[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 248 (Tuesday, December 28, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 81443-81454]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-32273]


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

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

16 CFR Part 23


Guides for the Jewelry, Precious Metals, and Pewter Industries

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission (``FTC'' or ``Commission'').

ACTION: Final Guides Amendments.

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

SUMMARY: The Commission announces amendments to the FTC's Guides for 
the Jewelry, Precious Metals, and Pewter Industries. The amendments in 
particular provide guidance on how to mark and describe non-deceptively 
an alloy of platinum and non-precious metals, consisting of at least 
500 parts per thousand, but less than 850 parts per thousand, pure 
platinum and less than 950 parts per thousand total platinum group 
metals.

DATES: Effective Date: December 28, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robin Rosen Spector, Attorney, (202) 
326-3740, Division of Enforcement, Bureau of Consumer Protection, or 
Janice Podoll Frankle, Attorney, (202) 326-3022, Office of the 
Secretary, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20580.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to public comments and consumer 
survey evidence submitted in response to two Federal Register Notices, 
the FTC amends the Platinum Group Metals Section (hereinafter 
``Platinum Section'') of the Commission's Guides for the Jewelry, 
Precious Metals, and Pewter Industries (``Jewelry Guides'' or 
``Guides''), 16 CFR 23.7, and also amends the Scope and Application 
Section of the Guides, 16 CFR 23.0. The amendments to the Platinum 
Section provide that marketers may non-deceptively mark and describe 
``platinum/base metal alloys,'' those containing at least 500 parts per 
thousand (``ppt''), but less than 850 ppt, pure platinum and less than 
950 ppt total platinum group metals (``PGM'') as ``platinum'' using 
certain disclosures.\1\ In supporting this conclusion, the following 
Federal Register Notice provides background information; summarizes the 
record established by the public comments; analyzes this record based 
on the applicable Commission standard; and sets forth the text of the 
amendments to the Platinum

[[Page 81444]]

Section and to the Scope and Application Section of the Guides.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Platinum Group Metals are platinum, iridium, palladium, 
ruthenium, rhodium, and osmium. 16 CFR 23.7(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Background

A. The Platinum Section of the Jewelry Guides

    The Commission issued the Jewelry Guides to help marketers avoid 
making jewelry claims that are unfair or deceptive under Section 5 of 
the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 45. Industry guides, such as these, are 
administrative interpretations of the law. Therefore, they do not have 
the force of law and are not independently enforceable. The Commission 
can take action under the FTC Act, however, if a business makes 
marketing claims inconsistent with the Guides. In any such enforcement 
action, the Commission must prove that the act or practice at issue is 
unfair or deceptive in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The Commission is adding two new paragraphs to Section 23.0 
to clarify the scope and application of the Jewelry Guides. This 
does not represent a change in Commission law or policy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To help marketers avoid unfair or deceptive acts or practices in 
connection with the sale of platinum, the Platinum Section contains a 
general statement regarding the deceptive use of the term ``platinum'' 
(and the names of other PGM) and provides examples of potentially 
misleading and non-violative uses of the term ``platinum.'' \3\ 
Specifically, Section 7(a) states:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ On April 8, 1997 (62 FR 16669), the Commission published the 
current Platinum Section. The Commission revised this section as 
part of its most recent comprehensive review of the Guides.

    It is unfair or deceptive to use the words ``platinum,'' 
``iridium,'' ``palladium,'' ``ruthenium,'' ``rhodium,'' and 
``osmium,'' or any abbreviation to mark or describe all or part of 
an industry product if such marking or description misrepresents the 
product's true composition.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 16 CFR 23.7(a).

Section 7(b) provides three examples of markings or descriptions for 
products containing platinum that may be misleading.\5\ Section 7(c) 
provides four examples not considered unfair or deceptive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ These examples provide that it may be misleading: (1) To 
describe a product with less than 950 ppt pure platinum as 
``platinum'' without qualification; (2) to describe a product with 
less than 850 ppt, but more than 500 ppt, pure platinum as 
``platinum'' without qualifying the representation with a disclosure 
identifying the ppt of pure platinum and the ppt of other platinum 
group metals contained in the product; (3) to use the word 
``platinum'' or any abbreviation to mark or describe any product 
that contains less than 500 ppt pure platinum. 16 CFR 23.7(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Procedural History

    On December 15, 2004, Karat Platinum, a jewelry manufacturer, 
requested an FTC staff opinion regarding the application of the 
Platinum Section to a new product consisting of 585 ppt platinum and 
415 ppt copper and cobalt (non-precious metals). The request stated 
that the company believed that the Platinum Section did not prohibit 
marking or describing the product as ``platinum,'' or address how to 
mark or describe the product other than to prohibit misrepresentations. 
The staff responded on February 2, 2005, agreeing that the Guides did 
not address the marketing of this product, and providing guidance.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The request for a staff opinion and the staff's response to 
that request are located at http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/jewelry/letters/karatplatinum.pdf and http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/jewelry/letters/karatplatinum002.pdf, respectively. The staff letter 
stated that ``this alloy [is] sufficiently different in composition 
from products consisting of platinum and other PGM as to require 
clear and conspicuous disclosure of the differences.'' The staff 
letter also explained that it did not appear ``that simple stamping 
of the jewelry's content (e.g., 585 Plat., 0 PGM) would be 
sufficient to alert consumers to the differences between the Karat 
Platinum alloy and platinum products containing other PGM.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because of the public interest in this issue, the Commission 
published a Federal Register Notice (``2005 FRN'') \7\ soliciting 
public comment regarding whether it should revise the Guides to address 
this new product. The Commission also sought comment regarding whether 
the Guides should address how to mark or describe non-deceptively 
platinum-clad, filled, coated, or overlay jewelry products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 70 FR 38834 (July 6, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the 2005 FRN comments and consumer survey evidence, the 
Commission issued a Federal Register Notice in 2008 (``2008 FRN'') 
soliciting comment on a proposed amendment to the Platinum Section to 
address these issues. Prior to the close of the comment period on May 
27, 2008, the Platinum Guild International (``PGI'') and the Jewelers' 
Vigilance Committee (``JVC'') requested a 90-day extension. The 
Commission extended the comment period until August 25, 2008.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 73 FR 22848 (Apr. 28, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. The 2005 FRN Comments

    The vast majority of the 62 responsive comments \9\ recommended 
that the Commission revise the Platinum Section to include guidance for 
platinum/base metal alloy jewelry. These commenters further recommended 
that the Commission provide that marking or describing platinum/base 
metal alloy jewelry as ``platinum'' is deceptive. The commenters 
asserted that platinum jewelry has always been produced as nearly pure 
or combined with other PGM (hereafter ``platinum/PGM''),\10\ and that 
platinum/base metal alloys do not share the same characteristics as 
these products.\11\ Karat Platinum disagreed that the use of the term 
``platinum'' to describe platinum/base metal alloys is deceptive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The Commission's summary and analysis of the 2005 FRN 
comments is detailed in the 2008 FRN, 73 FR 10190 (Feb. 26, 2008). 
The 62 comments to the 2005 FRN are posted at: http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/jewelryplatinum/index.shtm.
    \10\ Currently the Guides specifically address the marketing of 
products containing: (1) At least 85% platinum; or (2) at least 50% 
and less than 85% platinum, and at least 95% total PGM.
    \11\ See, e.g., JVC Comment 2005 at 4, 7-8; PGI Comment 2005 at 
16-19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2005 record included consumer perception studies and product 
testing. PGI submitted a study it commissioned from Dr. Thomas J. 
Maronick, (``2005 Platinum Awareness Study''),\12\ a 2003 marketing 
survey conducted by Hall & Partners,\13\ and two tests evaluating 
platinum/base metal alloys.\14\ The 2005 Platinum Awareness Study found 
that 39.5% of consumers believe that products marked or described as 
``platinum'' are pure or nearly pure and that certain qualities or 
attributes typically associated with platinum are important to a 
substantial number of consumers.\15\ The study also found that a 
majority of consumers would not expect platinum/base metal alloys 
containing more than 40% base metal to be called ``platinum'' if they 
do not possess the attributes present in higher purity platinum or 
platinum/other PGM products.\16\ In addition, the study showed that the 
majority of consumers do not fully understand numeric jewelry markings, 
particularly those using chemical abbreviations, such as 585 Pt./415 
Co.Cu. The PGI product tests indicated that certain platinum/base metal 
alloys are inferior to higher purity platinum jewelry in terms of wear 
and oxidation resistance, as well as weight loss, and that they cannot 
be resized using certain procedures.\17\ Karat Platinum submitted a 
test of its alloy which suggested that the alloy is superior or 
equivalent to higher purity platinum jewelry in several respects, but

[[Page 81445]]

is less dense than higher purity platinum jewelry. Karat Platinum did 
not test whether its alloy is hypoallergenic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ PGI Comment 2005, Attachment A. The Maronick study title is 
``Platinum Awareness Study: An Empirical Analysis of Consumers' 
Perceptions of Platinum as an Option in Engagement Ring Settings.''
    \13\ Id., Attachment B.
    \14\ Id. at 3, and Attachments C and D.
    \15\ Id., Attachment A. These attributes included the product's 
weight, durability, scratch and tarnish resistance, and whether it 
was hypoallergenic and could be resized.
    \16\ Higher purity platinum or platinum/other PGM products 
include those containing at least 850 ppt platinum, or at least 500 
ppt platinum and at least 950 ppt PGM.
    \17\ It does not appear that the PGI tests evaluated a product 
identical in composition to the Karat Platinum platinum/base metal 
alloy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Several comments also suggested that the Commission provide 
guidance on how to describe platinum-clad, filled, plated, or overlay 
products, but most did not discuss what guidance the Commission should 
provide.

