Splitfire, Inc.; Analysis to Aid Public Comment

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

[File No. 952-3029]

Splitfire, Inc.; Analysis to Aid Public Comment

Agency: Federal Trade Commission.

action: Proposal Consent Agreement.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

summary: In settlement of alleged violations of federal law prohibiting

unfair or deceptive acts or practices and unfair methods of

competition, this consent agreement, accepted subject to final

Commission approval, would prohibit, among other things, the

Northbrook, Illinois-based spark-plug marketer from making deceptive

claims about the fuel economy, emissions, horsepower, or cost savings

gained from using its ``split electrode'' spark plugs and from

misrepresenting the results of tests, studies, or research and of

testimonials. The complaint accompanying the consent agreement alleges

that Splitfire made false or unsubstantiated economy, efficiency, and

improved performance claims for its spark plugs.

dates: Comments must be received on or before April 21, 1997.

addresses: Comments should be directed to: FTC/Office of the Secretary,

Room 159, 6th St. and Pa. Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580.

for further information contact: Laura Fremont, Federal Trade

Commission, San Francisco Regional Office, 901 Market Street, Suite

570, San Francisco, CA 94103 (415) 356-5270.

supplementary information: Pursuant to Section 6(f) of the Federal

Trade Commission Act, 38 Stat. 721, 15 U.S.C. 46, and Section 2.34 of

the Commission's Rules of Practice (16 CFR 2.34), notice is hereby

given that the above-captioned consent agreement containing a consent

order to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject

to final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public

record for a period of sixty (60) days. The following Analysis to Aid

Public comment describes the terms of the consent agreement, and the

allegations in the accompanying complaint. An electronic copy of the

full text of the consent agreement package can be obtained from the

Commission Actions section of the FTC Home Pace (for February 11,

1997), on the World Wide Web, at ``http://www.ftc.gov/os/actions/htm.''

A paper copy can be obtained from the FTC Public Reference Room, Room

H-130, Sixth Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.

20580, either in person or by calling (202) 326-3627. Public comment is

invited. Such comments or views will be considered by the Commission

and will be available for inspection and copying at its principal

office in accordance with Section 4.9(b)(6)(ii) of the Commission's

Rules of Practice (16 CFR 4.9(b)(6)(ii)).

Analysis of Proposed Consent Order to Aid Public Comment

The Federal Trade Commission has provisionally accepted an

agreement to a proposed consent order from respondent SplitFire, Inc.,

an Illinois corporation that markets automotive products.

The proposed consent order has been placed on the public record for

sixty (60) days for receipt of comments by interested persons. Comments

received during this period will become part of the public record.

After sixty (60) days, the Commission will again review the agreement

and the comments received and will decide whether it should make final

the agreement's proposed order, or withdraw from the agreement and take

other appropriate action.

This matter concerns the advertising of SplitFire's ``SplitFire''

spark plug, which has one v-shaped, or ``split'' electrode. The

Commission's complaint charges that SplitFire's advertising

represented, without a reasonable basis, that use of SplitFire Spark

Plugs results in significantly better fuel economy, significantly

greater horsepower, and significantly lower emissions than use of

either conventional (non split-electrode) spark plugs of platinum-

tipped spark plugs. The Commission's complaint also charges that

respondent represented, without a reasonable basis, that use of

SplitFire Spark Plugs will result in significant cost savings over use

of either conventional or platinum-tipped spark plugs.

In addition, the complaint alleges that the company lacked a

reasonable basis for its claim that 70% of SplitFire Spark Plugs users

achieve a gas mileage increase of from 1 to 6 more miles per gallon.

Further, the complaint alleges as false SplitFire's claim that these

figures were based on competent and reliable studies or surveys.

Lastly, the Commission's complaint charges that respondent

represented, without a reasonable basis, that the testimonials or

endorsements from consumers appearing in advertisements and promotional

materials for its spark plugs reflect the typical or ordinary

experience of members of the public who use SplitFire Spark Plugs.

The proposed consent order contains provisions designed to remedy

the violations charged and to prevent the respondent from engaging in

similar acts and practices in the future.

Part I of the proposed order prohibits SplitFire, Inc., from

representing, without competent and reliable scientific evidence, the

effect of any motor vehicle product on a vehicle's fuel economy,

emissions, or horsepower. Part I also prohibits the company from

representing, without competent and reliable scientific evidence, the

comparative or absolute cost savings that any motor vehicle product

will contribute to or achieve. Part II of the proposed order prohibits

respondent, when advertising any motor vehicle product, from

misrepresenting the existence, contents, validity, results, conclusions

or interpretations of any test, study, or research.

Part III of the proposed order addresses claims made through

endorsements or testimonials. Under Part III, respondent may make such

representations if respondent possesses and relies upon competent and

reliable scientific evidence that substantiates the representations; or

respondent must disclose either what the generally expected results

would be for users of the advertised product, or the limited

applicability of the endorser's experience to what consumers may

generally expect to achieve. The proposed order's treatment of

testimonial claims is in accordance with the Commission's ``Guides

Concerning Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising,'' 16

C.F.R. 255.2(a).

Part IV of the proposed order requires respondent to possess

adequate substantiation for any representation regarding the

performance, benefits, or efficacy of any motor vehicle product.

The proposed order also requires respondent to maintain advertising

materials and materials relied upon to substantiate claims covered by

the order; to provide a copy of the consent agreement to certain

personnel in the company; to notify the Commission of any change in the

corporate structure that might affect compliance with the order; and to

file one or more reports detailing compliance with the order.

[[Page 7786]]

Under Part IX, the order terminates 20 years from the date of

issuance, except under certain specified conditions.

The purpose of this analysis is to facilitate public comment on the

proposed order. It is not intended to constitute an official

interpretation of the agreement and proposed order or to modify in any

way their terms.

Donald S. Clark,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97-4145 Filed 2-19-97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6750-01-M