Levitz Case Article Had an Unfair Tone

Compared with other articles about the same topic, “Levitz to Pay $1.2 Million in Pricing Case” (June 26) had an unfair tone. It includes charged words like “phony,” “duped” and “tricked,” when the story is about allegations. It also mentions a similar incident in 1973, which occurred 23 years ago; it is entirely irrelevant. Your article leaves out the fact that the complaint occurred some 18 months ago.

I represent the dominant furniture retailer in San Diego and would rejoice if Levitz would leave town, only because it is a major competitor. On the other hand, Levitz does run an ethical business and is regarded highly in the furniture industry. The company is a charter member of the Ethics Committee Task Force for the home furnishings industry in San Diego County. This group was formed by the Better Business Bureau to help the industry self-regulate its advertising practices. Levitz has also lobbied in Sacramento for a program to improve the ethics of furniture advertising in the state. Without its encouragement and influence, many of the current improvements may not have occurred.

The state is obligated by law to regulate the advertising practices of the home furnishings industry. In my 26 years, there has been little evidence of the state performing its duty until the last 18 months. Unfortunately, the law also precludes competitors from keeping one another honest through the court system.

The furniture industry and the consumer have suffered from very inconsistent regulatory practices by the state and the advertising media’s irresponsible willingness to accept money with their eyes closed. For retailers, the temptation to exaggerate the truth is compelling in view of some competitors’ advantageous, misleading advertising. The necessity of making payroll does, at times, test the essence of one’s integrity.

JEROME V. NAVARRA

Chief executive

Jerome’s Furniture Warehouse

San Diego