# Question on the legality of an advertisement. **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [February 22, 2013, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-on-the-legality-of-an-advertisement/651035 "2013-02-22T02:04:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2013, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-on-the-legality-of-an-advertisement/651035/21 "2013-02-22T22:08:17Z")
> [@NitroPress](#): > > It’s not clear that this is false advertising. If the winner gets pretty much anything conforming to the language of the come-on - three “gold coins” or “golden coins” or whatever, be they 24kt gold or plastic or chocolate gelt, I think you’d have a hard time making a false advertising case. Especially if the winner’s investment consists entirely of setting foot across the seller’s threshold. The come-on has absolutely nothing to do with sale or product terms that were contravened. > > You have to remember that _all_ advertising contains false elements, and advertising as a whole is institutionalized lying. The point at which it’s legally, contractually or ethically/morally “false advertising” is entirely a matter of degree. My point is that whether the ad would be interpreted as a contract, whether there is consideration on both sides, etc. etc. is irrelevant. There are laws against false advertising. Violating these laws can land a business in trouble. Bait and switch, incorrect or blatantly misleading advertising, etc. - this is illegal. Ethical violations are ads that are misleading enough to confuse people, but not so misleading that they are outright lies. AFAIK, the BBB deals with this sort of problem. Whether a person thinks the are getting a _real_ gold coin - don’t forget there are people who don’t know that the coins should be worth thousands, may think the dealership is giving away tens of dollars worth of freebies. Oddly enough, the people in this category are likely also susceptible to used-car-salesman pitches. It’s not whether the the average person should thnk hard and realize it’s not true; there are such things as gold coins, but there is no such thing as a solid ivory light switch plate (I hope!!). It also depends how easy it would be for the advertiser to use less confusing terms. Jacking up the list price 100% then advertising “our cars are 50% off” is technically, verbally, correct but legally a violation of consumer protection law and misleading… even if the tiny illegible print says " \*…of our new higher prices." Wikipedia: > [@](#): > > United States advertising regulations > > Advertising is regulated by the authority of the Federal Trade Commission, a United States administrative agency, to prohibit “unfair and deceptive acts or practices in commerce.”[13] While it makes laymen’s sense to assume that being deceptive is being unfair, deceptiveness in practice has been treated separately by the FTC, leaving unfairness to refer only to other types.[14] All commercial acts may be deceptive, not just advertising, but noncommercial activity such as advertising for political candidates is not subject to prosecution under the FTC Act. The 50 states have similar statutes, which generally are very similar to that of the FTC and in many cases copied so closely that they are known as “Little FTC Acts.” While the terms “false” and “deceptive” are essentially the same for most, being deceptive is not the same as producing deception. What is illegal is the potential to deceive, which is interpreted to occur when consumers see the advertising to be stating to them, explicitly or implicitly, a claim that they may not realize is false and material. The latter means that the claim, if relied on for making a purchasing decision, is likely to be harmful by adversely affecting that decision. If an ad is implicitly false, evidence must be obtained for what consumers saw the ad saying, and for the materiality of that, and for the true facts about the advertised item, but no evidence is required that actual deception occurred, or that reliance occurred, or that the advertiser intended to deceive or knew that the claim was false. > > The goal is prevention rather than punishment, reflecting the purpose of civil law in setting things right rather than that of criminal law. The typical sanction is to order the advertiser to stop its illegal acts, or to include disclosure of additional information that serves to avoid the chance of deception. Corrective advertising may be mandated,[15][16] But there are no fines or prison time except for the infrequent instances when an advertiser refuses to stop despite being ordered to do so.[17] > > The actual statute defines false advertising as a “means of advertisement other than labeling, which is misleading in a material respect; and in determining whether an advertisement is misleading, there shall be taken into account (among other things) not only representations made or suggested by statement, word, design, device, sound, or any combination thereof, but also the extent to which the advertisement fails to reveal facts material in the light of such representations or material with respect to consequences which may result from the use of the commodity to which the advertisement relates under the conditions prescribed in said advertisement, or under such conditions as are customary or usual.” [18] See that last paragraph - “suggestions” and “the extent to which it fails to reveal” ---
