16 C.F.R. PART 424—RETAIL FOOD STORE ADVERTISING AND MARKETING PRACTICES
Title 16 - Commercial Practices
Authority: 88 Stat. 2193, as amended: 15 U.S.C. 57a(a)(1)(B).
In connection with the sale of offering for sale by retail food stores of food, grocery products or other merchandise to consumers in or affecting commerce as “commerce” is defined in section 4 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 44, it is an unfair or deceptive act or practice in violation of section 5(a)(1) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 45(a)(1), to offer any such products for sale at a stated price, by means of an advertisement disseminated in an area served by any stores which are covered by the advertisement, if those stores do not have the advertised products in stock and readily available to customers during the effective period of the advertisement, unless the advertisement clearly and adequately discloses that supplies of the advertised products are limited or the advertised products are available only at some outlets. [54 FR 35467, Aug. 28, 1989] No violation of §424.1 shall be found if: (a) The advertised products were ordered in adequate time for delivery in quantities sufficient to meet reasonably anticipated demand; (b) The food retailer offers a “raincheck” for the advertised products; (c) The food retailer offers at the advertised price or at a comparable price reduction a similar product that is at least comparable in value to the advertised product; or (d) The food retailer offers other compensation at least equal to the advertised value.
Dissenting Statement of Commissioner Calvani I dissent from the Commission's decision today to amend the Retail Food Store Advertising and Marketing Practices Trade Regulation Rule (the Unavailability Rule). The Commission has acknowledged today that the original Unavailability Rule is not justified, and approved amendments designed to lower its costs to grocers. However, in my view, common sense tells us that in the highly competitive grocery store business, where consumers return week after week to the same store, any supermarket that frustrates its customers through unavailability of advertised items will not long keep those customers. In other words, it is clear to me that existing market forces adequately police unavailability, and that, therefore, no Federal Trade Commission rule is necessary, amended or otherwise. The Commission's action today to retain even an amended Unavailability Rule does not conform to common sense. Statement of Commissioner Andrew J. Strenio, Jr., Retail Food Store Advertising and Marketing Practices Rule Although revising the “Unavailability Rule” has a certain intuitive appeal, there is insufficient evidence on the record to conclude that these changes will result in net consumer benefits. Accordingly, I could not support amending the Rule in this manner. However, now that the step has been taken, it is to be hoped that experience will bear out the optimistic expectations of the Commission majority. [54 FR 35467, Aug. 28, 1989]
Title 16: Commercial Practices
PART 424—RETAIL FOOD STORE ADVERTISING AND MARKETING PRACTICES
Section Contents
§ 424.1 Unfair or deceptive acts or practices.
§ 424.2 Defenses.
§ 424.1 Unfair or deceptive acts or practices.
top
§ 424.2 Defenses.
top
