[Code of Federal Regulations]
[Title 16, Volume 1]
[Revised as of January 1, 2005]
From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access
[CITE: 16CFR424.2]

[Page 421-422]
 
                     TITLE 16--COMMERCIAL PRACTICES
 
                   CHAPTER I--FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
 
PART 424_RETAIL FOOD STORE ADVERTISING AND MARKETING PRACTICES
--Table of Contents
 
Sec. 424.2  Defenses.

    No violation of Sec. 424.1 shall be found if:
    (a) The advertised products were ordered in adequate time for 
delivery in

[[Page 422]]

quantities sufficient to meet reasonably anticipated demand;
    (b) The food retailer offers a ``raincheck'' for the advertised 
products;
    (c) The food retailer offers at the advertised price or at a 
comparable price reduction a similar product that is at least comparable 
in value to the advertised product; or
    (d) The food retailer offers other compensation at least equal to 
the advertised value.

              Dissenting Statement of Commissioner Calvani

    I dissent from the Commission's decision today to amend the Retail 
Food Store Advertising and Marketing Practices Trade Regulation Rule 
(the Unavailability Rule). The Commission has acknowledged today that 
the original Unavailability Rule is not justified, and approved 
amendments designed to lower its costs to grocers. However, in my view, 
common sense tells us that in the highly competitive grocery store 
business, where consumers return week after week to the same store, any 
supermarket that frustrates its customers through unavailability of 
advertised items will not long keep those customers. In other words, it 
is clear to me that existing market forces adequately police 
unavailability, and that, therefore, no Federal Trade Commission rule is 
necessary, amended or otherwise. The Commission's action today to retain 
even an amended Unavailability Rule does not conform to common sense.

  Statement of Commissioner Andrew J. Strenio, Jr., Retail Food Store 
                Advertising and Marketing Practices Rule

    Although revising the ``Unavailability Rule'' has a certain 
intuitive appeal, there is insufficient evidence on the record to 
conclude that these changes will result in net consumer benefits. 
Accordingly, I could not support amending the Rule in this manner. 
However, now that the step has been taken, it is to be hoped that 
experience will bear out the optimistic expectations of the Commission 
majority.

[54 FR 35467, Aug. 28, 1989]