4. That respondents' guarantee or Professional Service Agreement given to purchasers of their contact lenses and (a) issued prior to 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the "old" guarantee or agreement) is not subject to any conditions or limitations, or (b) issued from 1964 to the present (hereinafter referred to as the "new" guarantee) is subject only to the limitations or condition that purchasers of Vent-Air contact lenses have their eyes examined and their lenses checked once a year; further, that all offices where respondents' contact lenses are available honor either guarantee without any charges to purchasers of said lenses.

5. That prospective purchasers of contact lenses can wear or use VentAir contact lenses made to their own optical prescription for an unlimited period of time to determine their suitability and can do so without incurring any charge or obligation to take or pay for the lenses under respondents' "no-risk plan".

6. That their "no-risk plan" and other offered services provided by them are exclusive with respondents in that no other seller of contact lenses has such a plan or provides the same services.

Paragraph Seven: In truth and in fact:

1. Vent-Air contact lenses are not a new or recent discovery or development in contact lenses; they have been on the market for more than 10 years.

2. Vent-Air contact lens offices owned by respondents are located in less than 40 cities in the United States; franchised offices are located in less than 25 cities in the United States.

3. The owned and franchised offices do not all offer or adhere to the statement and representations made in respondents' advertisements concerning lens service and repairs; many offices impose varying fees and charges on the purchasers of Vent-Air contact lenses who return to have lenses serviced or repaired.

4. All of the offices where respondents' contact lenses are available do not honor either the "old" guarantee or agreement or the "new" guarantee. Many offices impose charges for any services or repairs rendered under the guarantee, as well as charging previously undisclosed fees for eye examinations necessary to avoid cancellation of the guarantee; further, any and all guarantees given to purchasers of Vent-Air contact lenses fail to clearly and conspicuously disclose (a) the full nature and extent of the guarantee, (b) all material conditions or limitations which respondents impose, and (c) the manner in which respondents will perform thereunder. 5. There is a fee for examining the eyes of a prospective purchaser of VentAir contact lenses and grinding lenses to the proper optical prescription; trial or use of the contact lenses is restricted to brief periods of time and only in respondents' offices during times when such offices are open.

6. The services performed by respondents for purchasers of Vent-Air contact lenses are not exclusive with respondents; they are services usually and customarily offered by other sellers to purchasers of contact lenses.

Therefore, the advertisements referred to in Paragraph Five were and are misleading in material respects and constituted and now constitute, "false advertisements" as that term is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act; respondents failure to abide by the terms of certain of their guarantees constitutes unfair and deceptive acts and practices within the meaning of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act.

Paragraph eight: The dissemination by the respondents of the false advertisements and their failure to abide by the terms of certain of their guarantees, as aforesaid, constituted, and now constitutes, unfair and deceptive acts and practices in commerce, in violation of Section 12 and 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act.

Wherefore, the premises considered, the Federal Trade Commission, on this 3rd day of October, A.D., 1966, issues its complaint against said respondents.

NOTICE

Notice is hereby given to each of the respondents hereinbefore named that the 14th day of November A.D. 1966, at 10 o'clock is hereby fixed as the time and Federal Trade Commission offices, 1101 Building, 11th & Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, D.C., as the place when and where a hearing will

be had before a hearing examiner of the Federal Trade Commission, on the charges set forth in this complaint, at which time and place you will have the right under said Act to appear and show cause why an order should not be entered requiring you to cease and desist from the violations of law charged in this complaint.

You are notified that the opportunity is afforded you to file with the Commission an answer to this complaint on or before the thirtieth (30th) day after service of it upon you. An answer in which the allegations of the complaint are contested shall contain a concise statement of the facts constituting each ground of defense; and specific admission, denial, or explanation of each fact alleged in the complaint or, if you are without knowledge thereof, a statement to that effect. Allegations of the complaint not thus answered shall be deemed to have been admitted.

If you elect not to contest the allegations of fact set forth in the complaint, the answer shall consist of a statement that you admit all of the material allegations to be true. Such an answer shall constitute a waiver of hearings as to the facts alleged in the complaint, and together with the complaint will provide a record basis on which the hearing examiner shall file an initial decision containing appropriate findings and conclusions and an appropriate order disposing of the proceeding. In such answer you may, however, reserve the right to submit proposed findings and conclusions and the right to appeal the initial decision to the Commission under Section 3.22 of the Commission's Rules of Practice for Adjudicative Proceedings.

