Federal Trade Commission v. Colgate-Palmolive Co. (SCOTUS 1965)

Summary

The Court held that an advertiser violates § 5 when it uses an undisclosed simulated prop to represent that television viewers are seeing objective visual proof of a product claim, even if the underlying claim and an actual supporting experiment are true. It also held that the Commission's revised order complied with the Court of Appeals' mandate, that the Commission's findings were adequately supported, and that the order was sufficiently clear and properly extended to similar practices involving any product. Justice Harlan, dissenting in part, would have treated an accurate television image as nondeceptive and remanded for further proceedings concerning the remedy.

Holding

Timeliness of the certiorari petition. The petition was timely because the second appellate judgment clarified a genuine ambiguity in the first judgment and the relevant 90-day period ran from the second judgment.

Consistency of the revised order with the first mandate. The Commission's May 7, 1963 order was a good-faith attempt to incorporate the Court of Appeals' legal principles and was not issued in disregard of the first mandate.

Deceptiveness of the undisclosed simulated demonstration. Under § 5, it is a material deceptive practice to represent that viewers are seeing for themselves an actual test, experiment, or demonstration providing objective proof of a product claim when an undisclosed mock-up means they are not, even if the product claim and an actual supporting experiment are true.

Support, clarity, and scope of the Commission's order. The Commission's findings were supported by the record, did not require a consumer survey, and justified an order prohibiting the respondents from using the same deceptive practice with any product; the order's operative terms were sufficiently clear and precise.

Summary

Holding

Cited authorities