The legal library gives you easy access to the FTC’s case information and other official legal, policy, and guidance documents.
FTC Staff Comment Before the Department of Treasury, Office of Thrift Supervision Concerning Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices
In re Petition for Review of Committee on Attorney Advertising Opinion 39
Deceptive Advertising as to Sizes of Viewable Pictures Shown by Television Receiving Sets - 16 CFR Part 410
Deceptive Advertising as to Sizes of Viewable Pictures Shown by Television Receiving Sets - 16 CFR Part 410
Letter To Commercial Alert Applying Commission Policy To Determine On A Case-By-Case Basis Whether Particular Advertising Formats Such As Product Placements Are Deceptive
Applying Commission Policy To Determine On A Case-By-Case Basis Whether Particular Advertising Formats Such As Product Placements Are Deceptive
Care Labeling of Textile Wearing Apparel & Certain Piece Goods
Prepared Statement of the Federal Trade Commission On Efforts to Combat Unfair and Deceptive Subprime Lending
George Carter, et al. v. ICR Services, Inc., d/b/a National Credit Repair
Guides Against Deception Labeling and Advertising of Adhesive Compositions - 16 CFR Part 235
Fastline Publications, Inc., and Mid-America Equipment Retailers Association
The FTC charged that Fastline Publications, Inc., a Kentucky publisher, and Mid-America Equipment Retailers Association, an Indiana trade association representing farm equipment dealers harmed competition when the publisher entered into agreements with the dealers to ban price advertising for new equipment in an attempt not to disclose those dealers who offered discounted prices. According to the FTC, the agreements reduced competition among farm equipment dealers and deprived consumers of truthful and nondeceptive price information. The agreement to settle the charges prohibited Fastline and Mid-America from restricting the advertising of prices for farm equipment in the future.
Sensormatic Electronics Corporation, In the Matter of
Checkpoint Systems, Inc. and Sensormatic Electronics Corporation, the two largest marketers of electronic article surveillance systems used in retail stores to prevent shoplifting, agreed to nullify and void the section of their June 1993 agreement that restricts negative advertising and promotional claims about each other's products or services. The consent order also prohibits each firm from entering into any agreement that restricts truthful, non-deceptive advertising, comparative advertising or promotional and sales activities.