Complaint No. 1475.-In the matter of Omaha Tanning Co. and W. C. Kalash. Charge: Unfair methods of competition are charged in that respondent engaged in the business of tanning hides and the manufacture and sale of harness, saddles, and horse collars, makes numerous statements in its advertisements and also in radio talks given by its president, W. C. Kalash, to the effect that all harness manufactured by it is made of leather tanned in its own tannery, that buyers save all middlemen's profits through buying from respondent, and that all leather used in respondent's harness passes the most rigid test, all of which statements are false and misleading and have the capacity and tendency to and do cause the public to buy respondent's products, which acts are to the prejudice of the public and respondents' competitors who do not so act, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.

Disposition: Dismissed, having been disposed of satisfactorily to commission by stipulation whereby respondent agrees to desist from practices charged. Complaint No. 1484.-In the matter of Sandow-Lewis (Inc.). Charge: Unfair methods of competition are charged in that the respondent, engaged in giving courses of instruction in physical culture by mail, advertises that the regular price for its course of instruction is $50, but that a special price of $30 is offered for those subscribing immediately, when in fact said price never has been $50; and, further, in that the respondent's advertisements and business Eterature set forth a picture of a large building bearing the sign "SandowLewis, Incorporated," in such a manner as to import that the entire building is owned or occupied by the respondent when, in fact, the respondent's place of business consists of a rented room in a building bearing no sign similar to that pictured, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act. Disposition: Dismissed, respondent having agreed to abide by rules of the industry as approved by the commission, following trade practice conference with correspondence-school industry.

Complaint No. 1488.-In the matter of the Benjamin Brooks Co. Charge: Unfair methods of competition are charged in that respondent engaged in the business of selling sundry articles of merchandise, makes numerous false, misleading, and deceptive statements and representations concerning the articles of merchandise in which it deals and the materials whereof said merchandise is composed, which acts are to the injury and prejudice of competitors who do not so act, in that business is diverted from said competitors in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.

Disposition: Dismissed, respondent having discontinued business. Complaint No. 1490.-In the matter of Suffolk Knitting Mills, Frank Cohen, Sam Caplan, Paul Cohen. Charge: Unfair methods of competition are charged in that the respondent corporation and its trustees in liquidation, engaged in the manufacture and sale of sweaters and knit goods, label and sell said products as "wool," "100 per cent all wool," etc., when, in fact, the articles are manufactured from shoddy wool mixed with cotton, thereby tending to mislead and deceive the purchasing public and to injure competitors who do not practice misrepresentation, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.

Disposition: Dismissed, respondent company having been dissolved by special act of General Court of Massachusetts, approved April 15, 1927.

Complaint No. 1497.-In the matter of Continental Sugar Co. Charge: Unlawful restraint and monopoly are charged in that the respondent, engaged in the manufacture and sale of beet sugar, acquired the stock or share capital of the St. Louis Sugar Co., thereby tending to substantially lessen competition and to restrain commerce in sugar, in alleged violation of section 7 of the Clayton Act.

Disposition: Dismissed, after hearing before board of review.

EXHIBIT 7

COMPLAINTS PENDING JULY 1, 1928, AND STATUS

Complaint No. 238.-In the matter of the Hoover Suction Sweeper Co. Charge: Unfair methods of competition in the manufacture and sale of vacuum sweepers to the extent that it has been giving and offering to give cash bonuses and prizes to employees of its competitors and the employees of dealers handling the products of its competitors as an inducement to influence them to favor the sale of respondent's products over those of its competitors in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act. Status: An order to cease and desist, entered May 27, 1919, was vacated by commission order dated May 12, 1928, and the case is now before the commission for consideration looking toward the issuance of a modified order to cease and desist.

Complaint No. 540.-In the matter of Royal Baking Powder Co. Charge: Using unfair methods of competition by unfairly representing and charging that its competitors' products contain alum, to wit, sodium aluminum sulphate (SaS), and are harmful, unhealthful, deleterious, and dangerous to users and consumers of such baking powders, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act. Status: Awaiting trial, pending determination of case now pending in Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia on application by respondent to enjoin commission from vacating order of dismissal entered March 23, 1926, and reopening case for trial.

