QUESTION = Are there any actual laws against false advertisement?

GENERATION = Yes, there are laws against false advertising in many states. The only time it really comes up in courts is when the plaintiff is trying to prove that an advertisement was misleading, and was deliberately using words that weren't true, and so the truth isn't being portrayed as truth (even though the argument usually makes sense). The other side is arguing that the advertisement wasn't misleading, and so was designed to provide more of an impact on their competition. They can argue about whether they're right, and a court will generally look at that to determine if there is a law that allows false advertising, but usually it's the other way around, and that's what a court will generally look at in the case. The first thing that I have seen in court is when a client says they are claiming that they didn't think it was misleading. If they think they were being deceptive, or if the advertisement wasn't intentionally deceptive, that can be called false advertising, and that usually gets thrown out in a lawsuit. Now for other kinds of false advertising (particularly if the company making the advertising knows it's false, but doesn't have much proof), that's more of a difficult thing to prove. 

RETRIEVAL #0 = False advertising---closely that they are known as "Little FTC Acts." These laws also go by the terminology "Unfair, Deceptive, or Abusive Acts and Practices" Laws (UDAAP or UDAP Laws) and can vary widely in the degree of protection they provide to consumers, according to the National Consumer Law Center. In California, one such statute is the Unfair Competition Law (UCL). The UCL “borrows heavily from section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act” but has developed its own body of case law. Section::::Regulation and enforcement.:United Kingdom. Advertising in the UK is managed under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPR), effectively the successor to the Trade Descriptions Act 1968. It is designed to implement the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, part of a common set of European minimum standards for consumer protection and legally bind advertisers in England, Scotland, Wales and parts of Ireland. These regulations focus on "business to consumer" interactions. These are modelled by a table used for assessing unfairness, evaluations being made against four tests expressed in the regulations that indicate deceptive advertising: BULLET::::- "Contrary to the requirements of professional diligence" BULLET::::- "False or deceptive practice in relation to a specific list of key factors" BULLET::::- "Omi 

RETRIEVAL #1 = False advertising---consumer's ability to make an informed decision, thereby limiting their freedom of choice. This system resembles American practice as reflected by the FTC in terms of disallowing false and deceptive messaging, prohibition of unfair and unethical commercial practices and omitting important information, but it differs in "monitoring aggressive sales practices" (regulation seven) which included high-pressure sales practices that go beyond persuasion. Harassment and coercion are not defined but rather interpreted as any undue physical and psychological pressure (in advertising). Even if proven cases of false advertising do not inevitably result in civil or criminal repercussions: the Office of Fair Trading states "in the instance of false advertising, companies are not always faced with civil and criminal repercussions, it is based on the seriousness of the infringement" and each case is analysed individually, allowing the standards authority to promote compliance with regards to their enforcement policies, priorities and available resources. Another area of departure from American practice relates to a "general prohibition on the use of competitors' logotypes, trademarks or similar copy to that used in a competitor's own advertising by another, particularly when making a comparison". Under CPR legislation, there are different standards authorities for each country: BULLET::::- In England and Wales, standards offences are handled by the Local Authority Trading Standards Services (TSS) BULLET::::- In Northern Ireland by 

RETRIEVAL #2 = False statement---States. In U.S. law, a "false statement" generally refers to United States federal false statements statute, contained in . Most commonly, prosecutors use this statute to reach cover-up crimes such as perjury, false declarations, and obstruction of justice and government fraud cases. Its earliest progenitor was the False Claims Act of 1863, and in 1934 the requirement of an intent to defraud was eliminated to enforce the National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933 (NIRA) against producers of "hot oil", oil produced in violation of production restrictions established pursuant to the NIRA. The statute criminalizes a government official who "knowingly and willfully": (1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry. Section::::See also. BULLET::::- False accusation BULLET::::- False statements of fact BULLET::::- Jumping to conclusions BULLET::::- Making false statements 