**Author:** ![Amateur\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/59ef9b/32.png) [@Amateur\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amateur_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2013, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-on-the-legality-of-an-advertisement/651035/22 "2013-02-22T22:12:36Z")
I simply can’t see a court ruling that **THREE GOLD COINS** \* on a free-participation advertising come-on,\*\*\* completely unrelated to any sale or product,\*\*\* is a case of false advertising warranting any damages whatsoever. The astericked addendum is misleading, but it _is_ there. You can’t say the flyer misrepresents the prize, even. \*Golden Presidential Dollars ---
**Author:** ![Amateur\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/59ef9b/32.png) [@Amateur\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amateur_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2013, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-on-the-legality-of-an-advertisement/651035/23 "2013-02-22T22:20:15Z")
> [@md2000](#): > > There are laws against false advertising. Violating these laws can land a business in trouble. Bait and switch, incorrect or blatantly misleading advertising, etc. - this is illegal. So if the dealer ran banner ads that said OUR SHOWROOM HAS GLASS WINDOWS! but you got there to discover they were plexiglas, it would be false advertising, you somehow would have been cheated and thus would have grounds to sue them? The flyer that has you so upset has nothing - nada, zero, zip - to do with any sale or product the dealer makes or sells. It’s a come-on, like FREE POPCORN or PONY RIDES FOR THE KIDS or whatever. I suppose there’s a mild sleaze factor somewhere - I mean, it is a car dealer - but (if I read all this correctly) for coming down they will give you two free lottery tickets or three dollar coins. Other than on the most ethereal legal grounds, where have you been cheated? ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2013, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-on-the-legality-of-an-advertisement/651035/24 "2013-02-22T22:22:38Z")
Hell, for a pittance you can go ahead and take this to Small claims. Why not? ---
**Author:** ![doreen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/858c86/32.png) [@doreen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doreen)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2013, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-on-the-legality-of-an-advertisement/651035/25 "2013-02-22T23:31:13Z")
> [@hajario](#): > > Your cite gives an example of only one successful suit. And I suspect Hooter’s settled that one because it could be seen as a bonus promised to an employee for meeting a goal. Not the case with a flyer from a car dealership. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2013, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-on-the-legality-of-an-advertisement/651035/26 "2013-02-23T01:49:11Z")
Reread the advert when I got home. Again the Gold Coins in large but I was mistaken on the wording of the disclaimer. \*Gold Coin is U.S. $1 coin Which is an absolute lie. As it is I know this dealership and they are nortorious for outright lies and being the shadiest dealership around. I just can’t get around the fact that the know it is misleadin just to get people to come in and also that they say one thing and say will it’s really another. I also find it hard to believe that ads have carte blanche to advertise one thing and not have it (not exactly bait and switch but I would say it’s similar in ethics) and a judge say they don’t have to give you what was promised because it was not a contract. I know enough law to know that if victorius I may get “damages” consisting of gas cost - $3 but it still isn’t right. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2013, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-on-the-legality-of-an-advertisement/651035/27 "2013-02-23T02:01:36Z")
I just found this under Colorado Law it is a deseptive trade practice to > [@](#): > > (e) Knowingly makes a false representation as to the characteristics, ingredients, uses, benefits, alterations, or quantities of goods, food, services, or property or a false representation as to the sponsorship, approval, status, affiliation, or connection of a person therewith; so even if they have the discalimer by calling it “Gold Coins” it looks like they are violating the law and this would be reported to the DA. > [@](#): > > 6-1-802. Definitions. As used in this part 8, unless the context otherwise requires: > (1) “Contest” means any game, puzzle, competition, or plan that holds out or offers to prospective participants the opportunity to receive or compete for gifts, prizes, or gratuities as determined by skill or any combination of chance and skill; except that “contest” shall not be construed to include any activity of licensees regulated under article 9 or article 47.1 of title 12, C.R.S., or part 2 of article 35 of title 24, C.R.S. OK so it is a contest > [@](#): > > 6-1-803. Prohibited practices and required disclosures. (1) No sponsor shall require a person to pay the sponsor money or any other consideration as a condition of awarding the person a prize, or as a condition of allowing the person to receive, use, compete for, or obtain a prize or information about a prize. > (2) No sponsor shall represent that a person has won or unconditionally will be the winner of a prize or use language that may lead a person to believe he or she has won a prize, unless all of the following conditions are met: > (a) The person shall be given the prize without obligation; > (b) The person shall be notified at no expense to such person within fifteen days of winning a prize; and > (c) The representation is not false, deceptive, or misleading. I’d say it fails part c when they are clearly implying it is gold coins with a disclaimer that makes an error in fact. ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_T](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/3ec8ea/32.png) [@Gary\_T](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_T)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2013, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-on-the-legality-of-an-advertisement/651035/28 "2013-02-23T02:07:40Z")