II. The 2008 FRN and Comments

A. The 2008 FRN

    Based on the 2005 FRN record, the Commission issued a 2008 FRN 
soliciting comment on a proposed revision to the Platinum Section to 
address the marketing of platinum/base metal alloys.\18\ The Commission 
explained that the record supported the conclusion that a substantial 
number of consumers believed products marked or described as 
``platinum'' are nearly pure and possess certain desirable qualities 
that some platinum/base metal alloys may not possess. In addition, the 
Commission stated that the record indicated that if a description of a 
platinum/base metal alloy as ``platinum'' is qualified only with a 
content disclosure using numbers and chemical abbreviations, consumers 
likely would not understand the disclosure. However, there was no 
evidence that a more descriptive disclosure would not adequately 
qualify the claim. The Commission, therefore, proposed specific 
qualifying disclosures.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 73 FR 10190 (Feb. 26, 2008).
    \19\ Id. at 10196-10197.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission's proposal provided that marketers may physically 
mark or stamp a platinum/base metal alloy jewelry article with the 
product's chemical composition (e.g., 585 Pt./215 Co./200 Cu.), but 
that when making any other representation that the product contains 
platinum, marketers should clearly and conspicuously disclose, 
immediately following the name or description of the product:
    (1) That the product contains platinum and other non-platinum group 
metals;
    (2) The product's full composition, by name and not abbreviation, 
and the percentage of each metal; and
    (3) That the product may not have the same attributes or properties 
as products containing at least 850 ppt pure platinum, or at least 500 
ppt pure platinum and at least 950 ppt PGM.

The proposed amendment also included a substantiation provision that 
allowed marketers to forgo the third disclosure if they had competent 
and reliable scientific evidence that, with respect to all attributes 
material to consumers (e.g., the product's durability, 
hypoallergenicity, resistance to tarnishing and scratching, and the 
ability to resize or repair the product), their product is equivalent 
to products containing at least 850 ppt pure platinum, or at least 500 
ppt pure platinum and at least 950 ppt PGM.
    In the 2008 FRN, the Commission again sought comment whether it 
should revise the Platinum Section to address platinum-clad, filled, 
plated, or overlay products and, if so, how.

B. Summary of the Comments

    In response, the Commission received 58 comments.\20\ Most were 
short without detailed discussion. However, Karat Platinum; JVC, on 
behalf of several industry associations; \21\ and PGI submitted 
detailed comments. The JVC and PGI comments included survey evidence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ The 58 comments can be found at: http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/jewelryplatinum2/index.shtm.
    \21\ JVC submitted its comment on behalf of JVC, the 
Manufacturing Jewelers and Suppliers of America, the Jewelers of 
America, and the American Gem Society.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We summarize the comments and survey evidence below addressing: (1) 
Use of the word ``platinum'' to describe platinum/base metal alloys; 
(2) the Commission's proposed disclosures; (3) harmonization with 
international standards; (4) the commenters' proposed amendments to the 
Guides; and (5) guidance regarding platinum-clad, filled, plated, or 
overlay jewelry.
1. Use of the Word ``Platinum''
    Many commenters asserted that use of the term ``platinum'' to 
describe a platinum/base metal alloy would deceive consumers in a 
manner that could not be remedied with disclosures.\22\ Most made this 
assertion without supporting evidence. JVC and PGI, however, relied on 
the findings from PGI's 2005 Platinum Awareness Study and provided 2008 
survey evidence (``2008 Platinum Attitude Study'').\23\ Specifically, 
PGI pointed to the 2008 survey's findings that consumers expect 
products marked or described as ``platinum'' to be nearly pure and that 
products with ``platinum,'' in their name, such as ``Karat Platinum,'' 
``Platinum Five,'' or ``Platinum V,'' confuse or mislead consumers 
concerning the products' metal content and attributes.\24\ PGI argued 
that because of these perceptions, it is inherently misleading to refer 
to platinum/base metal alloys as ``platinum,'' and the deception cannot 
be cured by qualifying language.\25\ Therefore, JVC and PGI asserted 
that marketers should describe platinum/base metal alloys using a name 
that does not include ``platinum'' or ``plat,'' so consumers will not 
be confused or misled about the alloy's contents or attributes.\26\ 
Tiffany & Co. (``Tiffany'') agreed, suggesting that platinum/base metal 
alloys should be ``creatively and individually named by the 
manufacturer.'' \27\ Several other commenters recommended that the FTC 
``consider a new and different name'' for the alloy but did not propose 
a particular name.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See JVC Comment at 2; PGI Comment at 2-3.
    \23\ Dr. Thomas J. Maronick conducted both studies. The title of 
the 2008 Attitude Study is: ``Platinum Attitude Study: Four 
Empirical Studies of Consumers' Attitudes Toward Platinum and 
Substitutes as Options in Engagement Ring Settings.''
    \24\ PGI Comment at 10-11. PGI's consumer surveys asked 
consumers whether they would expect products described with these 
terms to possess the attributes of higher purity platinum/other PGM 
products. PGI Comment, Attachment A, 2008 Platinum Attitude Study 2 
at 1-4. The survey found: Karat Platinum: Definitely Yes, 18%; 
Probably Yes, 42%; Maybe, 21%; Platinum Alloy: Definitely Yes, 6%; 
Probably Yes, 18%; Maybe, 24%; Platinum Five: Definitely Yes, 8%; 
Probably Yes, 23%; Maybe, 36%; Platinum V: Definitely Yes, 8%; 
Probably Yes, 25%; Maybe, 33%; Platifina: Definitely Yes, 3%; 
Probably Yes, 8%; Maybe, 22%; Palarium: Definitely Yes, 4%; Probably 
Yes, 8%; Maybe, 19%.
    \25\ PGI Comment at 3. See also Tiffany & Co. Comment (stating 
that consumers expect a product labeled ``platinum'' to contain an 
industry standard metal of 500 ppt pure platinum with 950 total 
PGM); Lowell Kwiat Comment (explaining that today's platinum is 
generally 95% pure); Gaetano Cavalieri Comment (noting that the 
industry standard practice for generations has restricted platinum 
to alloys containing no fewer than 850 ppt pure platinum); Richard 
Frank Comment (commenting that platinum has traditionally been 90% 
platinum, 10% iridium); William Holland Comment (noting that 
platinum jewelry has always been known to be 90% pure or higher); 
Joseph Klein Comment (platinum was never less than 85% pure under 
any definition); Charles Wallace Comment (``[p]latinum has forever 
been sold as an item of purity and should remain so.'').
    \26\ See PGI Comment at 2, 12, 26-28, 34-35; JVC Comment at 2-3, 
6-7, 14, 18.
    \27\ Tiffany Comment at 3. Kwiat agreed, stating that marketers 
should call consumers' attention to this ``new innovation'' by 
giving it ``a different name which reflects the fact that it is 
different than what has been customary.'' Lowell Kwiat Comment at 2.
    \28\ See, e.g., Birks & Mayors, Inc. Comment; Ben Bridge Jeweler 
Comment; Joseph Cresalia Comment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Karat Platinum disagreed, arguing that the term ``platinum'' can be 
qualified sufficiently so that consumers understand that a product is 
not pure platinum.\29\ Karat Platinum, however, did not submit any 
survey evidence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Karat Platinum Comment at 6-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. The Commission's Proposed Disclosures
    JVC and PGI asserted that the Commission's three proposed 
disclosures were confusing, inadequate,

