翻訳と辞書
Words near each other
・ In Pursuit of the 27th Man
・ In Pursuit of Tomorrow
・ In questa reggia
・ In questo mondo di ladri
・ In Quintessence
・ In R Voice
・ In Rainbows
・ In Rainbows – From the Basement
・ In Ramada Da Vida
・ In Rape Fantasy and Terror Sex We Trust
・ In re
・ In re A.C.
・ In re Ah Yup
・ In re Aimster Copyright Litigation
・ In re Alappat
In re Amway Corp.
・ In re Application of the United States for Historical Cell Site Data
・ In re Bilski
・ In re Boucher
・ In re Caremark International Inc. Derivative Litigation
・ In re Citigroup Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litigation
・ In re Debs
・ In re DoubleClick
・ In re Dube
・ In re Electronic Privacy Information Center
・ In re Estate of Gardiner
・ In re Ferguson
・ In re Garlock Sealing Technologies, LLC
・ In re Gateway Learning Corp.
・ In re Gault


Dictionary Lists
翻訳と辞書 辞書検索 [ 開発暫定版 ]
スポンサード リンク

In re Amway Corp. : ウィキペディア英語版
In re Amway Corp.
''In re Amway Corp.'' (93 F.T.C. 618; full name ''In the Matter of Amway Corporation, Inc., et al.'') is a 1979 ruling by the United States Federal Trade Commission concerning the business practices of Amway, a multi-level marketing (MLM) company. The FTC ruled that Amway was not an illegal pyramid scheme, but ordered Amway to cease price fixing and cease misrepresenting the apparent success achieved by the average distributor.
==Complaint==
The FTC filed a complaint on March 25, 1975, alleging five counts of violating Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act:〔(''In the Matter of Amway Corporation, Inc., et al.'' (93 F.T.C. 618) ), from FTC website. Accessed 2008-11-02.〕
*Count I of the complaint alleged that Amway engaged in resale price maintenance.
*Count II alleged that Amway allocated customers among distributors and restricted the distributors' source of supply as well as the retail outlets through which they may resell;
*Count III alleged that Amway restricted the distributors' advertising.
*Count IV alleged that Amway misrepresented that substantial income may be obtained from geometrical increases in the number of distributors in the chain recruiting operation of the Amway distribution plan.
*Count V alleged that Amway misrepresented the profitability of a distributorship and the potential for recruiting new distributors and failed to disclose the substantial business expense involved and the high turnover of distributors.
Oral arguments were heard on June 6, 1978.〔93 F.T.C. 618: page 631〕

抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア(Wikipedia)
ウィキペディアで「In re Amway Corp.」の詳細全文を読む



スポンサード リンク
翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース

Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.