• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Is this kind of deceptive ad legal?

Ichinisan

Ichinisan

Lifer
Link to specific time:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzQH1aob9jw#t=12s

Was skipping commercials on a DVR recording and happened to glimpse this commercial with a bogus before/after shot. The "Before" and "After" pictures are exactly the same image. It's presented as if they're showing a real-life result, but they clearly manipulated an image. They tried to hide it by cropping and zooming differently (and covering different parts with their graphic), but the dog's whiskers are a give-away because they're in exactly the same place.

Is there some federal agency that enforces truthful advertising?
 
There isn't necessarily anything wrong with that. It's just given as an example. I tend to doubt there's much regulation with regard to non-food animals.
 
You don't even have to go that far, just look at the picture of the burger you are supposed to get at the restaurant as advertised on the posters on the wall and menus, and then unwrap your order and see if it looks like that.
 
The burger commercials don't specifically say: "Your burger will look like THIS!"

If this commercial said something like "...whitens up to X shades. HERE'S the difference X shades can make!" ...then I wouldn't call it deceptive.
 
my clean pc.com ads are the worst. "Does your email take longer than 3 seconds to load? Cause that is the telltale sign of a virus!" Just to confirm my morbid curiosity, I looked at some customer feedback for that product and it is just what you would expect. The install spyware allegedly to make false errors, high pressure sales tactics for service contracts that are meaningless, hours to multi day long wait times etc.

As someone who has worked in the computer/software industry forever, it pisses me off to no end when a company uses this kind of tech to pray on the weak and unknowledgeable.
 
They can say just about anything in ads so long as they don't specifically say things like results shown guaranteed or make medical promises relating to curing diseases and ailments. Even there they can hint at the possibility so long as they don't make a direct connection. For example they can say things like studies have shown that people with lower X levels die older. Our product lowers your X levels. Then show lots of active people in their 100s. So long as they don't "say" this will make you live longer or cure you disease, there's a loop hole. I hate it but it's the norm everywhere.
 
Ichinisan said:
Yeah. I caught that while browsing Engadget a few days ago. Pretty lame that someone at Dell thought that was OK.
Click to expand...

All they needed to do was to show a picture of a game, and they would have been OK. No one in Dell's marketing department has a game they could take screenshots from?
 
davmat787 said:
my clean pc.com ads are the worst. "Does your email take longer than 3 seconds to load? Cause that is the telltale sign of a virus!" Just to confirm my morbid curiosity, I looked at some customer feedback for that product and it is just what you would expect. The install spyware allegedly to make false errors, high pressure sales tactics for service contracts that are meaningless, hours to multi day long wait times etc.

As someone who has worked in the computer/software industry forever, it pisses me off to no end when a company uses this kind of tech to pray on the weak and unknowledgeable.
Click to expand...

agreed. the worst is the one that spoofs and claims to be microsoft security essentials.
 
I've seen several Subway commericals where they showed sandwiches that had . . . meat . . . in them.

LIES!!
 
Perknose said:
I've seen several Subway commericals where they showed sandwiches that had . . . meat . . . in them.

LIES!!
Click to expand...

Subway's actually not too bad with the meat I find. But yeah the adds make them look like some epic NY Deli corn beef sandwich. lol.
 
i see these "As seen on TV" things are usually just a money grab, so the product comes out, they make their money off a few people, have a "your results may vary" or "results not typical" clause in small print, which will hold off people long enough to then gather the rest of the money and then fold. and move onto some other snake oil thing.
 
Ichinisan said:
Is there some federal agency that enforces truthful advertising?
Click to expand...

yes.

What truth-in-advertising rules apply to advertisers?

Under the Federal Trade Commission Act:
  • Advertising must be truthful and non-deceptive;
  • Advertisers must have evidence to back up their claims; and
  • Advertisements cannot be unfair.
Additional laws apply to ads for specialized products like consumer leases, credit, 900 telephone numbers, and products sold through mail order or telephone sales. And every state has consumer protection laws that govern ads running in that state.
What makes an advertisement deceptive?

According to the FTC's Deception Policy Statement, an ad is deceptive if it contains a statement - or omits information - that:
  • Is likely to mislead consumers acting reasonably under the circumstances; and
  • Is "material" - that is, important to a consumer's decision to buy or use the product.
What makes an advertisement unfair?