> [@md2000](#): > > …the adjective for “gold-coloured” is golden… No, _ **AN** _ adjective for gold-colored is “golden,” not _ **THE** _ adjective for it. > [@](#): > > …not gold… The dictionaries I’ve seen say otherwise, listing one meaning of “gold” as the color. ---
**Author:** ![dracoi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/90db22/32.png) [@dracoi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dracoi)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2013, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-on-the-legality-of-an-advertisement/651035/29 "2013-02-23T02:20:48Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > How about asking it this way: > Let’s say I go to court and the judge agrees that a golden dollar is not the same thing as a gold coin. The advertisement showed presidential dollars but it also has a couple > 3 GOLD COINS with one of them with an asterix that leads you to > \*Presidential golden dollars > > Would the judge rule that I’m entitled to $3 or 3 actual gold coins (probably the 1/10 toz. Eagle)? I think your parenthetical explains exactly why the judge will give you $3. You’re having to say probably about which gold coin you expected to receive - but the fine print in the ad has already told you exactly which kind of gold coin you get. What judge in the world will favor your assumed probably over an actual written provision? ---
**Author:** ![Amateur\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/59ef9b/32.png) [@Amateur\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amateur_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2013, 4:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-on-the-legality-of-an-advertisement/651035/30 "2013-02-23T04:10:06Z")
Let us know how the suit turns out. ---
**Author:** ![ZenBeam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/3ab097/32.png) [@ZenBeam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ZenBeam)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2013, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-on-the-legality-of-an-advertisement/651035/31 "2013-02-23T19:52:35Z")
Boxes of 64 Crayola crayons have one labeled “Gold”, not “Golden”. After winning the car dealer suit, a class action against Crayola could be profitable too. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2013, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-on-the-legality-of-an-advertisement/651035/32 "2013-02-23T19:55:30Z")
Why are NitroPress and ZenBeam assuming I’m going to sue? It was a hypothetical based on the wording of an advertisement. ---
**Author:** ![Amateur\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/59ef9b/32.png) [@Amateur\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amateur_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2013, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-on-the-legality-of-an-advertisement/651035/33 "2013-02-23T20:16:33Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > Why are NitroPress and ZenBeam assuming I’m going to sue? It was a hypothetical based on the wording of an advertisement. Oh, I dunno. Maybe because you’ve repeatedly used phrases like “in court” and “would a judge give me” and other plaintiff-like statements. Arguing something like this in legal theory and in terms of how court might find are two different things. You’ve phrased things mostly in the latter sense. ---
**Author:** ![KermitTheFrig](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/47e85d/32.png) [@KermitTheFrig](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KermitTheFrig)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2013, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-on-the-legality-of-an-advertisement/651035/34 "2013-02-23T20:51:02Z")
This is NOT a contest where people “compete” for prizes as defined in post #27 by Saint Cad. There is no competition. They are very clearly saying, “If you come into our establishment, you will get one or the other of these gifts.” No purchase, skill, game of chance, etc. is in play. Since there is no contest, there are no prizes. These are free gifts given to everyone who shows up–a simple giveaway. They promise to give you a “chance to win money” (lottery tickets) or three gold coins, which they state are U.S. $1 coins. They are not misrepresenting any product they sell. It comes down to whether or not gold US $1 coins can be called “gold coins.” They’re coins. They’re gold in color. I don’t see a case. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2013, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-on-the-legality-of-an-advertisement/651035/35 "2013-02-24T16:03:10Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > Reread the advert when I got home. Again the Gold Coins in large but I was mistaken on the wording of the disclaimer. > \*Gold Coin is U.S. $1 coin > Which is an absolute lie. As it is I know this dealership and they are nortorious for outright lies and being the shadiest dealership around. I just can’t get around the fact that the know it is misleadin just to get people to come in and also that they say one thing and say will it’s really another. I also find it hard to believe that ads have carte blanche to advertise one thing and not have it (not exactly bait and switch but I would say it’s similar in ethics) and a judge say they don’t have to give you what was promised because it was not a contract. I know enough law to know that if victorius I may get “damages” consisting of gas cost - $3 but it still isn’t right. But it goes back to what is reasonable. Do you, as a reasonable person, believe that a sleazy car dealership is giving out three $50 antique double eagles containing 2 1/2ounces of gold for simply showing up on the car lot? Or do you really believe that they are giving out $1 Golden-colored Presidential coins? And just in case you thought the first thing, they said in their advert that they were giving out $1 Presidential Coins. When I become King, I will put a stop to a lot of the puffery in advertising, including this one. But it really is no worse than any other form of crap that goes on. How is it any different than an email saying, "You have been selected to receive a FREE Ipad! \* - You must select one of our generous offers and be entered into a contest to receive your FREE Ipad" ? ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2013, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-on-the-legality-of-an-advertisement/651035/36 "2013-02-24T17:07:38Z")
So when does puffery turn into outright deception. Can an ad say anything and then have a disclaimer to say not really? ---
**Author:** ![Amateur\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/59ef9b/32.png) [@Amateur\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amateur_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2013, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-on-the-legality-of-an-advertisement/651035/37 "2013-02-24T17:15:23Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > So when does puffery turn into outright deception. Can an ad say anything and then have a disclaimer to say not really? Read this until you understand it: **Advertising is institutionalized lying.** We accept, in our bones and at face value, that ads are telling anything but the truth. This extends to consumer and civil law. An ad has to make a blatant statement that will place a buyer’s economic health at risk to even be considered legally deceptive. And no, inducement to buy a shoddy, drastically overpriced or unneeded product does not count. (A.H. Hoffman formulated the specific quote. There are others but this is the most compact and accurate one I know.) ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2013, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-on-the-legality-of-an-advertisement/651035/38 "2013-02-24T17:46:28Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > So when does puffery turn into outright deception. Can an ad say anything and then have a disclaimer to say not really? No. When the ad makes a specific and unambiguous statement (e.g. "If you come to our showroom, we will give you a FREE 2013 Ford Focus! No strings attached!) then an asterisked provision saying “not really” would likely not convince a judge. But when we are disputing gold/golden/gold-colored or ivory/ivory-colored/elephant tusk, it is puffery. ---
**Author:** ![Amateur\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/59ef9b/32.png) [@Amateur\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amateur_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2013, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-on-the-legality-of-an-advertisement/651035/39 "2013-02-24T17:50:32Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > No. When the ad makes a specific and unambiguous statement (e.g. "If you come to our showroom, we will give you a FREE 2013 Ford Focus! No strings attached!) then an asterisked provision saying “not really” would likely not convince a judge. Different only in the slightest degree from: **WIN A NEW 2013 FORD FOCUS!** \* \*_Odds 10^24:1. Prize may not be awarded._ …which would be legal. ---
**Author:** ![astro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9dc877/32.png) [@astro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astro)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2013, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-on-the-legality-of-an-advertisement/651035/40 "2013-02-24T19:08:46Z")
Here - [today’s new Staples ad](http://weeklyad.staples.com/Staples/BrowseByPage?storeid=2278560&promotionviewmode=2&promotioncode=Staples-130224&listingid=0&sneakpeek=Y&pagenumber=1)fresh off the digital presses! > [@](#): > > \*\* 20% off everything you can fit in this bag\*\* > [@](#): > > Including chairs, furniture and clearance items. Here’s how it works: 1. Grab your free bag in store 2. Fill it up with ink, paper, supplies and so much more 3. Present your coupon at checkout 4. Watch the savings add up [Then actually view the coupon](http://f.e.staples.com/i/25/2068345218/25305_ecobag_olc.pdf) You don’t get that tablet or notebook for 20% off? Nope. Not yours. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-on-the-legality-of-an-advertisement/651035.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-on-the-legality-of-an-advertisement/651035.md?page=3)