Complaint No. 962.-In the matter of Bethlehem Steel Corporation, Bethlehem Steel Co., Bethlehem Steel Bridge Corporation, Lackawanna Steel Co., Lackawanna Bridge Works Corporation, Midvale Steel & Ordnance Co., Cambria Steel Co. Charge: The respondent, the Bethlehem Steel Corporation, on or about October 25, 1922, acquired the properties, assets, and businesses of the Lackawanna Steel Co. and its subsidiaries and is now acquiring and has acquired the properties, assets, and businesses of the respondents, Midvale Steel & Ordnance Co. and Cambria Steel Co. Unfair methods of competition in commerce are charged in that the respondents by uniting under a common ownership and management and thereby effecting control of the iron and steel products originating in their respective territories tend to substantially lessen potential and actual competition, contrary to the public policy expressed in section 7 of the Clayton Act and in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act, to unduly hinder competition in the iron and steel industries in said territory and unreasonably restrict competition so as to restrain trade contrary to the public policy expressed in sections 1 and 3 of the Sherman Act and in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act. Status: In course of trial.

66

Complaint No. 1110.-In the matter of James S. Kirk & Co. Charge: Unfair methods of competition are charged in that the respondent has manufactured and sold in addition to its several brands of soap which contain various percentages of olive oil, seven other separate kinds of soap which it labeled, advertised, and sold as Castile" soaps, though said soaps contained no olive oil content whatsoever, thereby tending to mislead and deceive the public into the belief that the respondent's soaps are genuine Castile soap, the oil ingredient of which is olive oil, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act. Status: Awaiting final argument.

Complaint No. 1115.-In the matter of General Electric Co., American Telephone & Telegraph Co., Western Electric Co. (Inc.), Westinghouse Electric & Manufacturing Co., The International Radio Telegraph Co., United Fruit Co., Wireless Specialty Apparatus Co., and Radio Corporation of America. Charge: Unfair methods of competition are charged in that the respondents have combined and conspired for the purpose and with the effect of restraining competition and creating a monopoly in the manufacture, purchase, and sale of radio devices and apparatus by: (1) Acquiring patents and patent rights covering

all radio devices and apparatus and combining and pooling or allotting the rights thereunder to manufacture, sell, or use such devices and apparatus; (2) granting to the respondent Radio Corporation of America the exclusive right to sell certain radio devices and restricting its purchases to the products of certain of the respondent manufacturers; (3) restricting the competition of certain respondents; (4) restricting the use in radio communication or broadcasting of articles manufactured and sold under respondent's patents and patent rights; (5) acquiring equipment heretofore existing for transoceanic radio communication and perpetuating the monopoly thereof by refusing to supply to others the apparatus and devices necessary for the equipment and operation of certain service; (6) entering into exclusive contracts and preferential agreements for the handling of transoceanic radio traffic and the transmission of radio messages in this country, thereby excluding others from the necessary facilities for the transmission of radio traffic; and (7) agreeing and contracting among themselves to cooperate in the development of new inventions relating to radio and to exchange patents covering the results of the research and experiment of their employees in the art of radio, seeking thereby to perpetuate their control and monopoly of the various means of radio communication and broadcasting beyond the time covered by existing patents owned by them or under which they are licensed, all in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act. Status: In course of trial.

Complaint No. 1127.-In the matter of Calumet Baking Powder Co. Charge: Unfair methods of competition are charged in that the respondent has published and circulated numerous false and misleading statements in disparagement of "K. C. baking powder," a product of the Jaques Manufacturing Co., thereby tending to mislead the trade into the belief that said K. C. baking powder is an inferior, adulterated, and undesirable product and to injure and damage the business and good will of said competitor, the Jaques Manufacturing Co., in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act. Status: Awaiting examiner's report.

Complaint No. 1215.-In the matter of Motor Wheel Corporation. Charge: Unfair methods of competition are charged in that respondent, engaged in the manufacture and sale of wooden wheels and steel disc wheels for automobiles and sundry parts and materials therefor, having acquired the businesses and assets of its competitors, Prudden Wheel Co. and Auto Wheel Co., proceeded to and did acquire the corporate stock of Forsythe Bros. Co., the only competitor of the respondent during the year 1922 in the manufacture of steel disc wheels, thereby tending to lessen competition, restrain interstate commerce, and to create a monopoly, in alleged violation of section 7 of the Clayton Act. Status: Awaiting examiner's report.

Complaint No. 1245.—In the matter of B. Z. B. Knitting Co. Charge: Unfair methods of competition are charged in that the respondent, engaged in the manufacture and sale of hosiery, advertised its product as "fashioned" or "full fashioned" hosiery, when in fact said hosiery is not "fashioned" as the term is understood by the public, thereby tending to mislead and deceive the purchasing public, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act. Status: At issue.