[[Page 81446]]

and unworkable. Karat Platinum disagreed, but suggested some revisions 
to the third disclosure and asserted that marketers of higher purity 
platinum or platinum/PGM jewelry should be subject to the proposed 
second and third disclosures. Below, we discuss the three proposed 
disclosures.
(a) First Proposed Disclosure
    The first proposed disclosure provided that marketers of platinum/
base metal alloys state that their product ``contains platinum and 
other non-platinum group metals.'' Several commenters argued that this 
disclosure will confuse consumers. For example, 54% of consumers 
surveyed in the 2008 Platinum Attitude Study did not know what the 
phrase ``other non-platinum group metals'' meant.\30\ PGI further 
stated that when the survey asked consumers to classify metals as 
platinum or non-platinum group, they were largely unable to do so 
correctly.\31\ Karat Platinum, by contrast, commented that this 
disclosure would provide useful information to consumers about the 
product.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ PGI Comment, Attachment A, 2008 Platinum Attitude Study 4 
at 1-2. In addition, 26% stated they were not sure what ``other non-
platinum group metals'' were.
    \31\ Id. at 2. Respondents were asked whether they understood 
the phrase ``other non-platinum group metals'' and then were given a 
list of metals and asked if any of them were ``other non-platinum 
group metals.'' In response to the follow-up, 29% of respondents 
stated that palladium was an ``other non-platinum group metal;'' 61% 
said they were not sure; and 11% said no. Palladium is a platinum 
group metal. Similarly, 39% stated copper was an ``other non-
platinum group metal;'' 47% stated they were not sure; and 13% said 
no. Copper is a non-platinum group metal. Id.
    \32\ See Karat Platinum Comment at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(b) Second Proposed Disclosure
    The Commission's second proposed disclosure provided that marketers 
list the full composition of the product (by name and not abbreviation) 
and the percentage of each metal. JVC and PGI asserted that consumers 
will not comprehend this disclosure. In support of this position, JVC 
cited the 2008 Platinum Attitude Study. Specifically, when consumers 
were asked whether they understood the meaning of ``58.5% Platinum and 
41.5% Copper/Cobalt,'' 55% said yes, 33% stated that they did not know, 
and 12% stated that they were not sure.\33\ Moreover, JVC opined that 
because consumers will not understand the disclosure, they will focus 
only on the term ``platinum'' and believe that the product is the 
equivalent of platinum products that are at least 85% platinum.\34\ PGI 
added that listing the percentages of each metal still may not alert 
consumers of the differences between ``diluted'' platinum alloys and 
higher purity products.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See JVC Comment at 8. See PGI Comment, Attachment A, 2008 
Platinum Attitude Study 3 at 2. By contrast, when asked if consumers 
knew what 585Pt.415Co.Cu. meant 81% said no, 13% said yes, and 7% 
said they were not sure. Id. at 1.
    \34\ JVC Comment at 8.
    \35\ PGI Comment at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Tiffany agreed and asserted that disclosing each alloying component 
in full without abbreviation would not achieve consumer knowledge. 
Tiffany noted that research has shown that consumers do not understand 
metal content disclosures. Thus, it contended that ``disclosing that 
the `platinum' piece has a certain percentage of copper * * * is not 
instructive.'' \36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ Tiffany Comment at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In contrast, Karat Platinum asserted that disclosing the 
composition of platinum/base metal alloys using the full names and 
percentages of the constituent metals is a good practice.\37\ It 
explained that the Commission's proposed disclosures--that the product 
contains platinum and other non-platinum group metals and the full 
names and percentage of the metals--``provides the greatest likelihood 
of effectively conveying information to consumers.'' \38\ However, it 
noted that marketers of ``high grade and platinum/PGM'' do not have to 
disclose their products' full composition.\39\ Karat Platinum asserted 
that the Commission should remedy this inconsistency and modify the 
second proposed disclosure to provide that all marketers of platinum 
products make full compositional disclosures.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ Karat Platinum Comment at 6.
    \38\ Id.
    \39\ Id.
    \40\ Karat Platinum Comment at 6-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Karat Platinum opined that full compositional disclosure for all 
platinum products would benefit consumers in at least two ways. First, 
it asserted that it is a ``myth'' that platinum/PGM products are 
composed of an industry-standard material. It noted that high-grade 
platinum products may have ``dramatically different'' characteristics. 
For example, it compared two platinum rings, one containing 95% 
platinum and 5% ruthenium with another containing 95% platinum and 5% 
iridium. It stated that the former product is ``significantly more 
scratch resistant and durable.'' \41\ Second, Karat Platinum explained 
that certain marketers ``have engaged in the long-standing practice of 
characterizing high-grade and platinum/PGM alloys as `pure' platinum'' 
when the products all contain less than 100% platinum.\42\ Karat 
Platinum, however, did not submit any consumer perception evidence 
indicating that the current marketing for higher purity platinum/other 
PGM products misleads consumers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ Id. at 6.
    \42\ Id. at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(c) Third Proposed Disclosure
    The Commission's third proposed disclosure provided that marketers 
disclose ``that the product may not have the same attributes as 
products containing at least 850 parts per thousand pure Platinum, or 
at least 500 parts per thousand pure Platinum and at least 950 parts 
per thousand PGM.'' \43\ The proposed amendment further provided that a 
marketer need not make this third disclosure ``if the marketer has 
competent and reliable scientific evidence that, with respect to all 
attributes material to consumers * * * such product is equivalent to 
[higher purity platinum/other PGM] products.'' Many commenters asserted 
that this disclosure is confusing and unworkable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ 73 FR 10190, 10197.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(i) The Disclosure Is Confusing
    Several commenters asserted that the third disclosure is confusing 
because it does not require that marketers specify the attributes of 
platinum/base metal alloys that differ from platinum/PGM products or 
explain how the alloy differs with respect to these attributes. The 
2008 Platinum Attitude Study asked consumers about eight separate 
product attributes of platinum/base metal engagement rings: durability, 
luster, density, scratch resistance, tarnish resistance, ability to be 
resized or repaired, hypoallergenicity, and the retention of precious 
metal content over time. From 40% to 80% of consumers surveyed 
(depending on the product property) would expect a salesperson to 
inform them about these attributes and would also want the information 
physically attached to the product.\44\ JVC asserted that these results 
demonstrate that the proposed disclosure ``will not impart any of the 
information consumers want and need.'' \45\ The 2008 survey, however, 
did not evaluate consumer understanding of the third proposed 
disclosure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ PGI Comment, Attachment A, 2008 Platinum Attitude Study 1 
at 3.
    \45\ JVC Comment at 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    JVC asserted that ``[t]o make this disclosure fair and complete, 
full disclosure about each of the eight important attributes * * * 
would be required.''\46\ JVC explained: ``[a] consumer could easily 
purchase a [platinum/base metal alloy] ring without

[[Page 81447]]

understanding that it might not hold a diamond as well, or might 
tarnish, or may not be hypoallergenic.''\47\ Other commenters expressed 
similar concerns.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ Id.
    \47\ Id. at 10-11.
    \48\ See, e.g., Anne Howitt Comment; Michael Kranish Comment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Tiffany, for example, explained that ``[o]ur experience has shown 
that consumers who are in the process of buying a platinum product, 
feel as though they understand the product's makeup (platinum is pure) 
and characteristics (hypoallergenicity and others) and are there 
(typically in a rush) to decide based on issues such as style and fit, 
not a chemistry discussion of alloy makeup.'' \49\ Tiffany opined that 
this disclosure, combined with the second, full composition disclosure, 
will baffle and frustrate consumers, potentially causing them to walk 
away from the sale.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ Tiffany Comment at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(ii) The Disclosure Is Unworkable
    The comments further asserted that marketers cannot realistically 
deliver the third proposed disclosure. Specifically, JVC and PGI 
contended that the 2008 Platinum Attitude Study found that consumers 
expect jewelry information to be physically attached to the 
product.\50\ However, both JVC and PGI asserted that the volume of 
information included in the disclosure, combined with the first and 
second proposed disclosures, cannot be attached to the jewelry itself, 
or on a small tag affixed to the jewelry.\51\ JVC further stated that 
if the third proposed disclosure is revised to include additional 
information necessary to fully inform consumers, this additional 
information will make attachment to jewelry more difficult.\52\ 
Therefore, JVC noted, jewelry sales personnel will need to orally 
disclose the information, or provide it in writing with the purchase.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ JVC Comment at 12; PGI Comment at 11.
    \51\ JVC Comment at 11-12; PGI Comment at 4.
    \52\ JVC Comment at 12-13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Several commenters asserted that reliance on the salesperson or on 
written information delivered with the purchase is problematic. JVC 
opined that the average jewelry salesperson would be hard pressed to 
deliver this information.\53\ It further asserted that the jewelry 
retail sales force is not equipped to discuss this complex 
metallurgical disclosure and simply will not provide the information, 
or will provide incorrect information.\54\ PGI noted that it would be 
difficult, if not impossible, to ensure that the sales personnel impart 
correct information comparing all of the differences between a 
multitude of new alloys.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ Id. Similarly, a jeweler commented that it is unrealistic 
for the public to depend on retail sales personnel to accurately 
disclose and explain the differences between platinum/PGM products 
and the platinum/base metal alloy. This jeweler stated that the 
reality of the marketplace is that sales personnel are unlikely to 
explain jewelry specifications unless they are specifically asked. 
Lowell Kwiat Comment at 1.
    \54\ JVC Comment at 12.
    \55\ PGI Comment at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, JVC submitted a Jewelers of America (``JA'') study 
that asked JA members about the ``realities'' of selling jewelry. The 
JA study, in part, found that 57.4% of the respondents said that it 
would be ``difficult'' or ``very difficult'' to tell consumers that the 
jewelry may not have the attributes of higher purity platinum products 
and to explain those differences.\56\ JVC asserted that such technical 
disclosures--spoken or written--at the point of sale are likely to have 
a ``chilling'' effect and that consumers ``may very well walk away from 
any product that requires these confusing, lengthy and unappealing 
disclosures.'' \57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ JVC Comment at 12-13; Attachment Six A.
    \57\ Id. at 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, JVC explained that nearly half of the respondents to the 
JA study stated that attribute disclosures could not be attached to the 
jewelry in the form of a tag or other physical means.\58\ Several 
commenters concurred, asserting that without physical attachment, the 
disclosures likely will not remain with the jewelry product over time. 
JVC explained that the jewelry could be re-sold, repaired, or appraised 
without any identification of the alloy.\59\ It asserted that a jeweler 
repairing a platinum/base metal alloy might not know the contents and 
this could create the risk that the item will be damaged during the 
repair process. A jewelry repair dealer expressed similar concern, 
explaining: ``it will be virtually impossible for any jewelry repair 
technician to properly repair or size * * * jewelry under the new 
proposal.'' \60\ Another commenter opined that, short of an assay of 
the jewelry piece, the platinum/base alloy product distinctions ``will 
not be discernible even to the well trained professional.'' \61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ Id. at 12-13.
    \59\ Id. at 13.
    \60\ Steven DiFranco Comment. See also Anne Howitt Comment; 
Peter LeCody Comment.
    \61\ Lowell Kwiat Comment at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In contrast, Karat Platinum asserted that the proposed disclosures 
do not need to include more detailed information or be physically 
attached to the platinum/base metal alloy products. It suggested that 
marketers' inclusion of the proposed disclosures with the marketing 
materials ``is more than sufficient to ensure that the information is 
available to consumers.'' \62\ It further opined that, by making 
marketing material available, consumers are ``provided with sufficient 
information to put them in a position to inquire from their jewelers, 
or from other knowledgeable sources, such as a company's marketing 
information, Web site, or the Internet, as to the relative value, 
properties, and characteristics of a product.'' \63\ Similarly, another 
commenter stated that the point of sale is the ideal way to inform 
consumers of the platinum/base metal alloy content.\64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ Karat Platinum Comment at 5.
    \63\ Id.
    \64\ Hoover & Strong Comment. Hoover & Strong is a wholesale 
jewelry manufacturer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(d) The Substantiation Provision
    Many commenters asserted that the substantiation provision that 
allows marketers to avoid making the third disclosure is inadequate and 
unworkable because it is too vague and gives marketers too much 
discretion. JVC and PGI explained that, even though the proposed 
amendment lists five important attributes as examples,\65\ the seller 
self-determines which product attributes are material.\66\ JVC asserted 
that a disclosure that relies on a subjective standard presents endless 
possibilities for non-compliance.\67\ Moreover, JVC explained that 
because ``there are no industry-wide, universally-accepted testing 
methods that produce `competent and reliable' evidence,'' there is no 
standard for testing these attributes.\68\ PGI similarly noted that 
marketers are inappropriately left to their own devices to ``cherry 
pick'' which tests they should conduct to self-determine that they are 
exempt from making a particular disclosure.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ The five attributes in the proposed amendment are: 
durability, hypoallergenicity, resistance to tarnishing, resistance 
to scratching, and the ability to re-size or repair the product.
    \66\ JVC Comment at 9; PGI Comment at 4.
    \67\ JVC Comment at 9.
    \68\ Id.
    \69\ PGI Comment at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Karat Platinum raised three concerns with the adequacy of the 
platinum attributes listed in the provision. First, it explained that 
the five attributes listed in the provision do not include all the 
attributes that the 2005 Platinum Awareness Study identified as 
important to the greatest number of consumers.\70\ For example, in that 
study a substantial majority of consumers indicated they would want to 
know the weight of a product setting, yet that