Failure to answer within the time above provided shall be deemed to constitute a waiver of your right to appear and contest the allegations of the complaints and shall authorize the hearing examiner, without further notice to you, to find the facts to be as alleged in the complaint and to enter an initial decision containing such findings, appropriate conclusions and order.

The following is the form of order which the Commission has reason to believe should issue if the facts are found to be as alleged in the complaint:

It is ordered that respondents Vent-Air Contact Lens Laboratories, Inc., a corporation, and its officers, and Lawrence Lewison, Marvin Shore, and Shirley Lewison individually and as officers of said corporation, and respondents' representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the offering for sale, sale or distribution of contact lenses, do forthwith cease and desist from:

1. Disseminating, or causing the dissemination of, any advertisement by means of the United States mails, or by any means in commerce, as "commerce” is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act, which advertisement represents directly or by implication that:

(1) Their Vent-Air contact lenses are a new or recent discovery or development.

(2) An examination, preparation and fitting of contact lenses to the optical prescription of a prospective purchaser of contact lenses is made without any cost or obligation on the part of said prospective purchasers; or that prospective purchasers may adequately try or use the contact lenses on a trial basis before purchasing the lenses.

(3) Services and repairs on the contact lenses are available without cost at all of respondents' owned and/or franchised offices to purchasers of respondents' contact lenses.

(4) Any of their contact lenses are guaranteed or that purchasers of contact lenses are guaranteed any services or repairs on their contact lenses without clear and conspicuous disclosure of :

(a) the full nature and the extent of the guarantee, and

(b) all material conditions or limitations in the guarantee which are imposed by the guarantor, and

(c) the manner in which the guarantor will perform thereunder. (5) The services performed by respondents for purchasers of their contact lenses are exclusive with, or available only from respondents.

II. Disseminating, or causing the dissemination of, any advertisement by means of the United States mails, or by any means in commerce, as "commerce" is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act, which misrepresents the number of offices owned or operated, the number of offices where service can be

obtained by purchasers of respondents' contact lenses, or the nature and extent of the services offered by any office owned or operated or franchised.

III. Disseminating, or causing to be disseminated, by any means, for the purpose of inducing, or which is likely to induce, directly or indirectly, the purchase of respondents' product, in commerce, as "commerce" is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act, any advertisement which contains any of the representations or misrepresentations prohibited in Paragraphs I and II hereof. It is further ordered that respondents Vent-Air Contact Lens Laboratories, Inc., a corporation, and its officers, and Lawrence Lewison, Marvin Shore, and Shirley Lewison individually and as officers of said corporation, and respondents' representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the offering for sale, sale or distribution of contact lenses or other products in commerce, as "commerce" is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act, to forthwith cease and desist from failing to perform any and all services, repairs or prescription changes which purchasers of respondents' contact lenses are entitled to by virtue of representations made by a Professional Service Agreement or any guarantee given heretofore or hereafter to said purchasers at or contemporaneous with the time of their purchasing respondents' contact lenses.

It is further ordered that respondents named herein shall mail copies of this order to all franchisees, licensees or distributors of respondents' products and/or services and that all of respondents' present and future franchisees, licensees or distributors shall be required to agree in writing that they will abide with the terms of this order as a condition to becoming or continuing with respondents as franchisees, licensees or distributors.

In Witness Whereof, the Federal Trade Commission has caused this, its complaint to be signed by its Secretary and its official seal to be hereto affixed at Washington, D.C., this 3rd day of October, 1966.

By the Commission.

[SEAL]

JOSEPH W. SHEA,

Secretary

United States of America Before Federal Trade Commission
[Docket No. 8715]

In the Matter of VENT-AIR LENS LABORATORIES, INC., ET AL.

ORDER AMENDING COMPLAINT

Pursuant to the motion filed by counsel supporting the complaint to amend the complaint herein so as to correctly name the corporate respondent, and,

It appearing that the correct name of the corporate respondent is Vent-Air Lens Laboratories, Inc., instead of Vent-Air Contact Lens Laboratories, Inc., as erroneously stated in the complaint issued on October 3, 1966,

Accordingly,

It is ordered that said complaint be amended so as to designate the corporate respondent by its correct name, Vent-Air Lens Laboratories, Inc.

