Truth in Advertising: BP v. Royal Purple

Joined
Jun 11, 2002
Messages
3,346
Location
Clarksville, Tennessee
Truth in Advertising: BP v. Royal Purple http://tinyurl.com/cscb5y
 Quote:
NAD recommended Royal Purple discontinue claims such as “Increases horsepower and torque by as much as 3 percent,” “Reduces Engine Wear by 80 percent,” “Superior Oxidation Stability” and “Provides Film Strength Up to 400 Percent.” “If industry-standard tests or tests with carefully documented controls were abandoned, there would be no basis whatsoever for making any meaningful claims about the relative efficacy of motor oils,” BP said in its challenge. NAD recommended that Royal Purple discontinue claims that stated, “Improves fuel economy by as much as 5 percent” and “Fuel economy improvement up to 5 percent or more” because its Environmental Protection Agency testing was inconclusive and the “Oklahoma State Study” and single cylinder Labeco CLR diesel engine testing cited in Royal Purple’s advertising was not relevant. The NAD noted the 1997 OSU Study was “outdated and nothing in the record demonstrated that the formulations of the competitors’ oils were similar to those available for sale on the market today.”
 
Joined
Oct 28, 2002
Messages
48,022
Location
Everson WA - Pacific NW USA
Holy [censored] Mike, there have been about sixty zillion posts on the subject. At the very least you know someone will post about this sort of thing the first day it's released.
 
Joined
Nov 18, 2004
Messages
1,967
Location
Kitsap, WA
Supreme court has been trying to rule on whether advertising is afforded freedom of speech, in essence allowing them to say whatever they want without regard to false statements.
 
Joined
Dec 8, 2006
Messages
3,058
Location
Columbus, Ohio
 Originally Posted By: wileyE
Supreme court has been trying to rule on whether advertising is afforded freedom of speech, in essence allowing them to say whatever they want without regard to false statements.
That would be the end of civilization as we know it. It's not freedom of speech, it is supposed to be factual. If they are allowed to lie then it is totally meaningless and I can't even use it to consider purchases. John
 
Joined
Oct 28, 2002
Messages
48,022
Location
Everson WA - Pacific NW USA
 Originally Posted By: wileyE
Supreme court has been trying to rule on whether advertising is afforded freedom of speech, in essence allowing them to say whatever they want without regard to false statements.
That's NOT the definition of "Freedom of Speech". You can't just say or write anything and everything……….
 
Joined
Apr 19, 2009
Messages
2,935
Location
Canada
Freedom of speech is fine if that speech does not mislead people into spending their hard earned money for a product that does not deliver. That would be considered as false advertising. Say whatever you like but don't expect people to pay for a product that falls short of the manufacturer claims. Those that use false advertising to sell their products should be exposed and punished.
 
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
3,730
Location
SE PA
 Originally Posted By: Pablo
 Originally Posted By: wileyE
Supreme court has been trying to rule on whether advertising is afforded freedom of speech, in essence allowing them to say whatever they want without regard to false statements.
That's NOT the definition of "Freedom of Speech". You can't just say or write anything and everything……….
Well said. The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr, Supreme Court Justice.
 
Top