false advertising

Subscribe to false advertising via RSS

Baker’s dozen = 13 (not 12)

Easy.

Foot = 12 inches (the length of the average man’s foot)

Of course. I learned this in the second grade.

2 by 4 = 1.5 inches by 3.5 inches  

What?

4 by 4 = 3 ½ inches by 3 ½ inches

No way.

5/4 inches by 4 inches = 1 1/8 inches by 3 ½ inches

Mind. Blown… unless you’re a carpenter or in the construction industry.

In the United States, softwood lumber is governed by the American Softwood Lumber Standard which was developed by the American Lumber Standard Committee, in accordance with the Procedures for the Development of Voluntary Product Standards of the U.S. Department of Commerce. That’s a mouth full. However, the lumber standard is a government-approved codification of longstanding industry practices. And, while dimensional lumber is cut to a specific length, width, and depth, there is a difference between the nominal size (what the lumber is referred to) and its actual size.

Continue Reading Who “Wood” Have Thought? Plaintiffs Challenge Longstanding Lumber Labeling Practices

A California state court recently issued a preliminary ruling proposing to assess a statutory penalty against online discount retailer Overstock.com in the amount of $6.8 million for engaging in allegedly false and misleading discount advertising.1 Overstock.com was alleged to have advertised discounted prices that were pegged to the company’s own uncorroborated estimate of undiscounted retail value, rather than on actual data. The case highlights the risk that both online and brick-and-mortar retailers face if they advertise “discounts” from “regular” prices that have never actually been offered in commerce, in violation of the Federal Trade Commission guidelines against deceptive advertising (“FTC Guides”). The case also signals a major new threat to retailers engaging in these kinds of marketing strategies, which are common in the industry.

The Overstock.com case began in 2010, when a group of California district attorneys filed a private action under California’s False Advertising Law, Unfair Competition Law, and Consumer Legal Remedies Act. Their complaint alleged that Overstock.com “routinely and systematically made untrue and misleading comparative advertising claims” by comparing its retail prices to “advertised reference price(s)” (ARPs) that were not the prevailing market prices for its products. The district attorneys claimed that Overstock.com instead used misleading internal formulas designed to “inflate the comparative prices and artificially increase the discounts it claimed to be offering consumers.” The complaint also alleged that because Overstock.com was no longer merely a reseller of distressed merchandise, but was now actively engaged in original design, production and sale of a wide variety of products, it could not possibly advertise a “discount” for such products that were never sold at an undiscounted price.Continue Reading California Court Proposes to Assess $6.8 Million Penalty Against Online Discount Retailer For Engaging in Commonly Used Pricing Claims