Complaint No. 1251.-In the matter of American Association of Advertising Agencies, its officers, executive board, and members: American Press Association, a corporation; Southern Newspaper Publishers' Association, its officers, directors, and members. Charge: Unfair methods of competition are charged in that the respondents are engaged in a combination and conspiracy affecting national advertising throughout the United States, entered into with the purpose of compelling national advertisers to employ respondent agencies or other advertising agencies in the placing of national advertising in newspapers throughout the United States and to prevent said advertisers from advertising directly in said newspapers at the minimum "net" rates and to compel said advertisers to pay at the maximum "gross" rates, employing various cooperative means to effectuate said combination and conspiracy the effect of which is to hinder and obstruct national advertising throughout the United States; to restrict the distribution of such advertising, and of the type parts essential thereto, to channels and upon terms and conditions dictated by the respondents; to restrict the publication of national advertising to newspapers selected and approved by the respondents; to compel newspaper publishers to charge for the publication of national advertising at maximum gross rates and to prevent them from according minimum net rates to direct advertisers; to compel the employment of the respondents or other agencies as intermediaries

in placing national advertising, or in the alternative to pay for direct advertising at the maximum gross rates and in addition thereto to prepare and distribute their advertisements at their own expense, and to hinder and obstruct the marketing of goods, wares, and merchandise, all in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act. Status: In course of trial. Complaint No. 1263.-In the matter of National Leather & Shoe Finders' Association, its officers, executive committee, and members; Greater Boston and New England Leather and Finders' Credit Bureau; Central States Leather and Finders' Credit Bureau; Central West Leather and Finders' Credit Bureau; Northwestern Leather and Finders' Credit Bureau; Northern New Jersey Leather and Finders' Credit Bureau; Wisconsin Leather and Finders' Credit Bureau; New York State Leather and Finders Credit Bureau; Shoe Finders' Board of Trade; Colorado Leather and Finders' Credit Bureau; Pittsburgh Leather and Finders' Credit Bureau; Philadelphia Leather and Finders' Credit Bureau; Baltimore Leather and Finders' Credit Bureau; Greater New York Leather and Finders' Credit Bureau; Capital Leather and Finders' Credit Bureau of Albany, N. Y.; Michigan Leather and Finders' Credit Bureau of Detroit; Illinois Leather and Finders' Credit Bureau (Inc.); Cleveland Leather and Finders' Credit Bureau; Toledo Leather and Finders' Credit Bureau; Cincinnati Leather and Finders' Credit Bureau; St. Louis Leather and Finders' Credit Bureau; Connecticut Leather and Finders' Credit Bureau; Virginia Leather and Finders' Credit Bureau; Iowa and Nebraska Leather and Finders' Credit Bureau; Missouri, Kansas, and Arkansas Leather and Finders' Credit Bureau; Illinois State Leather and Finders' Credit Bureau; Louisville Leather and Finders' Credit Bureau; Twin Cities Leather and Finders' Credit Bureau; Rubber Heel Club of America and the officers and members thereof. Charge: Unfair methods of competition are charged in that the respondents have combined and conspired with the intent and effect of discouraging, stifling, and suppressing competition in price and otherwise in the sale and distribution of shoe findings and in shoe-repair service, and of confining such commerce to "regular" channels of trade and "legitimate" dealers, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act. Status: At issue. Complaint No. 1269.-In the matter of Shanghai Lace Corporation. Charge: Unfair methods of competition are charged in that the respondent, engaged in the importation of lace from China and in the sale thereof to the manufacturers of garments, describes its lace as "Irish picot," "Irish edge," and "Real Irish edge," thereby misleading and deceiving the purchasing public as to the quality and value of respondent's product and tending to injure competitors who are in fact importers of Irish lace, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act. Status: Awaiting respondent's brief.

Complaint No. 1273.-In the matter of Abraham D. Sutton, David Sutton, Selim Sutton, partners doing business under the trade name and style A. D. Sutton & Sons. Charge: Unfair methods of competition are charged in that the respondents, engaged in the importation of lace from China and the sale thereof to garment manufacturers, designate their laces as "Irish picot," "Irish beading," and "Real Irish edge," thereby misleading and deceiving the purchasing public as to the quality and value of respondent's product, and tending to injure competitors who are in fact importers of Irish lace, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act. Status: Awaiting respondents' brief.

Complaint No. 1274.-In the matter of Alfred Kohlberg (Inc.). Charge: Unfair methods of competition are charged in that the respondent, engaged in the importation of lace from China and the sale thereof to garment manufacturers, designates its lace as "Irish Swatow" and "Irish Siccawei," thereby tending to mislead and deceive the purchasing public as to the quality and value of the respondent's product and to injure competitors who are in fact importers of Irish lace, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act. Status: Awaiting respondent's brief.