According to the Federal Trade Commission Act and the FTC's Unfairness Policy Statement, an ad or business practice is unfair if:
  • it causes or is likely to cause substantial consumer injury which a consumer could not reasonably avoid; and
  • it is not outweighed by the benefit to consumers.
How does the FTC determine if an ad is deceptive?

A typical inquiry follows these steps:
  • The FTC looks at the ad from the point of view of the "reasonable consumer" - the typical person looking at the ad. Rather than focusing on certain words, the FTC looks at the ad in context - words, phrases, and pictures - to determine what it conveys to consumers.
  • The FTC looks at both "express" and "implied" claims. An express claim is literally made in the ad. For example, "ABC Mouthwash prevents colds" is an express claim that the product will prevent colds. An implied claim is one made indirectly or by inference. "ABC Mouthwash kills the germs that cause colds" contains an implied claim that the product will prevent colds. Although the ad doesn't literally say that the product prevents colds, it would be reasonable for a consumer to conclude from the statement "kills the germs that cause colds" that the product will prevent colds. Under the law, advertisers must have proof to back up express and implied claims that consumers take from an ad.
  • The FTC looks at what the ad does not say - that is, if the failure to include information leaves consumers with a misimpression about the product. For example, if a company advertised a collection of books, the ad would be deceptive if it did not disclose that consumers actually would receive abridged versions of the books.
  • The FTC looks at whether the claim would be "material" - that is, important to a consumer's decision to buy or use the product. Examples of material claims are representations about a product's performance, features, safety, price, or effectiveness.
  • The FTC looks at whether the advertiser has sufficient evidence to support the claims in the ad. The law requires that advertisers have proof before the ad runs.
What kind of evidence must a company have to support the claims in its ads?

Before a company runs an ad, it has to have a "reasonable basis" for the claims. A "reasonable basis" means objective evidence that supports the claim. The kind of evidence depends on the claim. At a minimum, an advertiser must have the level of evidence that it says it has. For example, the statement "Two out of three doctors recommend ABC Pain Reliever" must be supported by a reliable survey to that effect. If the ad isn't specific, the FTC looks at several factors to determine what level of proof is necessary, including what experts in the field think is needed to support the claim. In most cases, ads that make health or safety claims must be supported by "competent and reliable scientific evidence" - tests, studies, or other scientific evidence that has been evaluated by people qualified to review it. In addition, any tests or studies must be conducted using methods that experts in the field accept as accurate.
 
Tsaico said:
i see these "As seen on TV" things are usually just a money grab, so the product comes out, they make their money off a few people, have a "your results may vary" or "results not typical" clause in small print, which will hold off people long enough to then gather the rest of the money and then fold. and move onto some other snake oil thing.
Click to expand...

Has anyone been to one of those "As seen on TV" stores. Where they sell all the infomercial crap? When you see a lot of this stuff in person, wow @ how crappy most of it is. There's a few things here and there that look quality but a lot of it looks like it's made out of cardboard.
 
I didn't say it was illegal, but if you show me a picture on the menu of a 24oz Porterhouse steak for $35.00 and then I'm served a 12oz T-Bone, I'm pissed. I can't sue the restaurant for it but I can walk out. So if I see a picture of a double patty 5 Guys burger and then I'm served a Big Mac, it's not illegal, but it should be, and is dishonest in my opinion.
 
guyver01 said:
...
Under the Federal Trade Commission Act:
  • Advertising must be truthful and non-deceptive,
...
Click to expand...
😵
Apparently they're not even attempting to look like they're thinking about trying to enforce this.



What makes an advertisement deceptive?

According to the FTC's Deception Policy Statement, an ad is deceptive if it contains a statement - or omits information - that:
  • Is likely to mislead consumers acting reasonably under the circumstances; and
  • Is "material" - that is, important to a consumer's decision to buy or use the product.
Click to expand...
Wait, isn't this the dictionary's definition of advertising?
 
Jeff7 said:
😵
Apparently they're not even attempting to look like they're thinking about trying to enforce this.




[/LIST]
Wait, isn't this the dictionary's definition of advertising?
Click to expand...

Sometimes you see infomercials for things and you know the results shown HAVE to be in the 5-10% range, under special circumstances, or have little to do with the product shown. Those types of infomercials have been on for years and years.

I think it's much less what's legal than what you can get away with. How many people REALLY want to take a company to court for false advertising in their infomercial showing a $15 knife set that can cut through tile and theirs broke on a frozen steak. How many people really want to spend the legal fees to do this? Most just roll their eyes and say "well I was a sucker" and move on. Sad truth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top