5 Written questions
5 Matching questions
- Arguments against comparative advertising
- Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (TDTPA)
- Ways advertisers can get in trouble with comparative advertising
- Substantiation definition and types
- a This is a state regulation ("little FTC Act"). The main provision: "False, misleading, or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are hereby declared unlawful." The minor Provisions: You can't use the state seal and state flag when selling a product, because it doesn't want to look as if the state endorsed the product
-List of examples (not an exhaustive list): Passing off, confusion as to the source, misrepresentation as to the origin, pyramid schemes, turning back odometers when selling cars, etc.
-Consumers can sue and ask for punitive damages (2x), and can get both the court fees and the attorney fees back if you win
-States were encouraged to create their own trade practices by the FTC in the 80s
-This act is like the FTC act b/c it protects against deceptive advertising but this act d/n protect against unfairness and this act allows consumers to sue.
- b 1. Honor/reputation
2. bootstrapping (pulling yourself up by others' bootstraps)
4. Consumers, not advertisers should decide which brand is better
5. incomplete picture
6. destructive to a specific market
7. reduce credibility of advertising
8. meaningful comparison is impossible
9. consumer confusion
10. help enemy
- c 1. Disparagement (tort) - protects a company, product or brand from being badmouthed/lied about
2. Defamation - same thing, but about people - MUST be a lie (libel=written/slander=spoken)
- d Definition: The basis for making a claim in an ad. Before the 1970s the FTC allowed any claims and tested it if doubted, now the FTC required evidence of "claims" BE ON HAND before being charged with deceptive adv. If an advertiser does not have it on file then they are found guilty.
Types: Assumption, express claim (states the evidence in the claim), implied claims ("if 4 our of 5 doctors recommend it, it implies that 80% of doctors would agree", unclear claims ("this cleaner will remove stains from white carpet" harder to determine the substantiation. NEED at least a reasonable basis for this claim")
- e Probability
5 Multiple choice questions
- "Likely to affect their choice of, or CONDUCT regarding a product." Conduct includes driving to the store and not necessarily buying the product. The mere act of getting someone to go out of their way is enough to be material. This occurred during the Reagan administration
- 1. Volvo - ran an ad intending to show the strength of their vehicles. Agency, Scaly McCaid, got screwed
2. Libby Owens Ford Glass - Vaseline on car window. FTC regulated because it was deceptive.
- ONLY guidance/advisory; they are NOT LAW. If you stray from them, then you are in the danger zone and may be violating the law.
1.Bait Advertising: Ads that draw you in with a great deal and switch you to a higher priced item once you are in the store. The guideline is that you have to truly intent to sell a product advertised.
2. Guideline on the word Free: has to actually be free (ex: offering a washer for sale with a free bike, when you just upped the price of the washer).
3. Guidelines on endorsement
- If the ad says "the color is blue". In this case the FTC has to look at the message and assume that the conveyed meaning and literal message are identical.
- Ran the FTC during the Reagan administration. He was from the Chicago economic thought. He wanted Congress to add his definition, Congress refused but he made it into an FTC policy. Deception policy was changed from "capacity OR tendency to mislead" to "capacity AND tendency to mislead". Raised the standard to prove deception. Less regulation and less consumer protection.
5 True/False questions
Spoof → Harder to prove. The FTC must prove that there is a difference b/t the conveyed message and the product attributes
How much can the FTC fine you for deceptive adv. → The FTC cannot punish so they cannot fine anything BUT Congress can fine advertisers for violating the order given by the FTC to cease and desist or whatnot. The fine from Congress use-to-be $5000 but today it is $10000
Conveyed Message → What is received; how the consumer interprets the ad. Comparing what is happening in the consumer's mind to what the product attribute is = a measure of deceptive advertising.
Lanham Trademark Act, Section 43 (a) → Protects against a statutory version of palming off. It is a trademark law designed to make sure that someone who owns a trademark has protection over that trademark. Logos can be part of trademarks but they are not the same thing. Example: Two Pesos, which had a pink color like Taco Cabana, and looked a lot like it (and in reality was the old partner of Taco Cabana). Taco C won the case.
Social-psychological representations/Evaluative claims → Consumer Credit Protection Act
Consumer Products Safety Act
Lanham Trademark Act
Fur Products Labeling Act
Flammable Fabric Act