Home products retailer Williams-Sonoma will have to pay almost $3.2 million for violating a Federal Trade Commission “Made in USA” order.

Williams-Sonoma was charged with advertising multiple products as being “Made in USA” when they were in fact manufactured in other countries, including China. That violated a 2020 commission order requiring the San Francisco-based company to be truthful about whether its products were in fact made in the U.S.

The FTC said Friday that Williams-Sonoma has agreed to a settlement, which includes a $3.175 million civil penalty. That marks the largest-ever civil penalty seen in a “Made in USA” case, the commission said.

“Williams-Sonoma’s deception misled consumers and harmed honest American businesses,” FTC Chair Lina M. Khan said. “Today’s record-setting civil penalty makes clear that firms committing Made-in-USA fraud will not get a free pass.”

In addition to paying the penalty, the seller of cookware and home furnishings will be required to submit annual compliance reports, the FTC said. The settlement also imposes and reinforces a number of requirements about manufacturing claims the company can make.

    • mox@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      2 months ago

      The conversational phrase “cost of doing business” does not mean the same thing as the tax law phrase “business expense”.

      • breetai@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        13
        ·
        2 months ago

        Write off means write off the books. Otherwise it makes no sense as that the dictionary term for the phrase. You can’t write off a fine. It isn’t “written off”.

        Real the whole paragraph. It’s idiotic talk

        • mox@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          18
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          “Write off” has evolved to have an additional, more casual meaning, and I think it was clear to most of us that the author you’re referring to was using it in that sense.

          Edit: Since you’re being pedantic, I checked three dictionaries. This sense of the phrase is in all of them.

    • jumjummy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      What? Sure you can’t deduct them, but if I make $200 million doing something illegal, and the government catches me and fines me $10 million, then that’s just a “cost” I can account for. Make $190 million even after spending $10 million in fines.

          • breetai@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            13
            ·
            2 months ago

            On a handful of products? Doubtful.

            At least the government gave them a fine which is a step in the right direction. Country of origin is important to me. I buy based on those labels

    • quindraco@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Tax deductibility is irrelevant; the cost of the practice pales in comparison to the profit of the practice, making the cost one of doing business.