The case involves Colgate-Palmolive Co. (Colgate) the manufacturer and seller of shaving cream called Rapid Shave. During the advertisement of the shaving cream, the advertisement claimed that Rapid Shave could shave even the toughest beards thus used a sandpaper test but the FTC learnt that a substance resembling a sandpaper was used in the advertisement demonstration (Federal Trade Commission v. Colgate-Palmolive Company, 2016). The aim of this paper is to discuss the two sides of the case and evaluate whether the advertisement violated section 5 of the FTC Act.
Section 5 of the FTC Act
According to the Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices monitored by section 5 of the FTC act, declaration of unlawfulness of an act or practice is based on unfair methods of competition or affecting commerce and deceptive acts or practices that affect the decision of the consumers (15 U.S.C. §45). The case does not qualify as an unfair act or practice thus can be described as a deceptive act and practice. The advertisement has the characteristics of a deceptive representation or practice that misleads the consumer on the ability of the shaving cream. It also changes the perception of the consumer on the product thus may result to the consumer with tough beards purchasing it (15 U.S.C. §45). The findings from the case as illustrated above prove that the defendant acted unethically by using deceptive actions to determine the customers’ preference of the product. It is also unethical to use deception to gain competitive advantage.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Support of the Company
The FTC did not illustrate dissatisfaction of the consumers thus the company may claim that the socked prop illustrated wet toughest beards and since it succeeded in shaving off the sand glued, the Rapid Shave has equal effectiveness to the consumers. Since the deceptive act must be considered under a reasonable consumer perspective, the company can claim that the shaving cream enables shaving even of the toughest materials hence its use of sand prop and since most people are aware of the toughness of a sandpaper, it was the only way to illustrate the capabilities of the shaving cream. The claims discussed from the defendant’s perspective although weak prove that the defendant was ethical and the advert was not intended to deceive the consumers but it is only ethical if the shaving cream can perform its intended purposes and no consumer is left unsatisfied.
References
15 U.S.C. §45.
Federal Trade Commission v. Colgate-Palmolive Company. (n.d.). Oyez . Retrieved November 8, 2016, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/1964/62
Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC Act), Ch. 311, §5, 38 Stat. 719, codified at 15 U.S.C. §45(a).
