It’s not illegal to sell clothing with drawstrings. So, what did Ross Clothing Store do wrong? They didn’t tell the Consumer Product Safety Commission that they were. So, they were fined almost $4 Million.

According to the Washington Free Beacon,

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) wanted to send a “message” by fining a department store almost $4 million after they failed to “report immediately” to the federal government that they were selling children’s clothing with drawstrings.

Ross Stores, Inc. settled with the agency in June, agreeing to pay a $3.9 million civil penalty after they “knowingly failed to report to CPSC immediately, as required by federal law, that it sold or held for sale, about 23,000 children’s upper outerwear garments with drawstrings at the neck or waist.”

The company said it settled to avoid costly litigation and denies violating a guideline to report children’s clothing with drawstrings to the CPSC, which the commission contends is hazardous. According to the commission, drawstrings have been responsible for 26 deaths.

Children’s garments with drawstrings are not banned, but retailers can face substantial fines for not reporting the apparel to the agency.

The fine was the largest the commission has handed down in recent years for violating the policy, on top of the millions the agency has collected from big-name retailers for failing to notify the government that it had garments with drawstrings in children’s sizes in stock.

A host of major retail stores have been hit with the violation, totaling at least $9,650,000 since August 2008. That includes Burlington Coat Factory, which paid a$1.5 million fine last year, Macy’s ($750,000), Bon-Ton ($450,000), Kohl’s ($425,000), and Nordstrom ($60,000).

- See more at: http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/08/...h.0KfVXGbv.dpuf

Quote: Justme wrote in post #2

---

Oh my gawd!

---

Zitat

---

what will they do with the windfall?

---

Piss it away along with the other $3.n Trillion* like they do every year.

* that's your "cash" basis only, the number that they should be accruing to fund future "committed" liabilities is substantially higher, think double!