Complaint No. 1275.-In the matter of Abraham Lian, George Marabak, R. Lian, William Lian, Michael Marabak, Joseph Marabak, John Marabak, Sahid Lian, partners doing business under the trade name and style of Lian & Marabak. Charge: Unfair methods of competition are charged in that the respondents, engaged in the importation of lace from China and the sale thereof to manufacturers of garments, designate their lace as "Irish lace," thereby misleading and deceiving the purchasing public as to quality and value of respondents' product and tending to injure competitors who are in fact importers of Irish lace, in alleged violaiton of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act. Status: Awaiting respondents' brief.

Complaint No. 1283.-In the matter of Non-Plate Engraving Co. (Inc.), a corporation. Charge: Unfair methods of competition are charged in that the respondent, engaged in the printing of stationery, indicates by the use of its corporate name and its advertising matter that it is engaged in the business of engraving, when in fact the process used by the respondent is not one of engraving but involves printing to simulate the impression made from engraved plates, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act. Status: At issue

Complaint No. 1292.-In the matter of Calumet Baking Powder Co. Charge: Unfair methods of competition are charged in that the respondent, engaged in the manufacture and sale of baking powders, has caused to be set forth statements and innuendoes untruthfully and unfairly representing that its competitor, Royal Baking Powder Co., packs its Royal Baking Powder in 6 and 12 ounce cans, instead of one-half pound and pound cans, for the purpose of cheating the public by passing off and causing the trade to pass off said 6 and 12 ounce cans as and for one-half pound and pound cans, respectively; and in that the respondent has adopted the practice of disseminating statements and comments calculated to further the interests of respondent and in disparagement and derogation of the products and business of its competitors, concealing its connection with the various methods through which said practice was carried into effect; and further in that the respondent falsely represented that the baking powder of its competitor, Royal Baking Powder Co., forms or tends to form a hard mass in the digestive tract in persons consuming food prepared therewith, its house-to-house canvassers and demonstrators making misleading comparisons and tests to deceive the purchasing public, all in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Comission act. Status: Respondent's motion to dismiss awaiting consideration until after final disposition of docket 1127. in the matter of Calumet Baking Powder Co.

Complaint No. 1311.-In the matter of Masland Duraleather Co., W. & J. Sloane. The respondent Masland Duraleather Co. is engaged in the manufacture of imitation leather and the sale thereof through the respondent W. & J. Sloane. Charge: Unfair methods of competition are charged in that the respondents brand and label a coated fabric, made in imitation of but containing no leather, as "Duraleather," thereby enabling vendees to misrepresent articles made of respondents' products and injuring the business of competitors who do not practice misrepresentation; and in that the respondents' trade name "Duraleather" simulates the trade name "Duro," used for many years by their competitor, A. C. Lawrence Leather Co., in advertising and selling its product as "Duro leather," thereby tending to mislead and deceive the trade into the belief that the respondents' product is a product of the aforesaid competitor, all in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act. Status: Awaiting final argument.

Complaint No. 1819.-In the matter of West Coast Theatres (Inc.), West Coast Theatres (Inc.) of Northern California, Venice Investment Co., Hollywood Theatres (Inc.), All Star Feature Distributors (Inc.), Educational Film Exchange, Principal Pictures Corporation, H. M. Turner, Fred Dahnken, C. L. Langley, and F. W. Livingston, partners, doing business under the name and style of Turner, Dahnken & Langley, and Messrs. A. L. Gore, Michael Gore, Sol. Lesser, Adolph Ramish, and Dave Bershon. Charge: Unfair methods of competition are charged in that the respondents combined for the purpose of preventing producers or distributors of motion-picture films in other States from leasing their films to competitors of the respondents and from shipping said films into the State of California, and preventing competition in negotiating for and leasing of said motion-picture films, employing threats, coercive measures, and other cooperative and individual means to make effective the aforesaid undertakings, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act. Status: Awaiting respondents' brief.

Complaint No. 1320.-In the matter of West Coast Theatres (Inc.), West Coast Theatres (Inc.) of Northern California, The T. & D. Jr. Enterprises (Inc.), and H. M. Turner, Fred Dahnken, C. L. Langley, and F. W. Livingston, partners, doing business under the trade name and style of Turner, Dahnken & Langley. Charge: Unfair methods of competition are charged in that the respondents combined for the purpose of restraining and preventing producers or distributors of motion-picture films in other States from leasing their films to competitors of the respondents and from shipping said films into the State of California for delivery to respondents' competitors, and restraining and preventing competition in negotiation for and leasing of said motion-picture