[[Page 81448]]

characteristic was not included explicitly in the third proposed 
disclosure. Second, Karat Platinum noted that because Dr. Maronick pre-
selected the attributes, the participants had no choice in deciding 
which characteristics were important. Third, it asserted that when 
participants were allowed to write in the characteristics important to 
them they ``indicated that they would want to know `everything' about 
the platinum product.'' \71\ Thus, Karat Platinum recommended the 
Commission ``conduct independent fact finding to determine what 
properties are material to consumers.'' \72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ Karat Platinum Comment at 4.
    \71\ Id. at 5.
    \72\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, Karat Platinum contended that the Commission should 
provide that all marketers of platinum products--not just those 
marketing platinum/base metal alloys--``maintain evidence that their 
product meets those expectations,'' or alert consumers that they do 
not.\73\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Harmonization with International Standards
    JVC, PGI, and numerous other commenters asserted that the 
Commission's proposal is not in harmony with international standards 
and will impede foreign commerce.\74\ JVC explained that products made 
of platinum/base metal alloys cannot be sold as ``platinum'' in foreign 
jurisdictions that have adopted standards promulgated by the 
International Organization for Standardization (``ISO'') or the World 
Jewellery Confederation (``CIBJO'').\75\ Moreover, JVC noted that 
platinum/base metal alloys could not be sold as ``platinum'' products 
in ``hallmarking'' countries--those that require that precious metal 
jewelry (including platinum) be stamped by approved assaying guilds 
before they are sold--because they contain base metals.\76\ Thus, JVC 
opined that if platinum/base metal alloy products are marketed as 
``platinum'' in the U.S., it ``will undermine the international 
perception of U.S.-made products, threatening the integrity of the 
entire U.S.-platinum jewelry market abroad.'' \77\ Tiffany agreed, 
noting that the FTC should not take actions to place manufacturers in a 
situation where their products are not salable overseas.\78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ See, e.g., JVC Comment at 14-18; PGI Comment at 5, 18-20; 
Ben Bridge Jeweler Comment; Birks & Mayors Comment; Gaetano 
Cavalieri Comment at 1-3; Joseph Cresalia Comment; Shannon Daly 
Comment; Tiffany Comment at 1-2; Anne Howitt Comment; Norie Jenkins 
Comment; Annette Kinzie Comment; Robert McGee Comment; Mark Noelke 
Comment; Elizabeth Parker Comment; M. Strutz Comment; Craig 
Warburton Comment.
    \75\ JVC Comment at 14-18. JVC explained that the ISO and CIBJO 
standards restrict the use of the word ``platinum'' to platinum/PGM 
alloys. Id. at 16-17.
    \76\ JVC explained that England, France, Germany, and 
Switzerland are hallmarking countries. Id. at 15, n.22.
    \77\ Id. at 18.
    \78\ Tiffany Comment at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Other Suggestions Regarding the Commission's Proposed Amendments
    JVC proposed that the Commission amend the Guides to provide that 
marketers cannot describe any product containing more than 5% non-
platinum group metal as ``platinum.'' \79\ JVC also proposed revising 
the Guides to state that certain practices are unfair or deceptive 
instead of stating that they may be misleading. Karat Platinum 
suggested that the provision in the Commission's proposed amendment 
allowing marketers to physically stamp platinum/base metal alloys with 
their chemical composition and the substantiation provision be included 
in section 23.7(c) of the Platinum Section, instead of section 
23.7(b).\80\ Because section 23.7(c) discusses markings that the 
Commission would not consider misleading, Karat Platinum explained that 
the amendment permitting physical stamping is more appropriate in that 
section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \79\ JVC Comment at 2-3, Attachment One at 2.
    \80\ Karat Platinum Comment at 3-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Platinum-Clad, Filled, Plated, or Overlay Products
    In its 2008 FRN, the Commission also solicited comments concerning 
whether it should amend the Platinum Section to address other products 
that contain platinum, such as platinum-clad, filled, plated, coated, 
or overlay products, which the Guides currently do not address. The 
Commission received several comments in response. Most did not 
recommend specific guidance, but asserted that, if the Commission 
amends the Guides to provide that platinum/base metal alloy products 
should be described with a ``non-platinum'' descriptor, then such 
``descriptors should also apply to plated, filled, rolled, and any 
other form that is not complete or near complete of platinum content.'' 
\81\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \81\ Michelle Broyles Comment; Don Broyles Comment; Walter 
Hardin Comment; Vickie Martin Comment; Robert Pate Comment; Randall 
Sims Comment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    JVC commented that the Commission should provide ``standards'' 
regarding the thickness of the plating to ensure durability--similar to 
those set for gold--to protect consumers against deceptive 
practices.\82\ Its proposed provision stated that surface-plating with 
platinum should be composed of at least 950 ppt platinum and specified 
a minimum thickness of .125 microns of platinum electroplate and .5 
microns for heavy electroplate. JVC's proposal also provided that, if 
the plating is of at least 950 ppt platinum, but does not meet the 
minimum thickness, then the product should be described as ``platinum-
flashed'' or ``platinum-washed.'' The proposal also stated that certain 
descriptions may be misleading: ``overlay,'' ``filled,'' ``clad,'' 
``rolled-plate,'' ``covered,'' or ``coated.'' \83\ However, JVC did not 
provide evidence that consumers are being, or are likely to be, 
deceived by any current marketing for platinum-plated jewelry or 
evidence that JVC's proposed terms would not mislead consumers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \82\ JVC Comment at 26-27. JVC commented that because there is 
no indication that marketers are selling platinum-filled or 
platinum-clad items, the Guides do not need to address those 
products. Id.
    \83\ Id. Attachment Three, which contains a comment by Michael 
A. Akkaoui from Tanury Industries, regarding platinum plating, is in 
accord with JVC's comment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Analysis

    Based on the complete record, the Commission amends the Guides to 
address the marketing of products containing platinum/base metal 
alloys. The purpose of the Jewelry Guides is to help marketers avoid 
deceptive or unfair conduct.\84\ The record demonstrates that deception 
will likely result if marketers describe platinum/base metal alloys as 
``platinum'' without disclosing additional information. The record, 
however, does not show that the qualified use of the term ``platinum'' 
would be deceptive. Moreover, the record furnishes sufficient evidence 
for the Commission to provide guidance on qualifying disclosures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \84\ See 16 CFR 1.5. The purpose of the Guides is to prevent 
deception, not to codify the rules set by standard setting bodies. 
See id. Sec. Sec.  1.5-1.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, the Commission concludes that it should amend the Guides to 
state that marketers may describe platinum/base metal alloys as 
``platinum'' with appropriate disclosures. Amending the Guides in this 
manner is superior to the other available options: (1) Amending the 
Guides to state that marketers should not describe such products as 
``platinum,'' or (2) not addressing the issue in the Guides at all.
    Commenters, however, raised several concerns about the disclosures 
the Commission proposed in its 2008 FRN. The Commission has considered 
these comments and addresses them below, either revising its previous 
proposal or explaining why the record does not

[[Page 81449]]

support revision. Finally, the Commission declines to amend the Guides 
to address the marketing of products with platinum plating or coatings 
at this time.

