On May 1, 2014, the Competition Bureau (the "Bureau") announced based on inspections made at JSYK Canada's ("JSYK") retail outlets across Canada, JSYK will remove two brands of duvets due to misleading labelling regarding their down content.
The Bureau conducted independent laboratory tests on JYSK's Classic Down Duvet and Cascade Goose Down Duvet for "down" filling and "bird of origin" content. The results of this testing confirmed that the duvets did not meet the minimum standards required to label the products as "down" or "goose down" under the Textile Labelling and Advertising Regulations.
JSYK has discontinued the sale of these two products. Additionally, JSYK has issued a recall notice in its stores, in its flyers and on its website. Consumers who purchased these products after January 1, 2010, are eligible to receive a full refund (the refund period is valid for six months starting on May 1, 2014). Interestingly, the Bureau also noted that its inspection revealed that other textile articles and pre-packaged products (e.g., bathroom, bedding, decorative and kitchen products) had labels that were not compliant with the Textile Labelling Act. JYSK is in the process of working with suppliers to address the Bureau's concerns.
This case demonstrates the Bureau's willingness to conduct on-site inspections and conduct testing to verify textile content claims. While the Bureau's press release does not indicate what prompted its investigation, these types of concerns are typically brought to the Bureau's attention by customers or competitors. This case highlights the need for companies to ensure that the textile products they sell under their own brand name(s), including products manufactured on their behalf by third parties, comply with the labelling requirements of the Textile Labelling Act.
A key takeaway for businesses is the need to implement appropriate measures to ensure that the textile products they manufacture or have manufactured on their behalf comply with all content and labelling requirements, as the costs and reputational harm of non-compliance can be significant. In this regard, companies may want to consider how to address this issue in their contracts with third-party manufacturers, as well as conducting periodic testing of products manufactured by third parties on their behalf.
For a copy of the Bureau press release, please click here.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