JOHN B. POINDEXTER,
Hearing Examiner.

In the United States District Court for the District of Columbia

BENJAMIN D. RITHOLZ, SAMUEL J. RITHOLZ, MORRIS I. RITHOLZ, FANNY RITHOLZ, SYLVIA RITHOLZ, SOPHIE RITHOLZ, ANNA BEDNO AND JACOB BEDNO, A PARTNERSHIP T/A DR. RITHOLZ & SONS Co., 1148-1160 W. CHICAGO AVE., CHICAGO 22, ILLINOIS, PLAINTIFFS.

v.

LEWIS H. KRASKIN, 900 F STREET, N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C., REX B. SHELEY, 1342 F STREET, N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C., DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BOARD OF OPTOMETRY, AN AGENCY OF THE MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, AND DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA OPTOMETRIC ASSOCIATION, A CORPORATION, 900 F STREET, .NW., WASHINGTON, D.C., DEFENDANTS.

[Civil Action No. 3179-51]

COMPLAINT

1. The plaintiffs, Benjamin D. Ritholz, Samuel J. Ritholz, Morris I. Ritholz, Fanny Ritholz, Sylvia Ritholz, Sophie Ritholz, Anna Bedno and Jacob Bedno, a partnership t/a Dr. Ritholz & Sons Co., are citizens of the United States and residents of Chicago, Illinois, and bring this action against the defendants, Lewis M. Kraskin, Rex B. Sheley, District of Columbia Board of Optometry, an agency of the Municipal Government of the District of Columbia, and District of Columbia Optometric Association, a corporation. The individual defendants are citizens of the United States and residents of the District of Columbia. The District of Columbia Optometric Association is a corporation organized under the laws of the District of Columbia. This action arises under the provisions of Sections 15 and 26 of Title 15, USCA, and is for injunctive relief and for damages to compensate for injuries sustained by the plaintiffs in their business and property by reason of the commission by the defendants of acts forbidden by Section 3 of the Sherman Antitrust Act (Title 15, Section 3, USCA, as amended), and the Clayton Act as hereinafter more fully set forth. The plaintiffs, cause of action is also based upon upon the defendants' liability for malicious and wrongful injury to the plaintiffs' means of livelihood.

2. The plaintiffs are and have been engaged for many years in the business of manufacturing and selling eye glasses and contact lenses at prices and for fees considerably less than their competitors and they operate retail offices in several cities in the United States and Canada. Since about November 1950, they have operated a retail office in the Westory Building at 605-14th Street NW., in the District of Columbia, under the trade names of King Optical Company and D.C. Invisible Contact Lens Service.

3. The defendants Rex B. Sheley and Lewis H. Kraskin are President and Secretary-Treasurer respectively of the District of Columbia Board of Optometry, and the District of Columbia Board of Optometry is an agency of the Municipal Government of the District of Columbia, created by Title 2, Section 503, of the Code of Laws for the District of Columbia, its officers being appointed by the Board of Commissioners for the District of Columbia and said officers control, direct, and manage the policy and operations of the Board of Optometry of the District of Columbia, including the examination and rating of examination papers of applicants for licenses to practice optometry in the District of Columbia.

4. In the business of obtaining the patronage of purchasers of eye glasses and contact lenses in the City of Washington, District of Columbia, the plaintiffs customarily either employ or associate with themselves physicians or optometrists, licensed and authorized by the District of Columbia to examine and prescribe eye glasses and contact lenses for persons desiring and needing eye correction. The plaintiffs extensively advertise their services and facilities and their reduced prices. The defendants Lewis H. Kraskin and Rex. B. Sheley, beginning on or about November 1950 and continuing thenceforth, combined and conspired between themselves and with other members of the District of Columbia Optometric Association in the District of Columbia, the names and identities of the others being at this time unknown to the plaintiffs, and they have continued to combine and conspire to unlawfully restrain trade and commerce within the District of Columbia and to eliminate the competition of the plaintiffs in the manufacture and sale of eye glasses and contact lenses and their purpose in so combining and conspiring has been to stifle the competition of the plaintiffs and to fix, maintain, and keep at a higher price level eye glasses and contact lenses sold within the District of Columbia and in furtherance of such unlawful combination and conspiracy the defendants actively instructed licensed optometrists to refrain from obtaining employment or association in any way with the plaintiffs at their office within the District of Columbia and that at meetings of the District of Columbia Optometric Association the usual order of business during the past ten months has provided for discussions in which the individual defendants sought suggestions and arranged to formulate means to injure the plaintiffs' business in the District of Columbia and their means of earning a livelihood therein.

