NationStates

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/17/maga ... rtune.html

So I was just listening to something about this on the radio.

In a nutshell, scumbag scams kids, repeatedly, first by selling "sea monkeys" that turn out to just be brine shrimp, second by selling X-ray specs that are anything but. There's talk of lawsuits, but not false advertising lawsuits. They're talking about people suing over who gets to keep this ill-gotten fortune.

If you were dealing in stolen goods, you'd be in prison, literally taking it up the ass for the rest of your life. Or if you tried to run, you'd be shot. But for whatever reason, ill-gotten cash from scamming children doesn't have to be seized by the feds, because it's a "civil" offense.

Here's a better idea. Make false advertising a felony, now. Have the feds seize this money and destroy it, raising the value of everyone else's more legitimately earned money.

Should drug use be a felony?

The Parkus Empire wrote:Should drug use be a felony?

Probably not, as making it a felony has done more harm than good. Not sure what this has to do with this, though.

Anyone who buys "x-ray specs" expecting them to be real deserves to lose their money.

Companies that violate regulations should be forced to disclose that information when relevant, same as employees are forced to disclose criminal convictions.

"Before the job interview begins, we're required to inform you we have been convicted of violating worker rights legislation."

And before/on advertisements.

"We are required to inform you we have been convicted of false advertising."

Until the conviction expires, which takes 5 years.

There should be limits but it is fine

Eh....I mean there's a fine line between false advertising and good marketing. Of course, blantant lies, like the "sea monkeys" should be illegal, imho.

Calling novelty toys Sea-Monkeys and X-Ray specs isn't false advertising.

Ostroeuropa wrote:Companies that violate regulations should be forced to disclose that information when relevant, same as employees are forced to disclose criminal convictions.

"Before the job interview begins, we're required to inform you we have been convicted of violating worker rights legislation."

And before/on advertisements.

"We are required to inform you we have been convicted of false advertising."

Until the conviction expires, which takes 5 years.

A statute of limitations? Fuck that. Who benefits from that?

LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote:Companies that violate regulations should be forced to disclose that information when relevant, same as employees are forced to disclose criminal convictions.

"Before the job interview begins, we're required to inform you we have been convicted of violating worker rights legislation."

And before/on advertisements.

"We are required to inform you we have been convicted of false advertising."

Until the conviction expires, which takes 5 years.

A statute of limitations? Fuck that. Who benefits from that?

That isn't a statute of limitations. It's a term of punishment.

How exactly is marketing brine shrimp under the name Sea Monkeys false advertising?

Dazchan wrote:How exactly is marketing brine shrimp under the name Sea Monkeys false advertising?

It's not just the name. It's how it was marketed.

Marketing:



Reality:



Probably should've linked to this earlier in the thread: http://mentalfloss.com/article/56755/16 ... ea-monkeys

LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:

Dazchan wrote:How exactly is marketing brine shrimp under the name Sea Monkeys false advertising?

It's not just the name. It's how it was marketed.

Marketing:

Reality:

Probably should've linked to this earlier in the thread: http://mentalfloss.com/article/56755/16 ... ea-monkeys

"Caricatures shown not intended to depict Artemia salina"

Olthar wrote:Anyone who buys "x-ray specs" expecting them to be real deserves to lose their money.

This is my new favourite quote. Its funny because the judge in the case noted in the article seemed to agree with this sentiment, or at least with not taking things so literally, when he talked about "sponge cakes not being made of sponge and butterflies not being made of butter". The whole article seems more structured around the case of who owns the rights to the products, the company that bought these rights under terms and conditions or the original developer's widow. Frankly I found the story a lot more interesting than the debate.

It's scummy, but more often than not it isn't damaging enough to escalate its punishment.

LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:

The Parkus Empire wrote:Should drug use be a felony?

Not sure what this has to do with this, though.

Majority of the time a drug *user* is as harmless as someone advertising their soda to cure hangovers.

There's an interesting part of modern contract law that seeks to analyze objectively whether a statement is intended to function as a warranty or as "mere puffery." It mostly operates to check whether a reasonable person would have believed it was true, and whether the seller took actions consistent with treating it as a warranty.

Its an interesting field. I believe the Sea Monkey ad would probably end up treated as a warranty based on some of that language.

LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:

Dazchan wrote:How exactly is marketing brine shrimp under the name Sea Monkeys false advertising?

It's not just the name. It's how it was marketed.

Marketing:



Reality:



Probably should've linked to this earlier in the thread: http://mentalfloss.com/article/56755/16 ... ea-monkeys

And what part of the advertisement do you feel is false?

Dazchan wrote:

LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:It's not just the name. It's how it was marketed.

Marketing:



Reality:



Probably should've linked to this earlier in the thread: http://mentalfloss.com/article/56755/16 ... ea-monkeys

And what part of the advertisement do you feel is false?

"So eager to please, they can even be trained"

"Always clowning around, these frolicsome pets swim, stunt, and play games with each other."

Those.

LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:

Dazchan wrote:How exactly is marketing brine shrimp under the name Sea Monkeys false advertising?

It's not just the name. It's how it was marketed.

Marketing:



Reality:



Probably should've linked to this earlier in the thread: http://mentalfloss.com/article/56755/16 ... ea-monkeys

the ad does say the drawing is not meant to depicked to represent the sea monkeys.

i dont think for this, but there are times when i can see it.

for example a cigarette campaign where they say "cigarettes are good for you" i think should be prosecuted ( i cant find the ad i was looking for this one wasnt it)

http://tobacco.stanford.edu/tobacco_mai ... ame=T-Zone

And ruin the childhood disappointment?

Sure, could even make a magic machine to kill anybody who commits it.

I don't think it should be a felony. Then again, maybe it should. I don't know really. I want to limit felonies to serious stuff like rape, arson, murder, kidnapping, and so on.

But a false advertiser should probably be held liable for fraud damages that result. It depends I guess.

Kernen wrote:There's an interesting part of modern contract law that seeks to analyze objectively whether a statement is intended to function as a warranty or as "mere puffery." It mostly operates to check whether a reasonable person would have believed it was true, and whether the seller took actions consistent with treating it as a warranty.

Its an interesting field. I believe the Sea Monkey ad would probably end up treated as a warranty based on some of that language.

If you do not intend to deceive your customers, you could just say what you mean and mean what you say. That whole aspect of the law seems like an excuse to protect liars.

Technically you can brand something anything you like.. the Patagonian Toothfish, which few people would order on a menu, is rebranded Chilean Seabass.. yum yum.. even though it's not really seabass.

So you can brand name sea brine as Sea Monkeys, or whatever you want really. What you can't do is make false claims as to effect.. so Sea Monkeys - they cure cancer! would not be allowed. The definitions of 'play' or others in the Sea Monkey ad are too stretchy to be really counterclaimed.

X Ray spectacles, I mean I assume the claims are too vague really.

I do remember those ads from comic books, there was a spy kit as well that I felt would complement my life as an 8 year old.

LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:In a nutshell, scumbag scams kids, repeatedly, first by selling "sea monkeys" that turn out to just be brine shrimp

Is this an ironic post?