RETRIEVAL #3 = Defamation---is in fact true, an action for defamation "per se" cannot survive. The conception of what type of allegation may support an action for defamation per se can evolve with public policy. For example, in May 2012 an appeals court in New York, citing changes in public policy with regard to homosexuality, ruled that describing someone as gay is not defamation. Section::::Laws by jurisdiction.:North America.:United States.:Civil defamation.:Record awards. The record libel verdict in the United States was rendered in 1997 against Dow Jones in favor of MMAR Group Inc., awarding $222.7 million. However, the verdict was dismissed in 1999 amid allegations that MMAR failed to disclose audiotapes made by its employees. Section::::Laws by jurisdiction.:North America.:United States.:Criminal defamation. Less than half of U.S. states have criminal defamation laws, and the applicability of those laws is limited by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the laws are rarely enforced. At the federal level, there are no criminal defamation or insult laws in the United States. However, on the state level, 23 states and 2 territories have criminal defamation laws on the books, along with 1 state (Iowa) establishing defamation/libel as a criminal offense through case law (without statutorily defined crime): Alabama, 

RETRIEVAL #4 = False light---False light In law, false light is a tort concerning privacy that is similar to the tort of defamation. The privacy laws in the United States include a non-public person's right to protection from publicity which puts the person in a false light to the public. That right is balanced against the First Amendment right of free speech. False light differs from defamation primarily in being intended "to protect the plaintiff's mental or emotional well-being", rather than to protect a plaintiff's reputation as is the case with the tort of defamation and in being about the impression created rather than being about veracity. If a publication of information is false, then a tort of defamation might have occurred. If that communication is not technically false but is still misleading, then a tort of false light might have occurred. False light privacy claims often arise under the same facts as defamation cases, and therefore not all states recognize false light actions. There is a subtle difference in the way courts view the legal theories—false light cases are about damage to a person's personal feelings or dignity, whereas defamation is about damage to a person's reputation. The specific elements of the tort of false light vary considerably, even among those jurisdictions which do recognize this Tort. Generally, these elements consist of the following: BULLET::::1. A publication by the defendant about the plaintiff 

RETRIEVAL #5 = Commercial speech---expanded within Circuit Court case law to extend beyond protecting consumer deception as to include factual information for consumer awareness, such as food packaging information, as long as the information serves a reasonable government interest. Section::::In the United States.:Criticism. Members of the Supreme Court have expressed doubts about the Court's differential treatment of commercial speech in relation to other types of speech. Justice Clarence Thomas replied, in "44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island" (1996), that "I do not see a philosophical or historical basis for asserting that 'commercial' speech is of 'lower value' than 'noncommercial' speech." Justice Thomas would apply strict scrutiny to regulations of commercial speech. Justice Antonin Scalia expressed "discomfort with the "Central Hudson" test, which seem[ed to him] to have nothing more than policy intuition to support it". U.S. Court of Appeals judge Alex Kozinski criticized the 1942 "Valentine v. Chrestensen" ruling, stating that "the Supreme Court plucked the commercial speech doctrine out of thin air". Section::::In the European Union. The European Court of Human Rights has held that commercial speech is protected under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) on several occasions since the 1980s, but lacks a counterpart to the commercial speech doctrine that exists under U.S. law. In Germany 

RETRIEVAL #6 = False advertising---example, they may charge the customer's credit card for the product, offering a full refund if not satisfied. However, the risks of such an offer are numerous. Customers may not get the product at all, they may be billed for things they did not want, they may need to call the company to authorize a return and be unable to do so, they may not be refunded the shipping and handling costs, or they may be responsible for the return shipping. Similarly, a ‘free trial’ is an advertising manoeuvre to have consumers become hands-on with the products or services before purchase, without any money spent but a free trial in exchange for credit cards details cannot be stated as a free trial, as there is a component of expenditure. Section::::Puffing.:Acceptance by default. This refers to a contract or agreement where no response is interpreted as a positive response in favor of the business. An example of this is where a customer must explicitly "opt out" of a particular feature or service, or be charged for that feature or service. Another example is where a subscription automatically renews unless the customer explicitly requests it to stop. Section::::Regulation and enforcement. Section::::Regulation and enforcement.:United States. In the United States, the federal government regulates advertising through the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) with truth-in-advertising laws, and additionall