## Facts

- Charles of the Ritz Distributors Corporation, a New York company, sold and distributed a cosmetic called “Charles of the Ritz Rejuvenescence Cream” in interstate commerce.
- The product was a make-up foundation or powder base cream; it was widely marketed from 1934 to 1939 and generated about $1,000,000 in sales before sales were temporarily discontinued after an FTC complaint issued.
- The company’s advertising claimed the cream contained a “vital organic ingredient” and would produce youthful skin effects, including “clear radiance,” “petal-like quality and texture of youth,” restored moisture, and a “bloom” that was “wonderfully rejuvenating.”
- After administrative hearings, the FTC found the advertisements conveyed that the cream would rejuvenate skin and restore youth or the appearance of youth regardless of the user’s age or skin condition.
- The FTC credited expert evidence that external cosmetics cannot reverse age-related physiological skin changes or overcome skin conditions caused by systemic factors, and that medical science knew of no treatment that could rejuvenate aged skin.
- The FTC issued a cease-and-desist order directing the company to stop (1) using “Rejuvenescence,” or similar terms, to name or describe the cream, and (2) advertising, directly or by inference, that the cream would rejuvenate skin or restore youth or the appearance of youth.
- The company petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to review and set aside the FTC order.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial evidence supported the FTC’s finding that the company’s advertising was false and misleading by representing that the cream would rejuvenate skin or restore youth or the appearance of youth.
2. Whether the cease-and-desist order was impermissibly broad, including the prohibition on using the product name “Rejuvenescence” (and similar terms).

## Decision

- The Second Circuit sustained the FTC’s findings that the advertising was deceptive within the meaning of the Federal Trade Commission Act.
- The court held that substantial evidence supported the FTC’s determination that the ads communicated a promise of youth-restoring physiological effects that the product could not deliver.
- The court upheld the order’s ban on using “Rejuvenescence” (and similar terms) as part of the product’s designation because, in context, the name itself conveyed a deceptive claim.
- The court affirmed the core prohibitions barring representations, express or implied, that the cream would rejuvenate skin or restore youth or the appearance of youth.

## Legal Principles

- Deceptiveness is evaluated by the net impression an advertisement makes on ordinary consumers, not by isolating phrases or applying technical lawyerly parsing.
- Claims implying medical, scientific, or physiological effects must be supported by competent evidence; if contemporary scientific knowledge does not support the promised results, the FTC may treat the claims as false or misleading.
- The FTC may prohibit not only explicit misstatements but also trade names or descriptive terms that, in their marketing context, inherently communicate a material false representation.
- On judicial review, the FTC’s factual findings are binding if supported by substantial evidence, reflecting deference to the agency’s specialized role in policing deceptive advertising.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit upheld an FTC cease-and-desist order against cosmetic advertising that promised youth-restoring “rejuvenation” without scientific support, including a prohibition on the product name “Rejuvenescence” because it functioned as a deceptive representation in context.


Charles of the Ritz Distribs. Corp. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 143 F.2d 676 (2d Cir. 1944)