A. The Record Shows That Deception Will Likely Result if Marketers 
Describe Platinum/Base Metal Alloys as ``Platinum'' Without 
Qualification

    In 2005, the Commission found that deception would likely result if 
marketers describe platinum/base metal alloys as ``platinum'' without 
disclosing information regarding their composition and attributes.\85\ 
The 2008 comments do not dispute this finding.\86\ In fact, newly 
submitted consumer perception data further supports this conclusion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \85\ See 73 FR 10190, 10192-10194 for a detailed summary of the 
2005 FRN comments.
    \86\ See, e.g., PGI Comment at 1-2; JVC Comment at 5; Karat 
Platinum Comment at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, the 2008 Platinum Attitude Study, like the 2005 
Platinum Awareness Study, shows that most consumers expect products 
described as ``platinum'' to contain a high percentage of platinum. 
Fifty-nine percent (59%) of the consumers surveyed expect a product 
described as ``platinum'' to contain at least 80% pure platinum and 69% 
expect at least 75% pure platinum.\87\ The new data also show that many 
consumers expect products described using names that include the word 
``platinum,'' or the root ``plat,'' to have the same attributes as 
products traditionally marketed as ``platinum'' to consumers in the 
United States.\88\ For example, 60% of those surveyed expect that a 
product described as ``Karat Platinum'' would definitely or probably 
have the same attributes as ``platinum;'' and 24% expect that even a 
product described as ``Platinum Alloy'' would definitely or probably 
have the same attributes as platinum.\89\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \87\ PGI Comment, Attachment A, 2008 Platinum Attitude Study at 
5 (these percentages are cumulative).
    \88\ PGI identified the four most commonly used platinum alloys 
in the United States: 90% Platinum/10% Iridium; 95% Platinum/5% 
Iridium; 95% Platinum/5% Cobalt; and 95% Platinum/5% Ruthenium. 
Maerz, Jurgen J., ``Platinum Durability vs. Scratching,'' posted at 
http://www.platinumguild.com/files/pdf/V6N8W_platinum_durability.pdf. All four alloys have at least 90% platinum. Several 
comments explained that platinum jewelry generally or traditionally 
has had at least 85%, 90%, or 95% platinum. See supra note 24.
    \89\ PGI Comment, Attachment A, 2008 Platinum Attitude Study 2 
at 1-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These expectations, however, will often not be met with products 
made from platinum/base metal alloys. Specifically, PGI's 2005 testing 
indicates that certain platinum/base metal alloys are inferior to 
platinum/PGM products in terms of wear and oxidation resistance, as 
well as weight loss, and that they cannot be resized using certain 
procedures.\90\ Moreover, Karat Platinum's 2005 testing shows that its 
platinum/base metal alloy is less dense than platinum/PGM products.\91\ 
Therefore, describing such products as ``platinum'' without 
qualification is likely to result in deception regarding their purity 
and attributes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \90\ PGI Comment 2005, Attachments C and D. It does not appear 
that the PGI tests evaluated a product identical in composition to 
the Karat Platinum platinum/base metal alloy.
    \91\ Karat Platinum's testing showed that its alloy is superior 
to platinum/PGM products in terms of strength, hardness, and casting 
ability, and that its ability to resist corrosion is equivalent to 
other platinum products. See Karat Platinum Comment 2005 at 2-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. The Record Does Not Support Amending the Guides To State That Using 
the Term ``Platinum'' To Describe Platinum/Base Metal Alloys Is 
Necessarily Deceptive

    As noted earlier, JVC, PGI, and numerous retailers opposed amending 
the Guides to state that marketers of platinum/base metal alloys may 
describe them as ``platinum'' in a qualified manner. These commenters 
contended that marketers cannot describe such alloys as ``platinum'' 
without deceiving consumers no matter what information they disclose. 
Accordingly, they recommended that the Commission amend the Guides to 
state that marketers should not describe such alloys as 
``platinum.''\92\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \92\ JVC and PGI acknowledged that a qualified use of the word 
``platinum'' could, in theory, address consumer confusion or 
deception stemming from the use of the term ``platinum'' to describe 
platinum/base metal alloys. Yet, JVC and PGI asserted that it would 
be impracticable and likely ineffective to make the lengthy, 
detailed disclosures that they believe marketers would need to make 
to prevent deception.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In evaluating whether a representation is misleading the Commission 
examines not only the claim itself, but the net impression of the 
entire advertisement.\93\ Thus, in order to state that marketers should 
never describe platinum/base metal alloys as ``platinum,'' the 
Commission would have to conclude that no reasonable qualification is 
sufficient to render the term non-deceptive. The record, however, does 
not support this position. The 2008 Platinum Attitude Study suggests 
that a clear majority of consumers (55%) understood the proposed full 
name and percentage content disclosure.\94\ In contrast, only 13% of 
consumers said they understood disclosures using abbreviations.\95\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \93\ Deception Policy Statement, 103 F.T.C. at 179 n.32 (when 
evaluating representations under a deception analysis, one looks at 
the complete advertisement and formulates opinions ``on the basis of 
the net general impression conveyed by them and not on isolated 
excerpts''). Depending on the specific circumstances, qualifying 
disclosures may or may not cure otherwise deceptive messages or 
practices. Id. at 180-81.
    \94\ See PGI Comment, Attachment A, 2008 Platinum Attitude Study 
3 at 1-2. When asked if they understood the meaning of ``58.5% 
Platinum and 41.5% Copper/Cobalt,'' 55% said yes, 33% stated no, and 
12% stated that they were not sure.
    \95\ Id. When asked if they knew what 585Pt; 415CoCu meant, 81% 
said no, 13% said yes, and 7% said they were not sure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, the study likely understates the effectiveness of the 
proposed full name and percentage content disclosure for several 
reasons. First, this disclosure is designed to work in tandem with the 
third proposed disclosure (that the product may not have all the 
attributes of platinum/PGM), and the study did not test the third 
disclosure, either alone or in conjunction with the full name and 
percentage content disclosure. Second, some consumers who stated that 
they did not understand the disclosure may have understood that the 
item contained 58.5% platinum but found the phrase ``41.5% Copper/
Cobalt,'' which did not disclose the percentage of each metal, 
confusing. Third, as discussed in section III.C.2 below, consumer 
perception data regarding gold jewelry shows that the proposed full 
name and percentage content disclosure likely would be even more 
effective than the above figures suggest. On its face, this second 
disclosure appears to be clear, and the record lacks any evidence to 
the contrary.
    Finally, guidance stating that marketers cannot describe platinum/
base metal alloys using the term ``platinum'' would deprive consumers 
of truthful information, specifically that those products are primarily 
comprised of platinum.\96\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \96\ Advising marketers not to use the term ``platinum'' to 
describe platinum/base metal alloys would prevent them from 
describing a product composed of 84% platinum and 16% copper as 
``platinum,'' while competitors could use the term to describe a 
product composed of only 50% platinum, 45% iridium, and 5% copper.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. The Record Demonstrates That Disclosure Is the Appropriate Means for 
Attempting To Prevent Deception

    Having determined that describing platinum/base metal alloys as 
``platinum'' without qualification will likely lead to deception, and 
that the record does not show that the qualified use of the term 
``platinum'' would be deceptive, the Commission concludes that 
disclosures are the appropriate means for attempting to prevent 
deception. Because the comments and new consumer perception evidence

