Federal Trade Commission Summary

695 Words2 Pages

In the article, “The Possible Benefits of the Federal Trade Commission” by Alexander W. Smith, it addresses competition in trade as warfare, and furthermore, it notes how the Federal Trade Commission is for the people (1916). This means the sum of all of the businesses, government, and politics must be regulated by the Federal Trade Commission in order to be serving the public’s best interests (Smith 1916). Smith argues the “obvious cause of the trust problem is the unlimited power to create corporations now lodged in the several states with no adequate power vested anywhere to control them” (1916). Based on this statement, it reiterates the importance how if there is not enough regulation for corporations, the public will suffer due to the …show more content…

Is it permissible to allow certain corporations with more power, more political influence, and more money to have absolute control over the given market? In the journal article, “Trade Restraints: Federal Trade Commission: False Representation as Unfair Method of Competition,” it states how under the Federal Trade Commission Act unfair methods of competition in commerce are declared unlawful (1937). Furthermore, it addresses whether it is permissible to have a product being sold under two names while representing it is sold for less than the usual price, (“Trade Restraints: Federal Trade Commission: False Representation as Unfair Method of Competition,” 1937). This is important to note because forms of unfair competition still exist within corporations, even with the Federal Trade Commission being a part of …show more content…

The provisions for suppliers of products is to require them to provide proportionally equal assistance to all competing resellers of their products (Dufresne 1972). An example would be an instance in Lakeland, Florida consisting of ‘free’ offers of an established brand’s toothbrush with the corresponding brand’s toothpaste (Dufrense 1972). However, the 1971 ‘free’ guide only allows for situations in which the offer is proper, and if no sale has been made prior (Dufrense 1972). The 1971 ‘free’ guide addresses that when a new product or service is being introduced, it must be at the same price for which it was promoted for (Dufrense 1972). This means it would not be permissible in this instance to sell the toothbrush or toothpaste for any cost other than ‘free’ because when the supplier decided to sell the toothbrush when it came out as new as ‘free,’ The Lakeland example addresses how the supplier would then be required to offer the special promotion to all drug stores, grocery stores, and other miscellaneous shops in which are competing in and around Lakeland promoting the brand to be sold (Dufrense

Open Document