[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 163 (Tuesday, August 24, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46201-46203]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-21919]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

[File No. 991 0038]


Pools By Ike, Inc., et al.; Analysis To Aid Public Comment

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.

ACTION: Proposed Consent Agreement.

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

SUMMARY: The consent agreement in this matter settles alleged 
violations of federal law prohibiting unfair or deceptive acts or 
practices or unfair methods of competition. The attached Analysis to 
Aid Public Comment describes both the allegations in the draft 
complaint that accompanies the consent agreement and the terms of the 
consent order--embodied in the consent agreement--that would settle 
these allegations.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 25, 1999.


[[Page 46202]]


ADDRESSES: Comments should be directed to: FTC/Office of the Secretary, 
Room 159, 600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20580.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Dahdouh or David Newman, 
Federal Trade Commission, Western Regional Office, 901 Market St., 
Suite 570, San Francisco, CA 94103. (415) 356-5294 or 356-5280.

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 complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of 
the consent agreement package can be obtained from the FTC Home Page 
(for August 18, 1999), on the World Wide Web, at ``http://www.ftc.gov/
os/actions97.htm.'' A paper copy can be obtained from the FTC Public 
Reference Room, Room H-130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 
20580, either in person or by calling (202) 326-3627.
    Public comment is invited. Comments should be directed to: FTC/
Office of the Secretary, Room 159, 600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, 
Washington, DC 20580. Two paper copies of each comment should be filed, 
and should be accompanied, if possible, by a 3\1/2\ inch diskette 
containing an electronic copy of the comment. 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 (``Commission'') has accepted, subject 
to final approval, an Agreement Containing Consent Order (``Order'') 
from fourteen swimming pool contractors in Bakersfield, California, a 
city of 224,000 people in Kern County in the Central Valley of 
California. As alleged in the Commission's proposed complaint, these 
swimming pool contractors were part of an unlawful price-fixing and 
group boycott combination that began in the Spring of 1998. The 
proposed Order is designed to prevent the recurrence of these 
anticompetitive practices engaged in by these swimming pool 
contractors.

The Proposed Complaint

    The proposed complaint alleges that, in the Spring of 1998, 
fourteen swimming pool contractors formed an informal group, known as 
the Southern Valley Pool Association (the ``Association''). The 
complaint alleges that, through the Association meetings and other 
communications, some of these swimming pool contractors agreed to 
increase prices substantially to homeowners for swimming pool 
construction. The proposed complaint also alleges that, as a result of 
this combination, some of these contractors thereafter significantly 
increased their prices to homeowners.
    The proposed complaint also alleges that some of these swimming 
pool contractors engaged in a group boycott designed to prevent 
homeowners from escaping this collective price increase by turning to 
alternative means for the construction of swimming pools. According to 
the Commission's proposed complaint, homeowners usually hire a swimming 
pool contractor to handle all aspects of constructing a swimming pool. 
Some homeowners, however, may choose to enter into an arrangement, 
known in the industry as an ``owner-builder'' arrangement, by which 
they hire subcontractors directly or use swimming pool contractors as 
consultants only in arranging for subcontractors. In this way, 
homeowners who act as owner-builders are able to save substantial 
amounts of money.\1\ Similarly, home construction developers and 
contractors may hire swimming pool contractors to handle all aspects of 
constructing a swimming pool, or they may hire subcontractors directly 
for that purpose.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In owner-builder arrangements, liability in the event of an 
accident or injury during construction falls on the homeowner, 
rather than on the pool contractor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the Commission's proposed complaint, owner-builders 
were viewed as a major threat to the success of the collective efforts 
by some swimming pool contractors to raise prices to homeowners. 
Homeowners acting as owner-builders could work directly with 
subcontractors or use pool contractors only as consultants and thereby 
defeat the price increase. Similarly, home construction developers and 
contractors could also work directly with subcontractors (rather than 
with pool contractors) and similarly defeat the price increase. To 
effectuate this group boycott, the proposed complaint alleges that, 
beginning in early April 1998, a series of meetings was held, with some 
of respondents and all or nearly all of each trade of subcontractors in 
attendance. At these meetings, some respondents:
     instructed the subcontractors to raise their prices to 
owner-builders by 50 percent and to home construction developers and 
contractors by 25 percent, substantial price hikes that were designed 
to eliminate or reduce the savings homeowners and home construction 
developers and contractors would normally realize by bypassing pool 
contractors and dealing directly with subcontractors;
     warned the subcontractors that the respondents would stop 
subcontracting with them if the subcontractors did not increase their 
prices to owner-builders and home construction developers and 
contractors as set forth above; and
     offered the subcontractors a quid pro quo whereby, if the 
subcontractors agreed to increase prices to owner-builders and home 
construction developers and contractors as set forth above, respondents 
would agree to a specified increase (the amount of which varied 
depending on the particular subcontracting work being done) in the 
price subcontractors charged respondents for subcontractor services.
    As a direct result of these meetings, according to the proposed 
complaint, most of the subcontractors raised their prices to pool 
contractors by the specified amounts on or about May 15, 1998. Also as 
a direct result of these meetings, some subcontractors began charging 
or sought to charge owner-builders and home construction developers and 
contractors substantially higher prices than they charged swimming pool 
contractors. Other subcontractors stopped doing owner-builder jobs 
altogether, because they were fearful of losing their work with 
respondents.
    According to the proposed complaint, the effects of these 
collective actions are to increase prices for swimming pool 
construction services and swimming pool subcontracting services and to 
interfere with consumers' choice in deciding to build their swimming 
pool in an owner-builder arrangement or through home construction 
developers or contractors.

