Kerran v. Federal Trade Commission

BRATTON, Chief Judge. This proceeding is here on petition to review an order of the Federal Trade Commission. Petitioners Frank A. Ker-ran and Cameron A. Kerran, partners doing business under the trade name of Double Eagle Refining Company, at Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, are engaged in the business of re-refining previously used lubricating oil, principally crankcase drainings collected at gasoline stations; packaging the re-refined oil in tin cans of the same general size, kind, and appearance as those used for packaging lubricating oil produced directly from virgin crude; and selling the re-refined oil without indicating on the containers or otherwise that the commodity is produced from previously used oil. Some of the supply of previously used oil comes to the refinery of petitioners from other states, and some of the finished product is sold and distributed in interstate commerce. The order of the Commission required petitioners to cease and desist from representing, contrary to the fact, that their lubricating oil is refined or processed from other than previously used oil; and from advertising, offering for sale, or selling lubricating oil that is composed in whole or in part of oil which had been reclaimed or in any manner processed from previously used oil, without disclosing such prior use to the purchaser or potential purchaser in advertising and sales promotion material, and by a clear and conspicuous statement to that effect on the container. The order is challenged upon the ground that the Commission erred in holding that the methods of competition employed by the petitioners are unfair, because the Commission did not base its decision upon all of the pertinent facts of record but upon only a minor part of them; because there is little likelihood that the public is misled since re-refined oil is identical to that which is refined directly from virgin crude; because when previously used oil is re-refined it loses its identity as previously used oil and is new oil in every sense of the term; and because the circumstances which must accompany seller silence in order for it to constitute an unfair method of competition are not present in the proceeding. It is the position of petitioners that lubricating oil does not [248] wear out; that use does not change the chemical composition of the oil or its molecular structure but merely contaminates it; that contamination from use as well as additives put into the oil by the prior producer are eliminated by the re-refining process; that the re-refined oil which petitioners sell is new oil; and that such re-refined product is the equivalent in quality of lubricating oil produced from virgin crude. Evidence was adduced at the hearing before the hearing examiner to the effect that lubricating oil does not wear out with use; that use does not change the chemical composition of the oil or its molecular structure but merely contaminates it; and that contamination from use as well as additives put into the oil by the prior producer are eliminated by the re-refining process. But the hearing examiner in the first instance found in effect that a substantial portion of the public who purchase lubricating oil prefer new and unused oil to that produced by the re-refining of crankcase drainings and other pi*eviousIy used oil; that the failure of petitioners to disclose that their oil is made from previously used oil has a tendency and capacity to mislead and deceive a substantial portion of the purchasing public into the belief that such oil is new and unused made from virgin crude oil; and that such failure has a tendency and capacity to cause such members of the public to purchase petitioners’ oil as a result of the erroneous and mistaken belief so engendered. These crucial findings were adopted by the Commission. They were adequately sustained by evidence adduced upon the hearing and therefore must stand on review. It may be that lubricating oil does not wear out with use. It may be that use does not change the chemical composition or molecular structure of oil. It may be that contamination from use and additives put into oil by the prior producer are eliminated by the re-refining process of petitioners, and it may be that the oil sold by petitioners is just as good in quality as lubricating oil produced from virgin crude. But the public is entitled to know the facts with respect to the lubricating oil sold by the petitioners being produced from previously used oil and then make its own choice with respect to purchasing such oil or oil produced from virgin crude, even though the choice is predicated at least in part upon ill-founded sentiment, belief, or caprice. Federal Trade Commission v. Algoma Lumber Co., 291 U.S. 67, 54 S.Ct. 315, 78 L.Ed. 655. And therefore the practice of the petitioners in marketing their re-refined lubricating oil in containers indistinguishable from those used generally to market lubricating oil refined from virgin crude, without any disclosure that it is made from previously used oil, constitutes ■ a deceptive practice within the intent and meaning of section 5(a) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, as amended, 52 Stat. Ill, 15 U.S.C.A. § 45 (a). Mohawk Refining Corp. v. Federal Trade Commission, 3 Cir., 263 F.2d 818; Royal Oil Corp. v. Federal Trade Commission, 4 Cir., 262 F.2d 741. Petitioners urge further that the order of the Commission is invalid because the purchasing public is not prejudiced by their methods of competition since the public preference is for quality in lubricating oil and not for any particular origin; because the competitors of petitioners are not prejudiced by the methods of competition which petitioners practice since petitioners do not enjoy any unfair advantage over their competitors; because enforcement of the order would result in actually restricting competition since it would destroy the business of petitioners and other re-refiners and thereby eliminate them as potential competitors of the major oil companies; because it is contrary to public policy to require useless disclosures which would result in injury to a company engaged in the business of re-refining oil and selling it in interstate commerce; and because it would result in wasting unnecessarily a precious natural resource. The general trend of the argument in support of the several grounds of challenge to the order is that the practices of petitioners do not prejudice the public; that they do not prejudice the competitors of petitioners; [249] that disclosure would result in injury to the business of petitioners; and that disclosure would result in waste of a natural resource. But section 5(a) of the Act, supra, as amended in 1938, declares unfair methods of competition in commerce, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in commerce to be unlawful; and with exceptions not having any present material bearing, it empowers the Commission to prevent such methods, acts, or practices. Under the statute, as amended, the Commission is vested with power to prevent the use of unfair methods of competition in commerce and also to prevent the use of unfair or deceptive acts or practices in commerce. Under the enlarged sweep of the statute, the Commission may take appropriate action to prevent unfair or deceptive practices in commerce which are inimical to the public interest. Thomas v. Federal Trade Commission, 10 Cir., 116 F.2d 347; Wolf v. Federal Trade Commission, 7 Cir., 135 F.2d 564; Globe Cardboard Novelty Co. v. Federal Trade Commission, 3 Cir., 192 F.2d 444; Koch v. Federal Trade Commission, 6 Cir., 206 F.2d 311. The vice in the acts and practices of petitioners lies in the deception of the purchasing public of lubricating oil with respect to the oil sold by petitioners being re-refined oil instead of refined oil from virgin crude. And that vice constitutes an unfair and deceptive business practice within the intent and meaning of section 5 of the Act, supra. Mohawk Refining Corp. v. Federal Trade Commission, supra; Royal Oil Corp. v. Federal Trade Commission, supra. A decree will be entered affirming and enforcing the order of the Commission.