JAFFE
v.
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Supplying devices used in lotteries for merchandise sales violates the FTC Act, and proof of actual sales is not necessary.
Petitioner distributed millions of push cards used in games of chance to sell merchandise. The FTC issued a cease and desist order based on these prac…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Lottery cases and more on FLexlaw
EVANS, Circuit Judge.
This petition to review an order of the Federal Trade Commission directing petitioner to cease and desist supplying “push cards, pull cards, punch books or other devices which are used or may be used in t'he sale or distribution of cameras, radios, jewelry, and other merchandise to the public by means of a game of chance, gift enterprise, or lottery” is based on the assertion that there was no proof of a sale of merchandise to the public through the use of these push cards.
The evidence does disclose that in the year 1941 more than five and one-half million push cards were distributed by petitioner throughout the United States in the manner described, that is, through the mail. They went from Chicago, petitioner’s home, to every state in the Union. The conclusion is inescapable that sales followed — otherwise petitioner’s business would not have continued to thrive. Since the owner of the petitioner company testified that over fifty per cent of the company’s sales of merchandise had been in connection with the push card business, the deduction is unavoidable that the merchandise was sold through and because of the lottery practices. In this connection, Mr. Jaffe, as a witness, admitted, “We built our entire business on this sales plan. We used these sales cards to sell our merchandise. The cards are so designed.”
The finding of the Commission is supported by the evidence.
Moreover, proof of sales through the use of such, push cards was unnecessary. No proof that sales actually resulted from such practices is required to make out a case against the malpractitioner for a violation of Sec. 5(a) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C.A. § 45(a).
We held in the Koolish case, Koolish v. Federal Trade Comm., 7 Cir., 129 F. 2d 64, and reiterate the ruling here, that supplying the means of conducting lotteries in the sale of merchandise is a practice contrary to the established public policy of the United States. It constitutes unfair competition in business and violates Sec. 5(a) of the Act in question. We specifical ly hold that proof that sales were made because of such lottery practices is not necessary to support an-order under this section.
The order of the Federal Trade Commission is affirmed. Petitioner is hereby ordered to forthwith comply with the order of the Commission.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Chas. A. Brewer & Sons v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 158 F.2d 74 (6th Cir. 1946)
-
Modernistic Candies, Inc. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 145 F.2d 454 (7th Cir. 1944)
-
Jacob Siegel Co. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 150 F.2d 751 (3d Cir. 1944)
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Koolish v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 129 F.2d 64 (7th Cir. 1942)