The Proposed Order

    The proposed Order contains provisions designed to remedy the 
violations charged and to prevent the proposed respondents from 
engaging in similar acts and practices in the future.
    Paragraph II of the proposed Order would prohibit the proposed

[[Page 46203]]

respondents from (1) entering into any agreement, express or implied, 
relating to the price for swimming pool contracting or subcontracting 
services and (2) requesting, proposing, threatening, urging, 
recommending, advocating, or attempting to persuade in any way anyone 
else to alter in any way their price and terms for such services. 
Paragraphs II.A.(1) and B.(1) These provisions will prevent future 
efforts, whether by agreement or through requests to others, to raise 
prices and alter terms for both swimming pool contracting and 
subcontracting services.
    Paragraph II would also prohibit the proposed respondents from 
entering into any agreement to refuse to deal with owner-builders or 
home construction contractors or developers. Paragraph II.A.(2). It 
would bar them as well from requesting, proposing, threatening, urging, 
recommending, advocating, or attempting to persuade in any way any 
swimming pool contractor or subcontractor to refuse categorically to 
deal with owner-builders, home construction contractors or developers, 
or swimming pool contractors who act or wish to act as consultants for 
owner-builders. Paragraphs II.B.(2) and (3). Finally, Paragraph II 
would prohibit respondents from requesting, proposing, threatening, 
urging, recommending, advocating, or attempting to persuade in any way 
any subcontractor with respect to the terms of that subcontractor's 
dealings with owner-builders, home construction contractors or 
developers, or swimming pool contractors who act or wish to act as 
consultants for owner-builders. Paragraph II.B.(4).
    Together, these provisions will bar respondents, collectively as 
well as individually, from seeking (1) to stop any subcontractor from 
working for owner-builders, home contractors or developers, and 
swimming contractors who act or desire to act as consultants for owner-
builders; (2) to change the prices and terms subcontractors charge 
those homeowners and contractors; and (3) to stop other swimming pool 
contractors from working for those homeowners and contractors. These 
provisions, by barring individual efforts as well as collective ones, 
fence in respondents from engaging in conduct similar or dangerously 
close to the unlawful activity they engaged in earlier.
    A proviso to Paragraph II makes it clear that nothing in this 
Paragraph prohibits any respondents from discussing and/or entering 
into a specific proposed or actual business transaction or project in 
which those involved are or would be in a contractor/subcontractor or 
other joint or cooperative working relationship.
    Paragraph III of the Order requires respondents, for a period of 
five years, to tape record all meetings and maintain copies of those 
tape recordings and all materials distributed at the meetings. This 
provision should have a prophylactic effect in ensuring that the 
respondents do not seek to engage in such anticompetitive conduct 
again.
    The proposed Order also requires that, should the respondents turn 
the Association into a more formal organization, they must incorporate 
Paragraph II of this Order by reference in the by-laws of such 
organization and distribute a copy of the by-laws to each of the 
members of the organization. Paragraph IV. Finally, the Order contains 
reporting requirements (Paragraphs V. and VI.) and provisions 
guaranteeing Commission staff access should the need arise (Paragraph 
VII.).

Opportunity for Public Comment

    The proposed consent Order has been placed on the public record for 
sixty (60) days for reception 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 
withdraw from the agreement or make final the agreement's proposed 
Order.
    The purpose of this analysis is to invite public comment on the 
proposed Order. This analysis is not intended to constitute an official 
interpretation of the agreement and proposed Order or to modify their 
terms in any way.

    By direction of Commission.
[FR Doc. 99-21919 Filed 8-23-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6750-01-M