[[Page 81450]]

reinforce the concerns the Commission considered in its 2008 FRN, the 
following analysis begins with the Commission's proposed three-tiered 
disclosure regime.
1. The Commission's First Proposed Disclosure
    The first proposed disclosure provided that marketers of platinum/
base metal alloys disclose that their products ``contain platinum and 
other non-platinum group metals.'' The 2008 Platinum Attitude Study, 
however, suggests that few consumers understand this disclosure. Only 
20% of those surveyed indicated that they knew what the phrase ``other 
non-platinum group metals'' meant.\97\ Moreover, many consumers who 
said either they ``knew'' or ``were not sure of'' the disclosure's 
meaning did not know whether cobalt, copper, palladium, rhodium, and 
silver are non-platinum group metals (over 60% for cobalt, palladium, 
and rhodium, and 47% for copper and silver).\98\ The Commission, 
therefore, concludes that this disclosure is unlikely to provide useful 
information. Accordingly, the adopted amendment excludes this 
provision.\99\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \97\ PGI Comment, Attachment A, 2008 Platinum Attitude Study at 
16.
    \98\ Id. at 16-17.
    \99\ The Commission considered revising this provision to state 
that marketers should disclose that platinum/base metal alloys 
contain ``platinum and other metals'' or ``base metals.'' The 
record, however, does not include any consumer perception evidence 
suggesting that these disclosures would provide useful information. 
Furthermore, the second disclosure already provides the metal 
content of platinum/base metal alloys. More importantly, many 
platinum/PGM products also contain metals other than platinum, 
including base metals; therefore, such a disclosure would not likely 
help consumers distinguish platinum/base metal alloys from such 
products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. The Commission's Second Proposed Disclosure
    The second proposed disclosure provided that marketers of platinum/
base metal alloys disclose the product's full composition, by name and 
not abbreviation, and the percentage of each metal in the product.\100\ 
The consumer perception data suggests that the majority of consumers 
understand this disclosure. Indeed, 55% of those surveyed indicated 
that they knew what the phrase ``58.5% Platinum and 41.5% Copper/
Cobalt'' meant.\101\ In addition, the ``vast majority'' of those who 
indicated either they ``knew'' or ``were not sure'' what the disclosure 
meant correctly identified the platinum and copper/cobalt combination 
or indicated that the product had a combination of the metals.\102\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \100\ The 2005 Platinum Awareness Study suggests that most 
consumers do not understand numeric jewelry markings using parts per 
thousand and chemical abbreviations, such as ``585 Pt./415 Co.Cu.'' 
PGI Comment 2005, Attachment A, 2005 Platinum Awareness Study at 7-
8, 25-26. Indeed, only 7.5% stated they knew what this marking 
meant, and only 6.9% of those consumers actually understood that the 
marking described the proportion of platinum and other metals in the 
jewelry product. Id. at 26. The 2008 Platinum Attitude Study 
suggests that most consumers do not understand chemical 
abbreviations. Indeed, 81% of those surveyed said they did not know 
what ``585 Pt; 415 CoCu'' meant. PGI Comment, Attachment A, 2008 
Platinum Attitude Study at 14-15. Of those who said they knew or 
were not sure, only one correctly responded that it meant ``585 
parts platinum, 415 parts cobalt/copper.'' Therefore, keeping the 
percentage disclosure will assist consumers' understanding of the 
product's content.
    \101\ PGI Comment, Attachment A, 2008 Platinum Attitude Study at 
14-15. Thirty three percent (33%) stated that they did not know, and 
12% stated that they were not sure. Id.
    \102\ Id. at 15. The 2008 Platinum Attitude Study did not 
indicate the number or exact percentage of respondents who responded 
in this manner, only this characterization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although a substantial minority of consumers surveyed said they did 
not understand the disclosure, or were not sure what it meant, many of 
those consumers may have understood that a product with 58.5% platinum 
is less ``pure'' than traditional platinum products.\103\ Indeed, 
consumer perception data addressing gold jewelry suggests that this is 
the case. Specifically, even though many consumers cannot define the 
term ``14 karat gold'' accurately, they understand that ``14 karat'' 
represents the amount of gold in the product and that 18 karat gold 
jewelry contains more gold than 14 karat gold jewelry.\104\ Similarly 
it is reasonable to conclude that consumers would understand that a 
product labeled 58.5% platinum would contain a lower percentage of 
platinum than a product they expect to have 85% platinum. Therefore, 
the Commission concludes that the second proposed disclosure is the 
best option for addressing possible deception regarding the purity of 
platinum/base metal alloys.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \103\ Id. at 14-15; see also PGI Comment at 10-11.
    \104\ PGI Comment 2005, Attachment A, Platinum Awareness Study 
at 24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, consumer perception data suggests that this type of 
disclosure would also help prevent deception regarding the attributes 
of platinum/base metal alloys. Specifically, survey participants were 
asked whether a ring containing 58.5% Platinum and 41.5% Copper/Cobalt 
is likely to differ from a platinum ring on eight specific 
attributes.\105\ Depending on the attribute, between 28% and 43% of the 
respondents indicated the ring would differ from platinum.\106\ This 
data suggests that many consumers exposed to this type of disclosure do 
not have the impression that platinum/base metal alloys have the same 
attributes as platinum/PGM products. More than half the consumers 
surveyed, however, indicated that they ``were not sure'' or ``did not 
know'' whether the product differed from platinum.\107\ Therefore, 
further disclosure is needed to avoid deception.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \105\ The attributes were durability, luster, density, scratch 
resistance, tarnish resistance, ability to be resized, 
hypoallergenicity, and retention of precious metal over time. PGI 
Comment, Attachment A, 2008 Platinum Attitude Study at 16.
    \106\ Id.
    \107\ Id. Between 47% and 55% of those surveyed indicated they 
``did not know'' or ``were not sure'' whether the product differed 
from platinum, depending on the attribute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. The Commission's Third Proposed Disclosure
    The third proposed disclosure advised marketers to state that a 
platinum/base metal alloy may not have all the attributes that 
consumers associate with higher purity platinum/PGM products. It also 
provided that marketers need not make this disclosure if they possess 
competent and reliable scientific evidence that, with respect to all 
attributes material to consumers, such product is equivalent to 
products containing at least 850 ppt pure platinum, or at least 500 ppt 
pure platinum and at least 950 ppt PGM. The comments filed in 2008 
raise six concerns regarding this provision.
    First, commenters noted that many consumers do not understand the 
terms ``platinum group metals'' or ``other non-platinum group 
metals.''\108\ As a result, it is likely that these consumers would not 
fully understand this disclosure. To address this issue, the Commission 
has revised the disclosure to replace the reference to PGM with the 
phrase ``traditional platinum products.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \108\ JVC Comment at 8; see also PGI Comment at 13, 35-36 (The 
2008 Platinum Attitude Study revealed that 80% of consumers do not 
understand the phrase ``other non-platinum group metals.''); 
Attachment A, 2008 Platinum Attitude Study at 16-17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The most common platinum jewelry currently marketed in the United 
States contains at least 85% platinum.\109\ Consumers, therefore, would 
reasonably understand that traditional platinum products are those 
having the attributes of products containing at least 85% platinum. 
This conclusion is further supported by the 2008 survey and comments 
from industry demonstrating that consumers expect platinum products to 
be from 85% to all or almost all pure. The amended Guides,

[[Page 81451]]

