## Facts

- International Harvester manufactured about 1.6 million gasoline-powered farm tractors (1939–1975) with fuel tanks positioned near the operator and engine.
- Some tractors experienced “fuel geysering,” where heat and pressure caused hot fuel to be expelled if the cap was removed, leading to burn injuries and tractor fires.
- The company became aware of the hazard over time but provided only partial warnings for many years.
- The company issued dealer communications beginning in the late 1950s and revised manuals in 1963 to caution against removing the cap when the engine was hot, without clearly describing the hazard’s nature or severity.
- In 1976, the company prepared a warning decal but distributed it in a limited way that did not reach most owners.
- In 1979–1980, the company implemented a “Fuel Fire Prevention Program” that mailed more detailed hazard information and precautions to customers.
- The FTC alleged the company’s long-term failure to provide adequate consumer warnings about a known safety risk was an unfair method of competition and an unfair or deceptive act or practice in or affecting commerce under FTC Act § 5.

## Issues

1. Whether International Harvester’s long-term failure to adequately warn users of the known risk of fuel geysering was an unfair act or practice under FTC Act § 5.
2. Whether the same failure to warn also constituted deception under FTC Act § 5 (i.e., a representation, practice, or omission likely to mislead reasonable consumers).
3. Whether additional remedial relief should be ordered given the company’s cessation of gasoline-tractor production and its voluntary customer notification program.

## Decision

- The Commission affirmed a § 5 violation on unfairness grounds based on the failure to adequately disclose the fuel-geysering hazard.
- The Commission reversed the ALJ’s deception finding, concluding the record did not establish a representation, practice, or omission likely to mislead consumers as required for deception.
- The Commission declined to order additional remedial measures, finding the company’s voluntary notification program already provided as much practical relief as a Commission order would provide and noting the company no longer manufactured gasoline-powered tractors.

## Legal Principles

- Unfairness under FTC Act § 5 may be found where consumer injury is substantial, not reasonably avoidable by consumers, and not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or competition.
- A manufacturer’s failure to warn of a known, latent, serious product-safety hazard can be an unfair practice when consumers cannot reasonably discover or avoid the risk without disclosure.
- Deception under FTC Act § 5 requires a representation, practice, or omission likely to mislead reasonable consumers; a failure to warn, without a showing of misleading conduct on the record, does not automatically satisfy deception.
- In setting relief, the Commission may consider whether subsequent voluntary measures and changed circumstances make additional orders unnecessary or ineffective.

## Conclusion

The Commission concluded that International Harvester’s prolonged, inadequate disclosure of a known fuel-geysering safety hazard was unfair under FTC Act § 5, rejected deception absent proof of misleading representations or omissions likely to mislead, and imposed no additional remedial obligations beyond the company’s existing voluntary notification efforts.


In re Int'l Harvester Co., 104 F.T.C. 949 (1984)