0123060 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
In the Matter of KRYTON COATINGS
INTERNATIONAL, INC. and DOCKET NO. C-4052 COMPLAINT The Federal Trade Commission, having reason to believe that Procraft, Inc. and Kryton Coatings International, Inc., corporations, ("respondents") have violated the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act, and it appearing to the Commission that this proceeding is in the public interest, alleges: 1a. Respondent Kryton Coatings International, Inc. is a Tennessee corporation with its principal office or place of business at 1701 Louisville Drive, Suite C, Knoxville, Tennessee 37921. 1b. Respondent Procraft, Inc. is a Tennessee corporation with its principal office or place of business at 1701 Louisville Drive, Suite C, Knoxville, Tennessee 37921. 2. Respondents cooperated and acted together in carrying out acts and practices hereinafter set forth. 3. Respondents have advertised, offered for sale, sold, and distributed a residential coating product known as Multi-Gard to the public under the trade names Liquid Siding, Liquid Vinyl, and Multi-Gard R-20 ("Multi-Gard"). 4. The acts and practices of respondents alleged in this complaint have been in or affecting commerce, as "commerce" is defined in Section 4 of the Federal Trade Commission Act. 5. Respondents have disseminated or have caused to be disseminated advertisements for Multi-Gard, including but not necessarily limited to the attached Exhibits A through E. These advertisements contain the following statements:
6. Through the means described in Paragraph 5, respondents have represented, expressly or by implication, that Multi-Gard:
7. Through the means described in Paragraph 5, respondents have represented, expressly or by implication, that they possessed and relied upon a reasonable basis that substantiated the representations set forth in Paragraph 6, at the time the representations were made. 8. In truth and in fact, although the use of Multi-Gard and caulking may seal air leaks and cracks in buildings and, as a result, may reduce energy costs in some cases, respondents did not possess and rely upon a reasonable basis that substantiated the representations set forth in Paragraph 6, at the time the representations were made. Therefore, the representation set forth in Paragraph 7 was, and is, false or misleading. 9. The acts and practices of respondents as alleged in this complaint constitute unfair or deceptive acts or practices, in or affecting commerce, in violation of Section 5(a) of the Federal Trade Commission Act. THEREFORE, the Federal Trade Commission this fourteenth day of June, 2002, has issued this complaint against respondents. By the Commission. Donald S. Clark SEAL |