In the Matter of the Complaint Against

 HARTFORD PUBLISHING CORP.
 79 Savage Road and P. O. Box 932 at
 Denville, New Jersey 07834

 P.S. Docket No. 2/152; 

 APPEARANCES:
 H. Richard Hefner, Esq.
 Law Department
 United States Postal Service
 Washington, D.C. 20260
 for Complainant

 Charles B. Chernofsky, Esq.
 One Blue Hill Plaza
 Pearl River, New York 10965
 for Respondent

Respondent in the above-captioned proceeding brought under 39 U.S.C. 3005 is engaged in the promotion of a weight reduction program called the "Digital Diet Method". Respondent is charged with making various fa;se representations in its sale of this product through the mail. Upon hearing, the Chief Administrative Law Judge upheld the allegations of the complaint and found Respondent to be engaged in obtaining remittances through the mails by means of false representations. Accordingly, he recommended the issuance of a remedial order. The matter is now before me on Respondent's appeal from the Chief Administrative Law Judge's Initial Decision.

Respondent contends that it is engaged in the sale of a booklet and that the advertising in evidence in this proceeding accurately reflects the contents of the booklet. On that basis Respondent asserts that issuance of a false representation order would be an abridgement of Respondent's rights and privileges under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The same constitutional question was raised in Dorset House, P.S. Docket No. 2/17, a case involving the sale of the same product by another promoter. The Postal Service Decision of June 13, 1973, in that case found that Respondent was selling a program of weight reduction rather than a book. For that reason the freedom of press question raised in the Postal Service Decision in Parker Publishing Co., P.O.D. Docket No. 3/80, was found not to be present. That is also the case here. The same conclusion was reached in U.S. et al. v. Outpost Development et al. ¹/ Of course, readers of Respondent's advertisement know, as they knew in Outpost, that they will receive a booklet embodying the weight reduction program. But the product being sold is not the booklet, but the weight reduction program, the product covered by the guarantee in the advertisement. The exception is denied.

Respondent also excepts to the Chief Administrative Law Judge's findings that Respondent falsely makes the representations described in paragraphs 3(a)-(e) and (g) of the complaint. I have reviewed the Initial Decision and the record in the light of those exceptions and conclude the Chief Administrative Law Judge's findings are supported by the record. His findings that the representations were made are not strained. Respondent suggests that some of the representations would not be believed to be true by the ordinary reader. But that is not the test. A representation is still a representation even if it is disbelieved. Aside from the fact that there is no reason to accept the contention that the representation would not be believed by all, those persons who do believe it should be protected even though many people do not. The exceptions are disallowed.

Upon review of the Initial Decision in the light of Respondent's exceptions, I find as did the Chief Administrative Law Judge in the Initial Decision that Respondent is engaged in a scheme or device for obtaining money or property through the mail by means of materially false representations and that a remedial order should be issued against this Respondent pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3005. Such an order is being issued contemporaneously with this decision.

02/27/74

Wenchel, Adam G.

____________________

1/ C.D. Cal., Civil No. 73-16-FW, aff'd 42 L.W. 3361 (12/17/73). Substantial excerpts from Outpost are included in the Postal Service Decision in Sharon Woodman (2/12/74), P.S. Docket No. 2/122(which reached the same result. To the same effect, see also the P.S. Decision in Brentwood Research (11/16/73), P.S. Docket No. 1/173, (and in B-Beautiful Method (5/14/73), P.S. Docket No. 1/181.