Hearing Aid Industry Staff Report: With Appendices A and B : Final Report to the Federal Trade Commission and Proposed Trade Regulation Rule (16 CFR Part 440).
Bureau of Consumer Protection, 1978 - Hearing aid industry
What people are saying - Write a review
We haven't found any reviews in the usual places.
Other editions - View all
ability abuses addition advertising amplification Appendix F ASHA asked audiologists believes Beltone benefit buyer's called claims clearly Commission competent concerning conduct consumer contains Continued Course customers deaf dealer deceptive demonstrates disclosure discussed educational effect elderly evidence example expect experience fact Finally fitting HAIC hearing aid consumers hearing aid sellers hearing impaired hearing loss hearing-impaired persons indicates individual industry infra Kasten lead Lentz less Letter limited manual master names nature NHAS normal noted offer oral percent performance Ph.D physician population potential practices presentation problems prohibited Proposed Rule prospect protection purchase questions reason received Recommended Rule record remedy Report representations representative result Reviewers RPAG Section sell Senate Senate Hearings Service significant Similarly sold sound speech staff suggested supra survey testified told trial unfair visits witnesses
Page 14 - Consumption is the sole end and purpose of all production; and the interest of the producer ought to be attended to only so far as it may be necessary for promoting that of the consumer.
Page 16 - Where one party is under the domination of another, or by virtue of the relation between them is justified in assuming that the other party will not act in a manner inconsistent with his welfare, a transaction induced by unfair persuasion of the latter, is induced by undue influence and is voidable.
Page 6 - The Commission is the expert body to determine what remedy is necessary to eliminate the unfair or deceptive trade practices which have been disclosed. It has wide latitude for judgment and the courts will not interfere except where the remedy selected has no reasonable relation to the unlawful practices found to exist.
Page 255 - That any sane nation, having observed that you could provide for the supply of bread by giving bakers a pecuniary interest in baking for you, should go on to give a surgeon a pecuniary interest in cutting off your leg, is enough to make one despair of political humanity.
Page 15 - The listener's interest is substantial: the consumer's concern for the free flow of commercial speech often may be far keener than his concern for urgent political dialogue. Moreover, significant societal interests are served by such speech. Advertising, though entirely commercial, may often carry information of import to significant issues of the day. See Bigelow v. Virginia, 421 US 809 (1975). And commercial speech serves to inform the public of the availability, nature, and prices of products...
Page 6 - Commission is not limited to prohibiting the illegal practice in the precise form in which it is found to have existed in the past. If the Commission is to attain the objectives Congress envisioned, it cannot be required to confine its...
Page 9 - To tell less than the whole truth is a well known method of deception ; and he who deceives by resorting to such method cannot excuse the deception by relying upon the truthfulness per se of the partial truth by which it has been accomplished.
Page 8 - The skilful advertiser can mislead the consumer without misstating a single fact. The shrewd use of exaggeration, innuendo, ambiguity and half-truth is more efficacious from the advertiser's standpoint than factual assertions.
Page 6 - Thus, legislative and judicial authorities alike convince us that the Federal Trade Commission does not arrogate excessive power to itself if, in measuring a practice against the elusive, but congressionally mandated standard of fairness, it, like a court of equity, considers public values beyond simply those enshrined in the letter or encompassed in the spirit of the antitrust laws.* ; 5.
Page 10 - The advertisement implied that respondent's cigarettes were less harmful than competing brands having higher tar and nicotine contents. But the survey had concluded that no cigarettes, including respondent's, had a sufficiently low tar and nicotine content to be significantly less harmful than other cigarettes. Respondent failed to disclose this qualifying fact, and thereby failed to correct the false impression created by its literally true representation. This was a deceptive half-truth and clearly...