I just can’t believe how much bullshit I see spread all over TV infomercials these days, not to mention all the bogus spam I get. I have been hit with at least 50 “penis enlargement” ads in the past 3 months alone. This is false advertising, and that’s against the law!** Isn’t it?** Why are they allowed to lie? I’ve recently seen an infomercial pushing a pill that will increase a woman’s breast size at least a full cup in something like two months. Or increase the size of a (unlucky) man’s penis by at least three inches! BULLSHIT!
These are blatant lies!!.
Aren’t there laws protecting the public against such false claims?
How are they getting away with this stuff? Who is supposed to be regulating them? The FCC?
Yes, the FCC and FTC regulate advertising. And yes, there are laws against making false claims for your product in advertisements.
Check the wording of some of the infomercials on television. I guarantee you there’s some weasel words.
“Not all weenies go up. Some go down.”
As far as the SPAM stuff goes most of it is generated outside of the USA and therefore difficult to prosecute.
Hmmmm… “False Advertising”. Do you mean advertising that isn’t really false? Or is it not really advertising, although someone is claiming that it is?
I’m confused.
Would you be willing to pay twice the amount you do now in taxes so that every law in the United States was consistently enforced? Doubling police forces at all levels would be the bare minimum required.
No, your right Lizard.
We should only inforce some of the laws.
Actually, when I worked in the theatre, you wouldn’t believe how many people (8 in six months, probably) “informed” me - in varying levels of politeness - that the fact that the combo sign said you get a Sidekick, and we’re out so you have to pick from two or three other snacks is false advertising. I don’t think some of them believed me when I showed them the “fine print” (a centimetre high?) saying that “Snack may vary depending on availability.” But maybe that’s just Canadians.
Hmm. So what, then, is the point of your OP? Obviously, we alreadydo enforce only “some” of the laws. With good reason. Your local police and the FBI are a lot more worried about murderers and terrorists than about false advertising for penis and breast pills. There is a finite number of cops, a finite number of hours during which they can be at work, and a finite amount of money with which to pay them.
So, short of coughing up more money for law enforcement, how do you propose to enforce the hundreds of thousands of federal, state, county, and municipal laws that exist?
The FCC and the FTC don’t really go out and actively look for companies that are breaking these laws. However, they’ll often follow up on complaints directed against companies who do go against the rules set up by these agencies.
Really, do you expect that every single commercial, Web banner, radio advertisment, billboard, flyer, et cetera and all the rest can be looked over by any group of people? Of course not.
Now, there’s also a term in advertisement called “puffery.” This is a term used for claims like “the best cake you’ll ever taste!” Of course, they have no way of validating that claim, nor is it necessarily true. But it isn’t illegal.
I understand that last bit isn’t exactly what the OP wanted, but it’s kinda related.
However, there are busts sometimes. In fact, I remember reading a few months back that one of the major “penis enlargement pill” manufacturers was busted. The product they were selling was extremely expensive, and the whole business was just hilariously shady. My guess is that they stood out from the hundreds of other scammers enough to be the ones to warrant an investigation and prosecution. I’d guess that a lot of it comes down to available manpower.
However, FWIW, I expect a major crackdown in perhaps the next year or so on a lot of these scam products. The coming spam crackdown will take a bite out of it as well. The audacity of a lot of “supplement” manufacturers recently has just gotten ridiculous, and huge amounts of money are being wasted by the public.
Another one! The “Smoke Away” system.
I see the infomercial all over the TV. It’s some type of herbal cocktail that is unbelievably guaranteed to make you quit smoking in 7 days.
Does anyone have the dope on this stuff?
Sorry, I didn’t really mean to double post on this subject.
My Bad!!
Welcome to the wild and wooly world of advertising and “weasel words.”
Words and phrases like:
may
can
helps
as soon as
as much as
as little as
assists
aids in
They’re all legally meaningless and claims made with them are unenforceable.
So, if an advertiser says “Our new pink pills will cure your impotence,” they better be able to prove it, or the FTC and/or FDA can rain toads on them.
On the other hand “By taking our new pink pills, your dinger may increase by as much as eight inches,” there’s no real claim made. Your dinger may or may not get bigger. It may fall off entirely.
It’s amazing what a little three-letter word (may) can do. :dubious:
Cops and FBI don’t do that kind of work anyway Lizard. I also think the FTC should actively seek out fraudulent business practices. I would think the man hours spent could be more than made up with the fines they would impose on these sham businesses.
True, but as other posters have noted, the root of the problem is still a shortage of manpower and funds. There really isn’t enough to go after all the people out there commmitting really * serious* crimes. We live in a society that is expected to be self-regulating. The honor system doesn’t work the way it used to.
I’ve been meaning to start a new thread to ask this, but I don’t think that it is too far off-topic for this thread…
There are lots of ads on radio and tv for various medications that claim to have “proven in clinical test that it works!” And the commercial has an annoying disclaimer that “this product is not intended to treat any condition or disease” (or something like that).
Anyone have any idea what these companies would say if someone asked them, “Well, if it’s not intended to treat anything, then what IS your product for?”
From what I understand if they don’t include that disclaimer then the FDA will treat the product as a drug and therefor needs to go through all the testing the FDA requires for drugs. By having that legal-babble they can claim that the product is a suppliment (spelling?) and and they don’t have to prove that it works.
From what I understand if they don’t include that disclaimer then the FDA will treat the product as a drug and therefor needs to go through all the testing the FDA requires for drugs. By having that legal-babble they can claim that the product is a suppliment (spelling?) and and they don’t have to prove that it works.
The “remedy” when caught is usually so tame you wonder why they bother. A famous one was GM claimed their windows were distortion free. When it was revealed that their TV ad had shown a “window” with no glass in it, they were required to show “corrective” ads that were the same only had real glass. The announcer still said “See, no distortion!” So how did that make up for it?