Slough v. FTC, 24463.

• Decision Date: 24 June 1968
• Docket Number: No. 24463.,24463.
• Parties: S. Dean SLOUGH, Petitioner, v. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Respondent.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

396 F.2d 870 (1968)

S. Dean SLOUGH, Petitioner, v. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Respondent.

No. 24463.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

June 24, 1968.

Fredric T. Suss, Washington, D. C. for petitioner.

J. B. Truly, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Gerald J. Thain, James McI. Henderson, Attys., F. T. C., Washington, D. C., for respondent.

Before JOHN R. BROWN, Chief Judge, WISDOM, Circuit Judge, and BREWSTER, District Judge.

JOHN R. BROWN, Chief Judge:

Petitioner Slough seeks review of a cease and desist order issued against him by the Federal Trade Commission which, after an administrative hearing, found that Petitioner had engaged in unfair and deceptive acts and practices in violation of 15 U.S.C.A. § 45(a) (1).¹ Finding that the Commission's order is supported by the record, we enforce.

Briefly stated, the facts show that Petitioner operates a collection service under the name "State Credit Control Board." This business assists businessmen in the collection of debts and past-due accounts by supplying them with forms for direct use of such purchasers designed to implant in the debtors' minds the notion that an official governmental agency is pressing them for payment. The Commission found that the wording of these forms would create a double false impression. The first was that the debt had been turned over to a third party for collection (when in fact it had not). The second was that such third party had some official governmental status. The Commission's order basically prohibited the use of any language that might imply that Petitioner was connected with a governmental agency, the prohibition of any "skip-tracing"² activities by Petitioner, and the prohibition of any representations that Petitioner will institute legal action if the debt is not paid.

Petitioner first contends that the public has insufficient interest in prohibiting these activities to justify the Commission's complaint and order. There is no merit to this contention, for that determination is essentially one for the Commission and will only be reversed on a showing of an abuse of discretion. See Guziak v. F. T. C., 8 Cir., 1966, 361 F.2d 700, cert. denied, 1967, 385 U.S. 1007, 87 S.Ct. 712, 17 L.Ed.2d 545; Exposition Press, Inc. v. F. T. C., 2 Cir., 1961, 295 F.2d 869; Ostler Candy Co. v. F. T. C., 10 Cir., 1939, 106 F.2d 962. No such showing has been made here.

Petitioner next contends that the Commission's order denies him due process of law since its effect is to put him out of business. This argument is also without merit because the Commission obviously has the power to prevent deceptive practices even though the affected business could not successfully continue without the use of those practices. See Dandy Prods., Inc. v. F. T. C., 7 Cir., 1964, 332 F.2d 985, cert. denied, 1965, 379 U.S. 961, 85 S.Ct. 648, 13 L.Ed. 2d 555; Murray Space Shoe Corp. v. F. T. C., 2 Cir., 1962, 304 F.2d 270. The aim of the law is to stamp out unfair business practices and businesses which persist in practicing them.

Petitioner next contends that the Commission had no basis for determining that Petitioner had falsely represented that a request for payment from debtors had originated with someone other than the creditor since Petitioner himself was responsible for the physical mailing of the forms (on receipt of them from the "purchaser"), and thus technically the request for payment had indeed come from a third party. In fact, however, Petitioner had...