FTC Fines Garment Maker

For the second time in three years, the Federal Trade Commission issued a $300,000 civil penalty for a violation of the care label rule by one of the larger clothing manufacturers in the world.

The stiff fine levied last month against the Jones Apparel Group, Inc. equaled the fine assessed in 1999 against Tommy Hilfiger for care label violations.

The FTC reached a settlement with Jones Apparel Group, Inc., regarding several allegations that the company violated the FTC’s Care Labeling Rule on various occasions between 1998 and 2000. According to the FTC complaint, Jones Apparel sold garments that became damaged during cleaning even when the care labeling instructions were followed. In some garments containing a flocking design, the flocking disappeared during the drycleaning process. In other garments, fading occurred during cleaning.

Also among the infractions were cashmere sweaters misleadingly labeled “dryclean only,” even though they could be hand washed safely by consumers.

In addition to paying the $300,000 civil penalty, Jones Apparel Group also agreed to develop written procedures to be used in labeling its garments in the future to comply with the Care Label Rule.

“The FTC’s Care Labeling Rule is designed to ensure that consumers don’t lose the hard-earned money they spend on clothing because of inaccurate information on how to clean it,” said J. Howard Beales, III, director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “The agreement reached with Jones and announced today will help ensure that Jones will comply with the Rule and that consumers will have the information that they need to take care of their clothing.”

The International Fabricare Institute, which supplied some data pertaining to the case, lauded the FTC’s decision. Every month, results from IFI’s International Textile Analysis Laboratory (ITAL) are tabulated and sent to the FTC. The Jones Apparel Group stood out as an example of a “repeat offender” with a total of 451 entries recorded in ITAL’s manufacturer database from 1999 to 2001, according to ITAL Manager Lorraine Muir. Muir also noted that flocking problems on a gray Jones New York sweater with a black, floral flocked design came up 32 separate times during that period and was featured in one of the association’s “Not in Vogue” bulletins.

“Too many cleaners have taken the blame at the counter for problems with Jones Apparel Group’s garments,” commented IFI Senior Vice President Mary Scalco. “These problems could have been avoided with correct care label instructions. The $300,000 penalty validates all of the behind-the-scenes work IFI’s International Textile Analysis Laboratory does with the FTC on behalf of consumers.”

Originally, the FTC’s Care Labeling Rule was issued in December of 1971 to require manufacturers and importers of textile wearing apparel to attach labels containing a reasonable basis for proper care instructions, including warnings. Since 1992, the FTC has fined 17 companies for care label violations. Amounts have ranged from a low of $10,000 up to the $300,000 levied against Hilfiger and Jones. In the 1999 case, the FTC complaint alleged that Hilfiger had been negligent by omitting care labeling information that led to garment bleeding and fading when maintained according to instructions.

The next largest fines imposed by FTC were a $100,000 civil penalty against I.B. Diffusion, L.P. in May of 1995 for damage on garments with sequins, beads and other trim when drycleaned according to care labels, and a $60,000 civil penalty against Laura Ashley, Inc., in August of 1996 for failure to provide written care instructions on garments.

Details on the complaint against the Jones Apparel Group, Inc., are available on the FTC’s web site: www.ftc.gov. IFI has information on its International Textile Analysis Laboratory at www.ifi.org.in the General Information section under the “IFI’s Testing Services” link.

The Jones Apparel Group case was the first time the FTC sought a fine against a clothing manufacturer since Karin Stevens, Inc. agreed to pay $20,000 in penalties in a case from May of 2000 that dealt with beaded garments damaged during the drycleaning process.