335
submitted 2 years ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

Home products retailer Williams-Sonoma will have to pay almost $3.2 million for violating a Federal Trade Commission “Made in USA” order.

Williams-Sonoma was charged with advertising multiple products as being “Made in USA” when they were in fact manufactured in other countries, including China. That violated a 2020 commission order requiring the San Francisco-based company to be truthful about whether its products were in fact made in the U.S.

The FTC said Friday that Williams-Sonoma has agreed to a settlement, which includes a $3.175 million civil penalty. That marks the largest-ever civil penalty seen in a “Made in USA” case, the commission said.

“Williams-Sonoma’s deception misled consumers and harmed honest American businesses,” FTC Chair Lina M. Khan said. “Today’s record-setting civil penalty makes clear that firms committing Made-in-USA fraud will not get a free pass.”

In addition to paying the penalty, the seller of cookware and home furnishings will be required to submit annual compliance reports, the FTC said. The settlement also imposes and reinforces a number of requirements about manufacturing claims the company can make.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] FlowVoid@lemmy.world 13 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

The bottom line is operating income, not revenue. And WSM had an operating income of ~$1.5 billion last year.

The FTC found seven products were falsely advertised, starting with a mattress cover. But Pottery Barn sells over 10,000 products, in fact there are over 500 products in their bedding section alone. And Pottery Barn is just one part of WSM.

It's near certain that a $3 million fine wiped out whatever profit these seven products made for WSM, and then cut into profits made by other products. So breaking the law was not a profitable strategy for WSM.

[-] halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago

The punishment should be calculated based on gross revenue from the product. Not net profit. 50% of gross revenue sounds good.

[-] FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today 5 points 2 years ago

Why? We want to disincentivize malicious business practices, and fines proportional or greater to earnings from those practices are more than enough to convince a for-profit corporation to keep it clean.

[-] halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago

fines proportional or greater to earnings from those practices are more than enough to convince a for-profit corporation to keep it clean.

Lol. This is the real world, and it's already proven that the current system is inadequate, it is not enough to stop companies from doing it.

The fact that companies keep continuing to do it is the proof. The fines are NOT enough to disincentivize the practice. The current fines are still less than the benefit the company receives from the act, otherwise they wouldn't be doing it.

Bullshit like false advertising should have a dramatic punishment, not a slap on the wrist. I don't give a shit if it bankrupts a business. A business lying to their customers should destroy it. If they want to take a chance at destroying the entire business over something as small as a fake label, they can decide to roll those dice, but don't be surprised when they lose it all.

[-] FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today 2 points 2 years ago

As a whole you're correct, it often is inadequate, but in this very specific case of 7 products including some teen bed-padding, then the fines seem pretty proportional.

[-] halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

It depends on how much they made from these products. If the profit from the sale of those products is more than the $3.2M in fines, it is still just a cost that can be planned for when determining sale price and margins. The penalty needs to be higher than the profit from the deceptive practice or else it's just a cost that can be planned for, not a real deterrent.

[-] FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

According to their 10-K end of year SEC Filing they made $1.7 Bn cash inflow profits, which resulted in a $1.3 Bn cash balance.

So, hypothetically, if they had made 3.175 Million net profit on selling one of their hundreds of types of bedding products, one of thousands of types of products total, then it would be 1/500th of their total profits across their many brand names and stores, or another possible scenario would be if everything else they sold at a cost and they actually did make this much profit from this specific bedding.

They actually saw a 9.9% decline in net revenue that year, attributed to store closures.

[-] FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

I wish people would be open to changing their opinions when new information is introduced, instead they're just downvoting you because they don't want justice they want to be mad.

this post was submitted on 28 Apr 2024
335 points (98.6% liked)

News

36628 readers
619 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS