American Home Products Corporation v. FTC
Decision Date | 18 October 1968 |
Docket Number | No. 17781.,17781. |
Citation | 402 F.2d 232 |
Parties | AMERICAN HOME PRODUCTS CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Respondent. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Samuel W. Murphy, Jr., New York City, for petitioner; Kenneth N. Hart, James A. Magee, Donovan, Leisure, Newton & Irvine, New York City, Powell McHenry, Dinsmore, Shohl, Barrett, Coates & Deupree, Cincinnati, Ohio, on brief.
David B. Morris, F.T.C., Washington, D. C., for respondent; James McI. Henderson, Gen. Counsel, J. B. Truly, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Charles C. Moore, Jr., Atty., F.T.C., Washington, D. C., on brief.
Sidney P. Howell, Jr., New York City, for amicus curiae — Proprietary Assn.; James F. Hoge, Rogers, Hoge & Hills, New York City, on brief.
Before EDWARDS, CELEBREZZE, and COMBS, Circuit Judges.
The Federal Trade Commission has charged the petitioner, American Home Products Corporation, with using unfair and deceptive advertising in connection with the sale and distribution of Preperation H, a non-prescription, proprietary drug sold in ointment and suppository form for use in the treatment of hemorrhoids.
It is alleged in the complaint that petitioner, advertising through newspapers, magazines, radio, television, and other media, represented that Preparation H would:
It was alleged that these representations were false in that Preparation H has no therapeutic effect outside of affording temporary relief of minor pain and itching associated with hemorrhoids.
In its answer petitioner denied making the alleged representations and asserted that if such representations were made they were true in that Preparation H will reduce or shrink hemorrhoids, as well as stop itching and relieve pain.
We find no merit in the contention that the advertisements do not make the representations charged by the Commission. The following radio commercial is typical:
The troublesome question, however, is not whether representations as charged by the Commission have been made by petitioner but whether they were false and misleading or, stated differently, to what extent are the Commission's findings that the representations are false and misleading supported by substantial evidence.
Hearings were held on the Commission's complaint, and the hearing examiner found that petitioner had engaged in unfair and deceptive advertising but recommended a limited order which would permit petitioner to advertise that Preparation H would, in most cases, relieve pain and itching, reduce or shrink hemorrhoids, and "be of significant therapeutic effect" in their treatment. He also recommended that petitioner be permitted to advertise that Preparation H would "enable persons with hemorrhoids to avoid surgery except in unusually severe or persistent cases."
On appeal by Commission's counsel, the Federal Trade Commission made new findings and entered a more restrictive order overruling the examiner's findings to the extent they were inconsistent. The Commission's order prohibits petitioner from disseminating in connection with Preparation H or any other hemorrhoidal remedy, advertisements which represent or imply that such product will:
The Commission's order further prohibits petitioner from disseminating any advertising which:
The order also prohibits petitioner from disseminating, in connection with the sale or distribution of any "drug" as that term is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act, advertising which misrepresents, directly or by implication, the efficacy of such drug.
When petitioner filed its petition for review in this Court, the Commission sought and we granted an injunction pendente lite which prohibits petitioner from disseminating any advertisements in connection with Preparation H which:
On this appeal, petitioner does not challenge that part of the Commission's order which prohibits representations that Preparation H will eliminate the need for surgery or will heal, cure, or remove hemorrhoids. It is conceded that Preparation H will do none of these things. Petitioner contends, however, that insofar as the order prohibits representations that the drug will reduce or shrink hemorrhoids and relieve pain and itching it is not supported by the evidence. The same assertion is made as to that part of the Commission's order which prohibits the use of the word "Bio-Dyne."
Petitioner also complains that the broad prohibition against misrepresentation of the efficacy of any drug is improper. Joining it in this contention are the Association of National Advertisers, Inc. and the Proprietary Association which have filed briefs as amicus curiae.