5. The defendants Lewis H. Kraskin and Rex B. Sheley, District of Columbia Optometric Association, and the District of Columbia Board of Optometry acting throught its Secretary-Treasurer, Lewis H. Kraskin, and its president, Rex B. Sheley, and in furtherance of their unlawful conspiracy and combination and in

order to stifle competition conferred with and discussed with optometrists, who had been contacted by the plantiffs for the purpose of associating such persons or undertaking to enter into an employment arrangement with them, and informed such persons that their licenses to practice optometry in the District of Columbia would be jeopardized and revoked, if they accepted association or employment with the plaintiffs. The defendants also informed certain persons who had successfully passed and were otherwise entitled to licenses to practice optometry in the District of Columbia that re-examination of such persons' papers would be made which might result in a change of grading of their papers so that they would not have passed said examination if such persons associated themselves with or accepted employment from the plaintiffs. The defendants also promised other persons, with whom the plaintiffs were seeking to arrange for their employment or association with them, to procure good jobs for such persons if they refrained from working for the plaintiffs. In furtherance of the course of conduct pursued by the defendants, on several occasions they caused an employee of the plaintiffs to be forcefully, wrongfully, and unjustly arrested and prosecuted in the Criminal Division of the Municipal Court, notwithstanding that the defendants well knew the employee so arrested had committed no offense and the purpose for the arrest, caused and directed by the defendants, was to embrass the plaintiffs and cause the plaintiffs unfavorable publicity and to harrass the plaintiffs and to frighten and intimidate optometrists from accepting employment or association with the plaintiffs in the conduct of the plaintiffs' business in the District of Columbia.

By reason of the wrongful conduct of the defendants and of the matters complained of herein the plaintiffs' business has been seriously impaired by reason of their inability to adequately and fully staff their said office in the District of Columbia. The plaintiffs have sustained and continue to sustain a considerable loss of business because of the conduct of the defendants and the persistence of the defendants in pursuing and continuing to pursue their course of harrassing the plaintiffs, of stifling competition, and of preventing persons from accepting employment or association with the plaintiffs. The conduct of the defendants have caused and will cause immediate and irreparable damage not adequately compensable by the payment of damages.

WHEREFORE the plaintiffs demand judgment as follows:

1. That a temporary and permanent injunction issue restraining and enjoining the defendants and each of them from interfering and unlawfully and wrongfully injuring the plaintiffs in their ability to earn their livelihood and from interfering with persons seeking to associate with or accepting employment from the plaintiffs.

2. That damages, both compensatory and punitive, be awarded the plaintiffs against the defendants and each of them.

3. That the plaintiffs recover treble damages for the injuries and damages which they have sustained to their business and property under the Sherman Antitrust Act and the Clayton Act.

4. That judgment be entered against the defendants in the sum of Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000.00) damages together with reasonable attorneys fees and costs and disbursements of this action.

5. And for such other and further relief as may appear appropriate and just. SCHWARTZ & FRIEDMAN.

STERLING OPTICAL CORP., Washington, D.C., February 1964. DEAR STUDENT: Because you attend a Washington area school, you are eligible for Sterling Optical's new student plan for the fitting of Contact Lenses. The plan is simple: It is based on the fact that students in your age group

are:

1. Most receptive to the idea of changing from spectacles to modern Contact Lenses, and

2. Most valuable to Sterling Optical in public relations manner. Because of these two factors, we have found it to be less time consuming to fit students with Contact Lenses. There is more psychological acceptance to Contact Lenses in people of your age group. This eliminates a time consuming factor which may be found in fitting other individuals.

Sterling's student plan offers a ten percent reduction to all students who come to Sterling Optical's Contact Lens information center in groups of three or more.