Skip to main content

Maker of Rayon Clothes Barred from Deceptive "Bamboo" Claims

Just because bamboo is green does not mean that companies who purport to make clothing and other textiles from processed bamboo can make unsupported “green” claims. The Federal Trade Commission today announced a settlement with a company that allegedly falsely claimed its rayon products are made of bamboo fiber, retain bamboo’s antimicrobial properties, and are biodegradable.

Under the settlement, the company has agreed that it will not make any future bamboo claims unless they are true and backed by reliable evidence, and that it will no longer claim that the clothing and bath products it sells are made of bamboo fiber – when they actually are made of rayon processed from bamboo plants.

According to the Commission’s complaint, issued in August 2009, The M Group, Inc., d/b/a Bamboosa, and its principals falsely claimed that the company’s products are “100% bamboo fiber,” when they are composed of rayon. Rayon is a man-made fiber created from the cellulose found in plants and trees and dissolved with a harsh chemical that releases hazardous air pollution. Any plant or tree could be used as the cellulose source – including bamboo – but the fiber that is created is rayon.

The complaint also charged Bamboosa with making a number of other deceptive “green” claims. Bamboosa claimed that its products retain bamboo’s antimicrobial properties. However, even if the rayon used in Bamboosa’s clothing and textile products is manufactured using bamboo as the cellulose source, the FTC contends, rayon does not retain any natural antimicrobial properties of the bamboo plant. The rayon manufacturing process eliminates any of these natural bamboo properties.

Bamboosa also allegedly made unqualified claims that its products are biodegradable. The Commission charged that the company’s rayon products are not biodegradable because they will not break down in a reasonably short time after customary disposal. Most clothing and textiles are disposed of either by recycling or in a landfill, where such biodegradation does not occur.

Finally, the complaint charged Bamboosa with violating the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act (Textile Act) and the FTC’s Textile Rules by falsely labeling and advertising its clothing and textile products as bamboo, when they should be labeled and advertised as rayon.

The proposed settlement bars Bamboosa from making any false, misleading, or unsubstantiated claims that any textile product is made of bamboo or bamboo fiber, is antimicrobial or retains the antimicrobial properties of the product from which it is made, or is biodegradable. The settlement also bars Bamboosa from making any claims about the benefits, performance, or efficacy of any clothing or textile product it sells, unless the claims are true, not misleading, and substantiated by reliable evidence. The proposed order also requires Bamboosa to comply with the Textile Act and FTC’s Textile Rules.

Three other companies – Sami Designs, LLC, doing business as (d/b/a) Jonäno; CSE, Inc., d/b/a Mad Mod; and Pure Bamboo, LLC – settled similar FTC complaints in August 2009, agreeing to stop making the false claims and to abide by the Textile Act and the FTC’s Textile Rules.

The Commission vote approving the proposed consent order was 4-0. The order will be subject to public comment for 30 days, until November 23, 2009, after which the Commission will decide whether to make it final. Written comments should be sent to: FTC, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Washington, DC 20580. To file a comment electronically, please click on the following hyperlink: http://www.ftc.gov/os/2009/08/bamboopubliccomment.pdf and follow the instructions.

NOTE: A consent order is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission of a violation of the law. When the Commission issues an order on a final basis, it carries the force of law with respect to future actions. Each violation of such an order may result in a civil penalty of up to $16,000.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

15 Gang Members Convicted on Conspiracy, Weapons Possession, Firearms Trafficking Charges Case Follows Recent Convictions of 137th Street Crew and East Harlem Narcotics Trafficking Organization

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., announced the results of the investigation and prosecution of one of Central Harlem’s most destructive criminal street gangs, referred to as “ONE TWENTY-NINE” or “GOODFELLAS/THE NEW DONS,” which terrorized the neighborhood surrounding West 129th Street between Lenox and Fifth Avenues. Thirteen members of the gang have previously pleaded guilty to importing, possessing, and using firearms over the course of the conspiracy.

The Myth, The Matrix, and The Malpractice: Unpacking the Sophia Stewart Saga

The internet loves a good underdog story, especially one where a lone creator battles Hollywood giants. Few tales have captivated online forums and social media quite like that of Sophia Stewart, the woman who famously sued the creators of The Matrix and The Terminator, claiming they stole her work, "The Third Eye." Her story is a complex tapestry woven with claims of stolen genius, judicial conflicts, and attorney negligence. Let's untangle the legal facts from the compelling narrative and examine the heart of her claims. The Core Allegation: "The Third Eye" and the Blockbusters Sophia Stewart alleged that her copyrighted manuscript, "The Third Eye," conceived in 1981 and finalized in 1983, was the blueprint for two of the most iconic sci-fi franchises: The Terminator (first film 1984) and The Matrix (first film 1999). From her perspective, the similarities were undeniable. Stewart’s supporters often point to broad, impactful themes and ev...

Charlie Kirk Was Right, and Charlie Kirk Was Wrong: The Enduring Legacy of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Charlie Kirk, a prominent conservative commentator, has argued that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was unnecessary, contending that the 14th Amendment should have been sufficient to guarantee equal rights. There's a compelling argument to be made for both sides of this statement. Let's break down where Kirk was right and, more importantly, where historical context reveals he was profoundly wrong. Where Charlie Kirk Was "Right" (In Theory) Kirk's theoretical point hinges on the idea that fundamental constitutional principles, if interpreted and enforced correctly, should have negated the need for additional legislation. And, in a perfect world, he would be correct. The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, explicitly states that "no State shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The intent was to ensure all citizens, particularly newly freed African Americans, were treated equally under the law. If this ...