Petitioner is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in New York. It has sold Preparation H Suppositories and Ointment for many years, and the distribution of and advertising for these products is widely disseminated. The formula for Preparation H has remained the same since the product was originally marketed as a topical ointment for burns and wounds in 1943.
This record is replete with testimony, both medical and lay, dealing with the nature of hemorrhoids in their symptomatic and asymptomatic state, their care and treatment, and the value of Preparation H in treating them and their symptoms. Much of the controversy centers around the definition of "hemorrhoids." The Commission defined the term as follows: "`Hemorrhoids' are masses of dilated weak-walled veins located underneath the mucous membrane of the lower portions of the rectum and under the skin of the anal canal and the peri-anal area." In other words, they are varicose veins located in the rectal area. Depending upon their location, these varicose veins may be classified as internal or external. Internal hemorrhoids are in the top part of the anal canal and are covered by mucosa; external hemorrhoids are in the lower portion of the anal canal and are covered by skin.
According to the testimony in this record, the varicosity just described, and thus...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Borden, Inc. v. F. T. C.
...T. C., 381 F.2d 884, 891 (6th Cir. 1967), even though the evidence might also support a contrary finding. American Home Products Corp. v. F. T. C., 402 F.2d 232, 237 (6th Cir. 1968). Our task is not to second guess the Administrative Law Judge and the Commission on questions of credibility ......
-
American Home Products Corp. v. F.T.C., 81-2920
...63 F.T.C. 933 (1963); and American Home Products Corp., 70 F.T.C. 1524 (1966), aff'd in part, modified in part, American Home Products Corp. v. FTC, 402 F.2d 232 (6th Cir.1968). Explaining Part I of the Order, the Commission indicated that there was "simply no room left to doubt that respon......
-
Chattin v. Cape May Greene, Inc.
...behavior in determining deception), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 828, 107 S.Ct. 109, 93 L.Ed.2d 58 (1986); American Home Prods. Corp. v. FTC, 402 F.2d 232, 236 (6th Cir.1968) (word defined in terms of average consumer's That conclusion renders harmless any error in the trial court's instructions.......
-
Sears, Roebuck and Co. v. F. T. C.
...For its first point-the impropriety of a multi-product order based on this violation-Sears relies primarily on American Home Products Corp. v. FTC, 402 F.2d 232 (6th Cir. 1968). There, reviewing a proceeding relating to the effects of a single ointment, the court struck as unreasonable that......
-
Table of Cases
...176 Am. Home Prods. Corp., 98 F.T.C. 136 (1981) .................................. 263 Am. Home Prods. v. FTC, 402 F.2d 232 (6th Cir. 1968) ................... 79 Am. Home Prods., 95 F.T.C. 381 (1980) ............................................ 79 Am. Med. Ass’n, 94 F.T.C. 701 (1979) ...........
-
Organization
...case involving similar issues does not introduce a disqualifying factor into that other case. See, e.g. , American Home Prods. v. FTC, 402 F.2d 232, 238 (6th Cir. 1968). 67. American Gen. Ins. v. FTC, 589 F.2d 462, 465 (9th Cir. 1979). 80 FTC Practice and Procedure Manual of the degree of i......
-
Table of Cases
...Am. Home Prods. Corp., 123 F.T.C. 1340 (1997)................................147 Am. Home Prods. Corp. v. FTC, 402 F.2d 232 (6th Cir. 1968) ..................................................................................66 Am. Home Prods. v. FTC, 695 F.2d 681 (3d Cir. 1982) ....................
-
Organization
...case involving similar issues does not introduce a disqualifying factor into that other case. See, e.g., Am. Home Prods. Corp. v. FTC, 402 F.2d 232, 238 (6th Cir. 1968). 63. Am. Gen. Ins. Co. v. FTC, 589 F.2d 462, 465 (9th Cir. 1979). of the degree of involvement. 64 However, disqualificati......