• Andrew Ramonas
    Lobbying Reporter
  • Beth Frerking
    Editor in Chief
  • David Brown
    Vice President/Editor, ALM
  • Diego Radzinschi
    Photo Editor
  • Jenna Greene
    Senior Reporter
  • Marcia Coyle
    Chief Washington Correspondent
  • Mike Scarcella
    Washington Bureau Chief
  • Todd Ruger
    Capitol Hill Reporter
  • Tony Mauro
    Supreme Court Correspondent
  • Zoe Tillman
    D.C. Courts Reporter

« Two D.C. Superior Court Judges Up for Review | Main | D.C. Circuit Grapples with 'Sensitive' Dispute Over Jerusalem »

March 19, 2013



I guess "rabbit" fur is cheaper to make than faux fur. That is..if it is real rabbit. It could be the fur of anything rodent-like. If they would lie about fake fur what else are they lying about.


It doesn't sound like the FTC sought any fines for having sold real fur as "faux."

Is that because the fine would have been keyed to the dollar amount of the rip-off? That would have been a NEGATIVE number.

I can see that the FTC would not want to pay a guilty, wealthy company for such misdeeds!


Maybe I misread the punishment for violating the rules, but I think it said that "All the retailers are prohibited for 20 years from violating the Fur Act."

Also they get a break from the existing law such 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."

I do not see any sanctions but a lessening of the retailer's responsibility. Anyone?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad