photographs that
Dupont employees told consumers they must have in order for the
agency to promote them to clients.
Judge Norma L. Shapiro entered a judgment of $2,343,506
against du Pont, and both defendants are liable. Funds collected
on the judgment will be used for consumer redress.
Judge Shapiro also issued a permanent injunction prohibiting
du Pont from, among other things, making any misrepresentation,
in connection with any employment, modeling, acting-related or
talent-related goods or services he markets or sells, regarding
the nature of his business, the source of its income, or the
assistance it provides consumers in obtaining work. Further, he
must clearly and conspicuously disclose to all prospective
customers of these goods or services any business or financial
relationship he has with a photographer or other supplier of any
good or service. According to Judge Shapiro's findings, "it is
- more -
Dupont Model--01/31/92)
not common practice in the industry for an agency to charge the
model for the photographs or receive a payment or commission from
the photographer selected."
The judgment and permanent injunction stem from a December
1990 FTC complaint alleging that du Pont and his firm, operating
under different names in at least eight cities, falsely claimed
that Dupont was a modeling agency that would place consumers in
jobs as professional models. The court immediately issued a
temporary restraining order prohibiting the allegedly deceptive
claims and froze the defendants' assets. Later, the defendants
agreed to a preliminary injunction extending the prohibition on
similar false or misleading statements until the case could go to
trial.
According to Judge Shapiro's findings, du Pont set up his
first Dupont office in Philadelphia in September 1988, and later
opened offices in San Francisco, Washington, D.C., Dallas,
Detroit, New York City, Cincinnati and Pittsburgh. Dupont ads,
promotional materials and salespersons claimed that the agency
offered employment opportunities for consumers with no modeling
experience, that it had numerous clients who hired models, and
that it assisted consumers in obtaining jobs. In addition,
according to the findings, salespersons and du Pont himself
informed consumers that a review board would decide whether
consumers would be accepted as models.
Judge Shapiro found that the defendants:
-- accepted almost all applicants (unless two applicants
came together; in that case, the one most able to pay was
selected);
-- told applicants they had to have professional-quality
photographs and strongly recommended particular
photographers;
-- instructed employees not to tell consumers that Dupont
made money from the sale of photographs (indeed, employees
sometimes told consumers that Dupont made no money from the
photography fee);
-- did not make any significant effort to promote models or
obtain bookings for them and, in fact, instructed employees
not to try to book talent during the agency's first six to
12 months of operation and to wait for clients to call the
agency;
Dupont Model--01/31/92)
-- offered few, if any, jobs for consumers; and
-- had no established office procedure for maintaining
models' records or for managing them.
As for the Philadelphia office in particular, Judge Shapiro
found that it had 2,000 models' names on file and employed one
person to obtain bookings at a 15 percent commission. "Between
March and July, 1989, booking commissions totaled approximately
$100," according to the judge's findings.
Of the $2.1 million in net revenues Dupont earned in 1989
and 1990, approximately $2,083,930 was income from photographs
purchased by would-be models. Metro Model, Moda Model and the
Casting Directory, three companies du Pont established and which
violated the preliminary injunction, earned an additional
$259,576 for a total of $2,343,506 "obtained from consumers
through . . . misrepresentations," the judge found.
On Dec. 2, 1991, upon finding that du Pont operated three
new businesses in violation of the preliminary injunction --
Metro Model Management, Moda Model Management, and the Casting
Directory -- the court held him in civil contempt. The final
judgment in the case was issued Jan. 22, by the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, in Philadelphia.
Copies of the judge's findings, final judgment and permanent
injunction are available from the FTC's Public Reference Branch,
Room 130, 6th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington,
D.C. 20580; 202-326-2222; TTY 1-866-653-4261.
The FTC also has produced a fact sheet for consumers
alerting them to some of the potential signs of a modeling agency
scam. Copies are free by writing for "Modeling Agency Scams," at
the above address.
# # #
MEDIA CONTACT: Brenda A. Mack, Office of Public Affairs
202-326-2182
STAFF CONTACT: Eileen Harrington, Bureau of Consumer Protection
202-326-3127
(Civil Action No. 90-7695)
(dupont2)