(November 30, 2007) Baby Tenda, the Missouri-based company that sells juvenile furniture through hotel sales seminars nationwide, was found guilty of mail fraud in federal court.

In a November 7 ruling, US District Court judge Ortrie Smith found the company “falsely and fraudulently mailed sales material indicating the Consumer Product Safety Commission (“CPSC”) or the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (“NHTSA”) sponsored seminars at which Defendant’s products were sold.”

As readers of our books know, we have been critical of this company (which goes by the names Baby Tenda and Babee Tenda) for years. Our beef: the company’s sales tactics, which involve luring parents to a “safety seminar” which is just a thinly veiled pitch for their overpriced feeding table. At a seminar we attended, a Baby Tenda sales rep used misleading or bogus facts to try to scare parents into thinking that all store-bought baby products are dangerous (and, naturally, Baby Tenda’s feeding table is safer).

In 2004, a Virginia reader sent us an email with a copy of a Baby Tenda invitation that said the safety seminar was “sponsored by Baby-Tenda Company in conjunction with the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.”

The only problem: that wasn’t true. Neither CPSC, nor the NHTSA has EVER sponsored a Baby Tenda seminar, as you can imagine.

We alerted a contact at the CPSC about what we considered to be mail fraud—the CPSC then notified the Department of Justice. In 2007, the U.S. sued Baby Tenda for mail fraud. A trail was held October 17-18, 2007 and the company was found guilty.

See the court ruling here:

Download Baby_Tenda_Judgment.pdf

The ruling had several interesting points:

• Judge Smith called Baby Tenda’s sales tactics “deceitful and reprehensible.”

• Baby Tenda sends out invites to its safety seminars, but indicates the seminar is sponsored by “Advisory Council on Child Safety.” This is actually just a group of Baby Tenda distributors, despite the official sounding name.

• The court found that this name was “crafted to sound like the name of a government agency, specifically to create the false impression that government endorsement exists. Adding to the effort to mislead consumers is the fact that the invitations are purportedly for “safety seminars” and purposely omit the fact that the true purpose of the event is to sell Defendant’s products. The net effect is to create the false impression that the seminar is sponsored by a governmental or other agency and
is devoted to baby safety.

“The Record demonstrates – and the Court finds – the effort has been successful, as evidenced by the testimony of attendees who were surprised, angry or disappointed that they had been lured to a sales meeting.”

• Baby Tenda blamed the false invitations on a rogue distributor who is no longer with the company. Since Baby Tenda’s distributors act as independent contractors, the company claimed it wasn’t responsible for the invitation. The court didn’t buy that argument.

• Baby Tenda admitted that 160,000 invitations with the false sponsorship information was distributed during a three year period (2001 to 2004).

So, there you have it—Baby Tenda has been officially convicted of mail fraud.

Feel free to share any Baby Tenda stories you have!