therefore, treat ``traditional platinum'' as that containing at least 
85% pure platinum. This change provides consumers with a short, clear 
disclosure which is consistent with their current views. Additionally, 
the new definition provides a more limited universe of comparison, 
which should help marketers respond to questions precipitated by the 
disclosure.\110\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \109\ The Commission derived this percentage from the comments 
and PGI's Web site. See also supra notes 25 and 88.
    \110\ Instead of comparing attributes to all products containing 
either at least 85% platinum or at least 50% but less than 85% 
platinum and at least 95% PGM, platinum/base metal alloys marketers 
need only compare their products' attributes to any one traditional 
platinum product.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, several comments suggested that the Commission specify each 
material attribute identified in the consumer perception data instead 
of merely listing examples. Adopting this suggestion should provide 
greater clarity for marketers. Accordingly, the provision now states 
that marketers need not make this disclosure if they have the required 
evidence ``with respect to the following attributes or properties: 
durability, luster, density, scratch resistance, tarnish resistance, 
hypoallergenicity, ability to be resized or repaired, retention of 
precious metal over time, and any other attribute or property material 
to consumers.'' \111\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \111\ The last phrase, ``and any other attribute or property 
material to consumers,'' does not provide the certainty some 
commenters may desire, but the surveys never asked consumers which 
attributes they think are material. Instead, the surveys simply 
provided a list of attributes and asked consumers to comment. 
Therefore, the record does not demonstrate that the terms provided 
are comprehensive. Moreover, over time consumers may find additional 
attributes material. The uncertainty posed by the catch-all phrase, 
however, puts platinum marketers in no different position than all 
other marketers in the economy who must substantiate all their 
material claims.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Third, Karat Platinum contended that the Commission provides 
insufficient guidance regarding the evidence needed to substantiate 
that platinum/base metal alloys have the same material attributes as 
higher purity platinum products. Specifically, Karat Platinum explained 
that marketers would not know which higher purity platinum products to 
which they should compare their products. To support this point, Karat 
Platinum submitted evidence showing that traditional platinum products 
can differ from each other with respect to scratch resistance and 
durability.\112\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \112\ Karat Platinum cited to PGI data showing that products 
containing 95% platinum and 5% ruthenium are more durable and 
scratch resistant than products containing 95% platinum and 5% 
iridium. The data also showed that both of these products are more 
durable and scratch resistant than a product containing 100% 
platinum. Karat Platinum Comment at 2-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although the record shows that traditional platinum products can 
differ from each other with respect to certain attributes, these 
differences may be insignificant to consumers, and the record does not 
indicate that consumers have been deceived as a result. If some 
traditional platinum products differ from each other in immaterial 
ways, it follows that some platinum/base metal alloys may likewise 
differ from traditional platinum in immaterial ways. The Commission, 
therefore, concludes that a platinum/base metal alloy marketer need not 
make the third disclosure to prevent deception if the material 
attributes of its product do not differ materially from the attributes 
of any traditional platinum product.
    Fourth, JVC argued that only full disclosure of every materially 
different attribute would prevent deception because consumers want and 
expect this information.\113\ JVC further contended that it would be 
impractical for marketers to make such disclosures; and therefore, the 
Commission should amend the Guides to prevent marketers from using the 
term ``platinum'' to describe platinum/base metal alloys. The 
Commission disagrees. The purpose of the Guides is not to maintain 
uniformly high product standards, but to prevent unfairness and 
deception.\114\ The potential deception here is consumers' assumption 
that platinum/base metal alloys are as pure as traditional platinum 
and/or that they have the same attributes as traditional platinum. A 
clear and conspicuous disclosure of a product's composition and that 
its attributes may differ from those of traditional platinum addresses 
this potential deception. If consumers are then interested in how this 
new product differs from traditional platinum products, they can seek 
further information before purchasing a jewelry product.\115\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \113\ JVC Comment at 10-11.
    \114\ 61 FR 27224, 27225 (May 30, 1996). See also 16 CFR 1.5.
    \115\ The Commission followed a similar approach in 1997 when it 
revised the Guides to provide that fully disclosing the content of 
platinum/PGM products that contain less than 85% platinum would be 
sufficient to avoid deception. The Commission reasoned that ``[a]n 
informative marking or description will put consumers on notice that 
the product contains certain precious metals, thereby putting them 
in a position to inquire of the jeweler as to the relative value of 
the different metals and the overall value of the product.'' 62 FR 
16669, 16673 (Apr. 8, 1997). Other Commission Guides and Rules 
similarly prevent deception by providing that marketers disclose 
enough information for consumers to make an informed choice or to 
seek the information needed to do so. See, e.g., Section 260.7(d) of 
the Guides for the Use of Environmental Marketing Claims (Example 
4), 16 CFR 260.7(d); Section 424.1 of the Retail Food Store 
Advertising and Marketing Practices Rule, 16 CFR 424.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Fifth, some commenters argued that the substantiation proviso is 
too subjective, and therefore, unworkable.\116\ They contended that 
marketers will differ in their understanding of which attributes are 
material and the tests they should use to determine differences. They 
added that no industry-wide, universally-accepted testing methods or 
standards relating to the attributes of jewelry currently exist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \116\ JVC Comment at 5-6, 9; PGI Comment at 4, 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Neither of these arguments warrants further modifying the proposed 
proviso. Marketers are responsible for substantiating their 
claims.\117\ In this case, the evidence demonstrates that using the 
term ``platinum'' to describe a platinum/base metal alloy conveys the 
claim that the product has the same attributes as traditional platinum. 
Marketers, therefore, may make disclosures to dispel this claim, avoid 
the claim altogether, or obtain competent reliable scientific evidence 
to substantiate the claim. For marketers seeking to avoid the 
disclosure and still use the term ``platinum'' to describe their 
platinum/base metal alloys, the proviso identifies eight material 
attributes of jewelry based on the consumer perception data in the 
record. If additional attributes are, or become, material to consumers, 
marketers are responsible for determining what those attributes are and 
obtaining the corresponding substantiation.\118\ This places jewelry 
sellers in no different a position than any other marketer.\119\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \117\ The law requires marketers to have substantiation for 
their claims. See Telebrands Corp., 140 F.T.C. 278, 342 (2005), 
aff'd, 57 F.3d 354 (4th Cir. 2006); FTC Policy Statement Regarding 
Advertising Substantiation, Appendix to Thompson Medical Co., 104 
F.T.C. 648, 839 (1984).
    \118\ The provision does not specify every material attribute or 
the type of scientific substantiation necessary to avoid making the 
disclosure, although it does identify material attributes that seem 
likely to remain material over the long term. Because we may 
discover that consumers find other attributes material now or in the 
future, and the nature of the substantiation may change over time, 
the Commission believes that flexible guidance is appropriate and 
that members of the jewelry industry are well-positioned to comply 
with such guidance.
    \119\ See Sears, Roebuck & Co., 95 F.T.C. 406, 511 (1980), 
aff'd, 676 F.2d 385 (9th Cir. 1982) (finding that an advertiser is 
responsible for all claims, express and implied, that are reasonably 
conveyed by the advertisement).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, the record shows that tests do exist for determining 
how some material attributes of jewelry products differ from each 
other. Indeed, both Karat Platinum and PGI submitted tests showing 
whether, and to what extent, certain material attributes of various 
platinum/base metal alloys differ from those of platinum/PGM products. 
Moreover, marketers need not rely on industry-wide, universally-
accepted

[[Page 81452]]

tests or standards, so long as they have competent and reliable 
scientific evidence.\120\ Indeed, marketers frequently develop evidence 
to substantiate their claims even in the absence of industry-wide, 
universally-accepted tests or standards.\121\ The challenges in 
developing such evidence cited by commenters are not unique to the 
jewelry industry and do not warrant further modification of the 
proviso.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \120\ ``Competent and reliable scientific evidence'' means 
tests, analyses, research, studies, or other evidence based on the 
expertise of professionals in the relevant area, conducted and 
evaluated in an objective manner by persons qualified to do so, 
using procedures generally accepted in the profession to yield 
accurate and reliable results. See Guides for the Use of 
Environmental Marketing Claims, 16 CFR 260.5; and Telebrands Corp., 
140 F.T.C. 278, 347 (2005), aff'd, 57 F.3d 354 (4th Cir. 2006). In 
the absence of industry-wide, universally accepted tests, marketers 
can rely on tests conducted and evaluated objectively using 
procedures generally accepted by professionals in the area.
    \121\ See, e.g., Mohawk Petition, 74 FR 13099, 13102-13103 (Mar. 
26, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, some commenters contended that the third proposed 
disclosure would present endless possibilities for non-compliance and 
enforcement would be hopelessly difficult.\122\ The Commission issues 
guidance to help those marketers who are trying to comply with the law, 
not for those who are intent on violating it. The Guides themselves, 
however, are not independently enforceable. Therefore, the Commission 
would have to bring any enforcement action under Section 5 of the FTC 
Act and prove that a marketer lacked substantiation for its claims, 
regardless of what the Guides provided.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \122\ JVC Comment at 9, 14; PGI Comment at 2, 4, 17-18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Commenters' General Objections to the Disclosure Provisions Do Not 
Justify Further Modification

    The comments filed in 2008 raise four general objections to the 
proposed amendment, none of which warrant modifications. First, 
commenters contended that the proposed disclosures are unworkable 
because: Consumers will not read lengthy, technical written 
disclosures; the average jewelry sales personnel lack the expertise to 
make oral disclosures effectively; and the disclosures will likely have 
a chilling effect on sales.\123\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \123\ See, e.g., JVC Comment at 12-13; PGI Comment at 15-16, 23; 
Lowell Kwiat Comment at 1; Tiffany Comment at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These objections are not persuasive. With regard to written 
disclosures, there is no evidence in the record indicating that 
consumers will not read written disclosures regarding a platinum/base 
metal alloy's composition and a simple statement that it may differ 
from traditional platinum. Moreover, the Commission has reduced the 
size of the proposed disclosures by eliminating the first proposed 
disclosure, and has simplified the language in the third proposed 
disclosure. These changes make the disclosures shorter and non-
technical, and therefore, easier to comprehend. Additionally, the 2008 
Platinum Attitude Study suggests that most consumers can read and 
understand disclosures regarding the composition of jewelry using the 
full name and percentage of each metal.
    With regard to the inability of sales personnel to make oral 
disclosures, the record includes the JA e-mail survey showing that 
52.5% of the retailers surveyed would find it ``difficult'' or very 
``difficult'' to make the disclosures orally. Sales clerks, however, 
need not make any disclosure if marketers clearly and conspicuously 
make the written disclosures provided in the amended Guides. Moreover, 
simply because making a disclosure is difficult does not mean that it 
cannot reasonably be done.\124\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \124\ Presumably marketers are already accustomed to answering 
questions about the differences between the jewelry products they 
sell and competing products. If marketers can explain the difference 
between jewelry made from platinum/PGM, gold, or platinum/base metal 
alloys not currently described as platinum, for example, they should 
be able to explain the differences between platinum/PGM products and 
platinum/base metal alloys described as platinum. In fact, the JA e-
mail survey also showed that 23.1% of the retailers surveyed would 
find it ``easy'' or ``very easy'' to make the disclosures orally 
(the remaining 24% responded ``not sure'' or did not answer the 
question).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With regard to any chilling effect disclosure may have on sales, no 
commenter has a larger stake in robust sales of platinum/base metal 
alloy products than Karat Platinum. Yet Karat Platinum, an entity that 
would be responsible for making the disclosures, indicated that the 
disclosures are workable and does not object to them. The Commission, 
therefore, finds this argument unpersuasive.
    Second, many commenters objected to the proposed amendment because 
it conflicts with international standards. As the Commission explained 
in its 2008 FRN, however, this is not a basis for rejecting the 
amendment. Although the Commission generally prefers to harmonize its 
guidance with international laws and standards, Commission Guides must 
be based upon deception or unfairness.\125\ The commenters base their 
argument on conflicts between the Commission's proposed amendment and 
ISO and CIBJO standards. These standards, however, are technical 
industry standards developed through a consensus-building process based 
on a variety of considerations--such as facilitating trade and 
promoting international cooperation--and not solely upon 
deception.\126\ Harmonization with international standards is typically 
favored. Where, as here, however, there is insufficient evidence that a 
particular claim (i.e., a qualified platinum representation) is 
deceptive, the Commission cannot promulgate a guide stating that 
marketers should not make the representation solely to achieve 
harmony.\127\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \125\ The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 states that no Federal 
agency ``may engage in standards-related activity that creates 
unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States 
and that Federal agencies must, in developing standards take into 
consideration international standards and shall, if appropriate, 
base the standards on international standards.'' 19 U.S.C. 
2532(2)(A). The term ``standard'' in the Act includes guidelines 
that are not mandatory, such as the Jewelry Guides. The Act 
provides, however, that ``the prevention of deceptive practices'' is 
an area where basing a standard on an international standard ``may 
not be appropriate.'' Id. at Sec.  2532(2)(B)(i)(II).
    \126\ See http://www.iso.org/iso/standards development/process 
and procedures how are standards developed.htm. Gaetano Cavalieri 
Comment at 2.
    \127\ Moreover, the current Guides already conflict with ISO and 
CIBJO standards in that they allow marketers to mark products as 
platinum, with certain qualifications, even though they contain less 
than 85% platinum (provided they contain at least 50% platinum and 
95% PGM).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Third, some commenters argued that any written disclosure regarding 
the composition of platinum/base metal alloy jewelry would likely 
become separated from the jewelry over time.\128\ They contended that, 
as a result, jewelers could not effectively appraise, resize, or repair 
the jewelry at a later time. However, the commenters' proposed 
solution, amending the Guides to state that marketers should not 
describe platinum/base metal alloys as ``platinum,'' fails to resolve 
this problem. Specifically, describing such alloys as something other 
than ``platinum'' at the time of purchase does not insure that jewelers 
would have the information necessary to identify, value, resize, or 
repair the jewelry in the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \128\ See, e.g., JVC Comment at 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Physically stamping or marking jewelry to indicate its composition 
would address this concern. The Guides currently do not require 
stamping, and there is no evidence that such a requirement is necessary 
in this case. In fact, Karat Platinum already marks its products with 
composition information.\129\ However, the Commission amends Section 
23.7(c) of

