In settlement with FTC, “bamboo” clothier eats its own words
Faithful readers of this blog might remember the Federal Trade Commission’s lawsuits against four makers of bamboo-derived clothing. The FTC accused the companies of making false, unsubstantiated claims that their products are “green” and that the textiles retain the anti-microbial properties of the bamboo plant.
Today, the commission announced a settlement with the last hold-out, Andrews, S.C.-based M Group, which does business as Bamboosa.
The firm agreed to stop making bamboo claims unless they are true and backed by reliable evidence. The settlement prohibits the company from marketing products as made of bamboo fiber when they actually are made of rayon processed from bamboo plants. Also, the firm won’t be able to make false claims that its products are antimicrobial or biodegradable.
Any violation of the settlement could result in a civil penalty of up to $16,000, the FTC said in a press release.
As I reported in August, three bamboo-derived textile makers — Sami Designs, doing business as Jonäno; CSE, doing business as Mad Mod; and Pure Bamboo — already settled FTC suits.
The settlement marks a departure from what Morris Saintsing, M Group’s owners, told me in August about his products and the federal suit:
(Saintsing) said his company is reluctant to settle “because we don’t think we’ve done anything wrong in the first place.”
Saintsing said that the company’s products are made from a synthetic fiber derived from bamboo, but that the fabric is superior to rayon cloth made from other plant material. He stands by the company’s claims that its clothing is anti-microbial, and he says scientific research is on his side.
“We sell a really nice piece of apparel that does everything it’s supposed to do,” he said. “It’s superior to any other cellulose product that I’m aware of.”
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
Matthew,
Hey, Mo from Bamboosa here. I just wanted to say that the only thing that has changed since we last spoke is that we finally figured out that we can’t fight the FTC.
Bamboosa stands by our products as one of the best choices you can make for textiles or apparel as far as the environmental footprint of the product.
The FTC is wrong with their assumption about the environmental impact of the fiber production and they are wrong about the hazards to the worker.
They are also wrong when they say that all fiber classified as rayon or viscose has the same attributes regardless of the cellulose source.
They are equally wrong about the antimicrobial properties. The tests that we provided them with that show bamboo fabric inhibits the growth of bacteria may not have satisfied their requirements but anyone who has ever worn a bamboo shirt or socks and sweated in them knows that the resistance to odor is there.
And finally, any implication by the FTC that Bamboosa has engaged in any sort of ‘greenwashing’ is absolutely without merit. Our suppliers that sell us the fiber call it ‘bamboo fiber’. Our yarn spinner that sell us yarn says it is ‘bamboo yarn’. Bamboosa simply used the same terminology as we were getting from our suppliers. It is also worth noting that Bamboosa changed all of our labeling to read ‘viscose from bamboo’ prior to any FTC action. We made that change as soon as we were aware of the need for it.
Lastly, Bamboosa is a little company in a little town in SC. We started this company to try to bring some textile jobs back to Andrews. We are extremely proud of the products that we make and will put the environmental footprint of our products up against any apparel products on the market. While our fiber may come from China, the rest of our manufacturing, from yarn spinning to knitting, dyeing, sewing, and printing is done within a very small radius in SC.
The real story here should be why the FTC is trying to squash a small little company that is creating American jobs and who produces a product that, in reality, lives up to every claim that is made about it.
Thanks,
Mo
The settlement prohibits the company from marketing products as made of bamboo fiber. Uh oh – this doesn’t look good for Microsoft. Microsoft and T Mobile were named defendants in a class action lawsuit, as T Mobile and Microsoft had been hosting information from T Mobile smart phone customers, specifically Sidekick owners, on a server that went down on Friday, October 2nd, leading to users losing all of their information. This includes calendars, contacts, the whole shebang, and T Mobile customers were not amused. So, they sued – especially by one Maureen Thompson, from Atlanta, who among the plaintiffs was nonplussed, to say the least, about the server failure. Microsoft won’t need any guaranteed payday loans for court costs, but it still is a blow to their reputation.
I highly suggest reviewing the true facts and scientific evidence that discounts the FTC’s allegations. there are several posts on this at Green Earth News blog site. The most recent post, FTC’s Bamboo Smear Campaign Riddled with Deception explains a lot and has links to scientific results as well! There is powerful evidence here as well as prior FTC cases that totally discredit the FTC.