Opinion

Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

Court
Texas Attorney General Reports
Filed
Jul 2, 1974
Status
Published
On the bench
John Hill
Cited by
0 cases

The opinion

JOUN E ,-

-.-

August 21, 1974

The Honorable John F. Boff, Opinion No. H- 375

Execrttive Director.

Texar Board of ~miners in the Fitting Re: Whether name of city

& Dispensing of Hearing Aida with wordr ‘Hearing Aid

1W2 Guadalupe,’ Room 100s Center” or similar wordr

Austin, Texan 787Oi ia misleading advertising

under Article 4566~1.10,(10),

v. T.C. s.

Dear Mr. Boff:

Citing Article 4566-l. 10 (10); V. T. C. S; , .and Rule 10 of the Federal

Trade Commirrion~o Trade Practice.R&er for the Hearing Aid Indurtry,

you l&e acrked:

Doea the name of the commercial ertablirrhmentr.

“Austin Hearing Aid Center, I’or “San Antonio

Hearing Aid Service” comply with said Rule and

Article?

Article 4566-l. 10 is a part of the law adopted in 1969 to regulate

the hearing aid industry (Acts 1969, 61st Leg., Ch. 366, p. 1122). The

Act calls for the creation of. the Texas Board of Examiners in the Fitting

and Mepeneing of Hearing Aida (Article 4566-l. 02) and charges it with

the duty of enforcing the Act (Article 4566-l. 04) including its licensing .’

pr~virrions. Article 4566-1.10, V. T. C. S., li.ets the grounds upon which

the Board may refuse to license an applicant or revoke the license of a

licenree. One such reason is found in subparagraph (10):

(10) The licensee knowingly used or caused or promoted

the use of any advertising matter, promotional*terature,

guarantees, warranty, disseminated or published with

p. 1763

The Honorable John F. Boff page 2 (H-375)

misleading, deceiving or false information. It is

the intention of the Legislature that the provisions .

of this Subsection (IO) and the following Subsection

(11) be interpreted insofar as possible to coincide

with the orders and rules of the Federal Trade

Commission on such subjects.

Rule 10 of the Federal Trade ~ommissiosi Trade Practice Rules

for the Hearing Aid Industry was promulgated July 20, 1965 .and is quoted

as follows:

It is an unfair trade practice for ati industry member

to represent directly or by impIi&ion, that a commer-

cial hearing aid establishment’is a governmental or

public one, or is a nonprofit’medical, educational, or

research institution, though the use of terms having a

medi+, professional,. or scientific connotation, such

as, ‘Wearing Center, ” ‘Hearing Institute, ‘I Wearing

Bureau, ” “Hearing Clinic, ” Wtate’s Speech and

Hearing Center, ” or similar representations,

Nothing in this rule. is understood to preclude an

industry member from representing if such be the

fact, that he owns, operates, or controls a ‘Hearing

Aid Center, ” or from Ming other words or expressions

which clearly and nondeceptively identify the member’s

establishment as a commercial hearing aid enterprise.

Article 4566-l. 11; V. T. C. S., establishes the procedure for revoco-

tion.or suspension of a license. It calls for charge8 to be filed under oath

Applicants or licensees are entitled to be present and to be represented by

counsel. They may cross-examine witnesses and call witnessess of their

OWL

(e) The Board shall deter’mine the charges upon their

merits. The Board shall enter an order in the

permanent records of the Board setting forth the

p. 1764

~The Honorable John F. Boff page S (H-375)

findings of fact and law .of the Board and its action

thereon. A copy of such order of the Board aball

be mailed to ruch applicant or licensee to his last

known address by certified mail.

We cannot say that as a matter of law, the use of the name of

a city in the name of a bu.siners dispensing hearing .aids is misleading

or deceiving. Whether it is. will depend upon the facts of a particular

case. The Board is charged with the responsibility of making that

decision after notice and an. opportunity to be heard.

SUMMARY

Article 4566-1.10 gives the Texas Board of

Examiners in the Fitting and Mapensing of

Hearing Aids power to determine, after notice

‘and hearing, whether the use of a city name

with the words “Hearing Aid Center” is deceptive

or misleading as a matter of fact.

Very truly yours,

DAVID M. KENDALL, Chairman

Opinion Committee

p. 1765

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.