[[Page 81453]]

the Guides to clarify that marketers may mark or stamp platinum/base 
metal alloy jewelry accurately to indicate composition using parts per 
thousand and standard chemical abbreviations (e.g., 585 Pt., 415 Co.) 
without triggering the new disclosure. This amendment should insure 
that marketers are not deterred from marking their products based upon 
the Commission's new platinum guidance. The Commission proposed this 
amendment in its 2008 FRN, and no commenter specifically objected. If 
actual deception occurs based on the lack of marking, or the lack of 
further disclosure, the Commission may consider amending the Guides at 
a later date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \129\ Karat Platinum Comment 2005 at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, although Karat Platinum supported the Commission's general 
approach, it argued that the Commission should level the playing field 
by amending the Guides to provide that marketers of both platinum/base 
metal alloys and platinum/PGM products make the same composition and 
attribute disclosures detailed above. Karat Platinum argued that 
consumers do not understand the chemical abbreviations used to describe 
platinum/PGM products containing less than 95% platinum any better than 
they understand the chemical abbreviations used to describe the content 
of platinum/base metal alloys. It also argued that platinum/PGM 
products differ from each other with respect to material attributes 
such as durability and scratch resistance.
    The record suggests that marketers of at least some products 
consisting of at least 50% but less than 85% platinum and at least 95% 
PGM may need to make additional disclosures when describing their 
products as ``platinum'' to avoid deception; however, further evidence 
is needed. The attributes of these products may vary depending upon the 
combination of metals used. We have no evidence whether these 
differences are material to consumers. Absent such evidence we decline 
to amend the Guides to provide for additional disclosures. Marketers of 
these products must ensure that they are not making deceptive 
statements about their products based on reasonable consumer 
perception.
    We, therefore, conclude that the disclosures, described above, are 
the best option for addressing deception regarding the attributes of 
platinum/base metal alloys described as ``platinum.''

E. The Record Is Insufficient To Warrant Amending the Guides To Address 
the Marketing of Products Containing Platinum Plating or Coatings

    Several comments proposed that the Commission provide detailed 
guidance regarding the marketing of products containing platinum 
plating or coating. The JVC comment, for example, proposed addressing a 
number of issues relating to the marketing of such products, including 
the platinum content and thickness of platinum plating, washing or 
flashing, and heavy plating. The record, however, does not include any 
evidence regarding how consumers perceive products with platinum 
plating or coating or the claims made for them. Nor does the record 
include any evidence showing how the industry proposal would address 
any problem that may exist, or how consumers would perceive the 
disclosures contemplated by the proposal. Accordingly, the Commission 
declines to amend the Guides to address the marketing of products with 
platinum plating or coatings at this time.\130\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \130\ The Commission agrees with Karat Platinum that one 
provision in the amendments adopted herein belongs in Section 
23.7(c) rather than 23.7(b). Accordingly, the Commission decided to 
add this provision to Section 23.7(c) and revise it in a non-
substantive manner so that the wording is consistent with the other 
parts of Section 23.7(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 23

    Advertising, Jewelry, Labeling, Pewter, Precious metals, and Trade 
practices.

0
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Federal Trade Commission 
amends 16 CFR part 23 as follows:

PART 23--GUIDES FOR THE JEWELRY, PRECIOUS METALS, AND PEWTER 
INDUSTRIES

0
1. The authority citation for part 23 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 45, 46.


0
2. Amend Sec.  23.0 by adding paragraphs (d) and (e) to read as 
follows:


23.0  Scope and application.

* * * * *
    (d) These guides set forth the Federal Trade Commission's current 
thinking about claims for jewelry and other articles made from precious 
metals and pewter. The guides help marketers and other industry members 
avoid making claims that are unfair or deceptive under Section 5 of the 
FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 45. They do not confer any rights on any person and 
do not operate to bind the FTC or the public. The Commission, however, 
may take action under the FTC Act if a marketer or other industry 
member makes a claim inconsistent with the guides. In any such 
enforcement action, the Commission must prove that the challenged act 
or practice is unfair or deceptive in violation of Section 5 of the FTC 
Act.
    (e) The guides consist of general principles, specific guidance on 
the use of particular claims for industry products, and examples. 
Claims may raise issues that are addressed by more than one example and 
in more than one section of the guides. The examples provide the 
Commission's views on how reasonable consumers likely interpret certain 
claims. Industry members may use an alternative approach if the 
approach satisfies the requirements of Section 5 of the FTC Act. 
Whether a particular claim is deceptive will depend on the net 
impression of the advertisement, label, or other promotional material 
at issue. In addition, although many examples present specific claims 
and options for qualifying claims, the examples do not illustrate all 
permissible claims or qualifications under Section 5 of the FTC Act.

0
3. Amend Sec.  23.7 by adding paragraphs (b)(4) and (c)(5) to read as 
follows:


23.7  Misuse of words ``platinum,'' ``iridium,'', ``palladium,'' 
``ruthenium,'' ``rhodium,'' and ``osmium.''

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (4) Use of the word ``Platinum,'' or any abbreviation accompanied 
by a number or percentage indicating the parts per thousand of pure 
Platinum contained in the product, to describe all or part of an 
industry product that contains at least 500 parts per thousand, but 
less than 850 parts per thousand, pure Platinum, and does not contain 
at least 950 parts per thousand PGM (for example, ``585 Plat.'') 
without a clear and conspicuous disclosure, immediately following the 
name or description of such product:

    (i) Of the full composition of the product (by name and not 
abbreviation) and percentage of each metal; and
    (ii) That the product may not have the same attributes or 
properties as traditional platinum products. Provided, however, that 
the marketer need not make disclosure under Sec.  23.7(b)(4)(ii), if 
the marketer has competent and reliable scientific evidence that 
such product does not differ materially from any one product 
containing at least 850 parts per thousand pure Platinum with 
respect to the following attributes or properties: durability, 
luster, density, scratch resistance, tarnish resistance, 
hypoallergenicity, ability to be resized or repaired, retention of 
precious

[[Page 81454]]

metal over time, and any other attribute or property material to 
consumers.

    Note to paragraph (b)(4): When using percentages to qualify 
platinum representations, marketers should convert the amount in 
parts per thousand to a percentage that is accurate to the first 
decimal place (e.g., 58.5% Platinum, 41.5% Cobalt).

    (c) * * *
    (5) An industry product consisting of at least 500 parts per 
thousand, but less than 850 parts per thousand, pure Platinum, and not 
consisting of at least 950 parts per thousand PGM, may be marked or 
stamped accurately, with a quality marking on the article, using parts 
per thousand and standard chemical abbreviations (e.g., 585 Pt., 415 
Co.).

    By direction of the Commission.
Donald S. Clark,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-32273 Filed 12-27-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6750-01-P