I got to wondering after I saw a particularly egregious example of a whole bunch of fine print shown at the end of a TV commercial far faster than any human could possibly read it (the particular commercial involved some loan company that would “put hundreds of dollars in your bank account with just a signature”, but we’ve all I’m sure seen similar things many times with other types of deals advertised on TV).
Has anyone ever sued on the grounds that what was flashed on the screen at the end of a commercial is NOT adequate notice of various important terms, since it is impossible to read?
Since this is just general curiosity, I don’t care about the jurisdiction.
I share your concern. That’s really annoying and appears to rely on the possibility that people with VCR’s and DVR’s and TiVo’s would record the thing and then play it back to read the fine print.
My curiosity goes to what would happen in court if you could show you had no such device and were therefore immune to whatever counterclaim the agency running the commercial might have that “you were warned.”
All I know is that there’s no way I would avail myself of whatever product or service the ad refers to. Kiss of death, I mean.
Off the subject, I looked at one of the websites that advertises those “hundreds of dollars in your account tomorrow” services. The APR it offered ranged anywhere from 60% to 75%.
I saw a commercial last summer that had too small of a print to be readable on a standard television. It was an analog broadcast so it wouldn’t have been readable on a HD screen either. I know it couldn’t be read, because I looked every time it was on for a week. They speed up the audio terms too much sometimes also.
There is virtually nothing more ridiculous as far as I’m concerned. You have these spokestypes rattle on for 2/3 of the time the commercial is on, bragging on the product or service and then prattle away with all the disclaimers and “void where prohibited” slop for the last 1/3 of the time. It’s just funny. Do they think people fall for that shit?
Not to mention all the side effects some of these medical remedies have. One I think I remember was for the Olean potato chips or something: “sudden bowel movements.” Oh yeah, that’s for me.
I once taped such a commercial on my VCR. When I played it back and paused it, so that I could read it leisurely, I was surprised to find that the paused scene was less readable than during normal playback. But playing back at normal speed, I had to rewind it over and over to get all the way to the end. Aaargh!
I kinda suspect that the document that requires “just a signature” has this same small print on it, and it’s your responsibility to read that document before you sign. The fact that it appears too fast on screen is unimportant given you’ve got those same words in your hand, and you can take all the time you need to read it before you sign the document.
A suit brought up on the basis you suggest should be laughed out of court.
You’re probably right in that instance, but I was just using it as an example. I’ve also seen it for stuff that you’d be ordering over the phone (e.g. MDG computers), so there wouldn’t be a piece of paper to look at (at least not until after you received the product). My question is a general one - has there been any suits pertaining to the unreadable fine print occurring so frequently in commercials of all kinds?
I had not heard of MDG Computers until I read you last post, so I had to look them up. For many things, people could probably just look things up on the internet to find “the fine print.” But if you’re buying your first computer over the phone, that’s not necessarily an option.
Obviously (based on my first response), I’ve not heard of any such cases. I’m just reposting to acknowledge that your second example trumps my first response. And now, I have to admit, my curiosity is a little piqued.
I should add: I believe (and I’m just applying a common sense WAG here*) that the point of displaying fine print in a TV commericial is not to convey details, but to alert viewers that that are deatils to be understood. People can then research those deatils on their own (sort of a red flag that it’s a “buyer beware” situation).
Of course, you still have a great example with the MDG Computers. People that don’t yet own a computer may not have the resources to research the information before make the phone transaction. I suspose it’s their responsibility to ask questions. But I do agree that brief fine print does make it easy for potential customers to overlook any “catch” to the offer.
I misremembered the interest rates on these loans. Turns out they top out at 99.25% APR. I can’t even imagine how desperate and stupid someone would have to be to accept that rate.
It’s hard to answer your question without taking jurisdiction into account. One mailing list I participate in has extensive traffic about the differences between jurisdictions, and what that means for things like disclosure. “Void where prohibited” covers your ass for things like un-approved lotteries in Quebec, but it doesn’t help where the basic offer is valid in a jurisdiction, but you violate some part of local consumer law with how you make the offer. In Ontario, for instance, “fine print” has to be a minimum size, and of a minimum standard of legibility. Many governments have gone so far as to require certain boiler-plate text for certain types of consumer contracts.
All of which comes back to your question about lawsuits. There have, in fact, been hundreds of lawsuits against these TV campaigns, both from consumer protection advocates and suckers who bought into them.
[sorta hijack] Sadly, the example you cite, the so-called “better than prime” loan market, exploits a particularly vulnerable segment of the population. Contrary to what you might imagine is the truth, high-risk loans are extremely profitable. Even with the higher loss rate for the lender, the high rates and small size of each individual loan more than compensate. Otto’s example, for instance, would be illegal under both provincial consumer laws in Canada, and the Canada Criminal Code (which makes annualized rates of more than 60% usuary, originally a provision to go after loan-sharks). Outside of short-term commercial leases, the “payday loan” industry charges the highest interest rate, often exceeding 1000%, and targetting the most vulnerable section of society. As they violate every jurisdiction’s consumer loan rate laws, their future in Canada hangs in the balance (and indeed, the Quebec government has been very proactive in shutting them down).
Is that legal in the US? Wouldn’t a rate like that be classed as usuary in the UK? I remember last year a whole load of debts to a company in Manchester were struck off by a judge for having outlandish interest rates.
I agree with milquetoast. At some point in an actual transaction, the buyer would have to indicate he has been made aware of the details via print or some other means. Flashing the details on a television screen would not accomplish this purpose but it would avoid any claims of false advertising in implying that these details didn’t exist.
There is no federal usary law in the US. It is on a state-by-state basis, with some states having no or very weak usary laws. For this reason, credit card companys tend to incorporate in such states. My state legislature keeps considering it, but keeps being bought off by the lender’s lobby.
With fees and rolling over loans, many of these shysters are getting several hundred percent return.
Yup! This happens because standard television is interlaced. Every second has approx. 30 frames per second. But it’s being broadcast at 60 odd and even horizontally interlaced fields a second. So, when you’re pausing it on one of the interlaced fields, you’re only seeing half the resolution you’d see if you were watching it in real time. Makes even moderate sized text misshapen and illegible.
I’ve often wondered if any of that fine print they flash on tv for 3 seconds would ever hold up in court. Why even bother putting it up for all the good it’s worth. Sometime legalities defy so much common sense, it hurts.
I’ve suspected thast this has something to do with it, but I have been presuming that while the odd lines are being refreshed, the even lines are still visible on screen, so for this sort of text (which remains stationary) all the lines are always visible, so there shouldn’t be any loss of legibility.
OH! I think I just figured it out! The television does always show all the lines, but when watching a paused scene from the VCR, only half of the lines are being fed to the tv at a time, so the other lines are truly not visible! Am I close? Thanks!
