Federal Trade Commission v. Colgate-Palmolive Company, 380 U.S. 374 (1965), was a United States Supreme Court case.
| Federal Trade Commission v. Colgate-Palmolive Company | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued December 10, 1964 Decided April 5th, 1965 | |
| Full case name | Federal Trade Commission v. Colgate-Palmolive Company |
| Citations | 380 U.S. 374 (more) 85 S. Ct. 1035; 13 L. Ed. 2d 904; 1965 U.S. LEXIS 2300 |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Warren, joined by Black, Douglas, Clark, Brennan, White, Goldberg |
| Concur/dissent | Harlan, joined by Stewart |
Background
editA Colgate-Palmolive advertisement claimed that its Palmolive Rapid Shave shaving cream was so good it could be used to shave sandpaper. The commercial showed sandpaper applied with shaving cream and then shaved.
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) complained that the ad was deceptive and a material misrepresentation because it was not sandpaper but rather sand sprinkled on glass. Colgate-Palmolive argued that the product really could shave sandpaper if left on long enough. Colgate-Palmolive sued arguing that the FTC had overstepped its authority.[1]
Opinion of the Court
editThe Supreme Court agreed with the FTC that the commercial was a material misrepresentation. The ruling forced advertisers to remain truthful in their product presentations. As a result, commercials often feature "dramatization" notifications.[2]
References
edit- ^ Richards, Jef I. (1990). Deceptive Advertising: Behavioral Study of a Legal Concept. L. Erlbaum Associates. ISBN 978-0-8058-0649-6.
- ^ "FTC v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., 380 U.S. 374 (1965)". Justia Law.
External links
edit- Text of Federal Trade Commission v. Colgate-Palmolive Company, 380 U.S. 374 (1965) is available from: CourtListener Google Scholar Justia Library of Congress Oyez (oral argument audio)
- The Sandpaper Test, Museum of Hoaxes
 | This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |