PhotoNeiman Marcus is still a little fuzzy when it should be furry, or maybe it's the other way around. A few years ago, the upscale retailer paid $25,000 to settle charges that it sold products made from raccoon and other animal fur while claiming they were "faux fur."

Now Neiman Marcus and two other retailers are settling Federal Trade Commission charges that they misled consumers by marketing that products contained “faux fur,” when in fact, the products contained real fur.

Many consumers prefer to buy faux fur because of concerns about animal cruelty.

Besides Neiman Marcus, the FTC charges that DrJays.com Inc., and Eminent Inc., doing business as Revolve Clothing, falsely claimed that  some products had “faux” fur, and in other cases didn't name the animal that real fur was taken from.

Neiman Marcus also allegedly misrepresented that a rabbit fur product had mink fur, and failed to disclose the fur country of origin for three fur products. 

Burberry & Stuart Weitzman

According to the FTC, Neiman Marcus’s website misrepresented the fur content and failed to disclose the animal name and fur country of origin for three products:  a Burberry Outerwear Jacket, a Stuart Weitzman Ballerina Flat shoe, and an Alice + Olivia Kyah Coat. 

Neiman Marcus also misrepresented the fur content of the shoe in its catalog, at bergdorfgoodman.com, and in ads mailed to consumers.

DrJays.com allegedly misrepresented the fur content and failed to disclose the animal name for three products:  a Snorkel Jacket by Crown Holder with a fur-lined hood, a Fur/Leather Vest by Knoles & Carter with exterior fur, and a New York Subway Leather Bomber Jacket by United Face with fur lining.
  
Eminent Inc., doing business as Revolve Clothing, allegedly misrepresented the fur content and failed to disclose the animal name for four products:  an Australia Luxe Collective Nordic Angel Short Boot with a fur-trimmed hood, a Mark Jacobs Runway Roebling Coat, a Dakota Xan Fur Poncho, and an Eryn Brinie Belted Faux Fur Vest.

The FTC has proposed a 20-year consent order, under which the retailers would agree not to make further misrepresentations or violate the Fur Act.


Share your Comments