Should false advertising be a felony?

[Katganistan]

I hope no one ever told you about Santa Claus. You might sue.

Sea Monkeys are silly. But do you remember geritol? Those people should have been sued if not jailed.

For what?

It still exists afaik.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Honestly? That's pushing it as it is. It was used to convince kids someone's watching their behaviour, but it's hardly worth the damage in parental credibility. And really, it'd be better to use surveillance cameras in youth centers and at schools and parks in case some kids are faking belief in Santa anyway.

BIG BROTHER.... I mean, Santa Claus.... is watching YOU.

Better to resort to a verifiable big brother than a false one.

[Katganistan]

BIG BROTHER.... I mean, Santa Claus.... is watching YOU.

Better to resort to a verifiable big brother than a false one.

I'm sorry, I can't possibly take you seriously when you want to jail people for false advertising that isn't, and then propose that constant surveillance is preferable to a story told to enhance a kid's wonder about gift-giving.

[Des-Bal]

BIG BROTHER.... I mean, Santa Claus.... is watching YOU.

Better to resort to a verifiable big brother than a false one.

You keep coming back to this idea that if something's harmless we might as well do something else.

[Ethel mermania]

Sea Monkeys are silly. But do you remember geritol? Those people should have been sued if not jailed.

For what?

It still exists afaik.

From the wiki
Geritol was the subject of years of investigation starting in 1959 by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). In 1965, the FTC ordered the makers of Geritol to disclose that Geritol would relieve symptoms of tiredness only in persons who suffer from iron deficiency anemia, and that the vast majority of people who experience such symptoms do not have such a deficiency. Geritol's claims were discredited in court findings as "conduct amounted to gross negligence and bordered on recklessness," ruled as a false and misleading claim, and heavily penalized with fines totaling $812,000 ($4,335,739 in 2015 dollars),[7] the largest FTC fine up to that date (1973).[8][9] Although subsequent trials and appeals from 1965 to 1973 concluded that some of the FTC demands exceeded its authority, Geritol was already well known and continued to be the largest U.S. company selling iron and B vitamin supplement through 1979.

Since then, supplemental iron products, including Geritol, have been contraindicated because of concerns over hemochromatosis,[10][11] and serious questions raised in studies for men, postmenopausal women, and nonanemic patients with liver disease, heart disease, type 2 diabetes, or cancer.[12][13]


It killed people with heart issues.

[Des-Bal]

For what?

It still exists afaik.

From the wiki
Geritol was the subject of years of investigation starting in 1959 by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). In 1965, the FTC ordered the makers of Geritol to disclose that Geritol would relieve symptoms of tiredness only in persons who suffer from iron deficiency anemia, and that the vast majority of people who experience such symptoms do not have such a deficiency. Geritol's claims were discredited in court findings as "conduct amounted to gross negligence and bordered on recklessness," ruled as a false and misleading claim, and heavily penalized with fines totaling $812,000 ($4,335,739 in 2015 dollars),[7] the largest FTC fine up to that date (1973).[8][9] Although subsequent trials and appeals from 1965 to 1973 concluded that some of the FTC demands exceeded its authority, Geritol was already well known and continued to be the largest U.S. company selling iron and B vitamin supplement through 1979.

Since then, supplemental iron products, including Geritol, have been contraindicated because of concerns over hemochromatosis,[10][11] and serious questions raised in studies for men, postmenopausal women, and nonanemic patients with liver disease, heart disease, type 2 diabetes, or cancer.[12][13]


It killed people with heart issues.

It sounds like they didn't know that when they were advertising it.

[Ethel mermania]

From the wiki
Geritol was the subject of years of investigation starting in 1959 by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). In 1965, the FTC ordered the makers of Geritol to disclose that Geritol would relieve symptoms of tiredness only in persons who suffer from iron deficiency anemia, and that the vast majority of people who experience such symptoms do not have such a deficiency. Geritol's claims were discredited in court findings as "conduct amounted to gross negligence and bordered on recklessness," ruled as a false and misleading claim, and heavily penalized with fines totaling $812,000 ($4,335,739 in 2015 dollars),[7] the largest FTC fine up to that date (1973).[8][9] Although subsequent trials and appeals from 1965 to 1973 concluded that some of the FTC demands exceeded its authority, Geritol was already well known and continued to be the largest U.S. company selling iron and B vitamin supplement through 1979.

Since then, supplemental iron products, including Geritol, have been contraindicated because of concerns over hemochromatosis,[10][11] and serious questions raised in studies for men, postmenopausal women, and nonanemic patients with liver disease, heart disease, type 2 diabetes, or cancer.[12][13]


It killed people with heart issues.

It sounds like they didn't know that when they were advertising it.

That is an interesting question. At one point they definitely did know, I don't remember when they found out.

They always knew it was useless pap, that it was a product that sold because of the slogan as opposed to any real utility. But as to when they found out they were killing folks, I don't know.

[VoVoDoCo]

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.

lol no. That's not how it works.

Most economist today don't view a correlation between increased money printing and inflation.

The belief that there is a correlation is built on unfounded assumptions by earlier economist.

Printing a ton of money CAN cause inflation, but only if all other things remain the same (they don't), and only if you print money that cumulatively has more value than our economy is worth, which the US doesn't do.

In fact, we're not even close.

And I'm not even going to get into the "lying should be a crime" mantra.

[Katganistan]

It sounds like they didn't know that when they were advertising it.

That is an interesting question. At one point they definitely did know, I don't remember when they found out.

They always knew it was useless pap, that it was a product that sold because of the slogan as opposed to any real utility. But as to when they found out they were killing folks, I don't know.

It's still marketed. You can buy it today. Do a search on Amazon.
Also the same Wiki article says that the FDA overstepped their bounds on their demands to the makers of Geritol, and that it continued to sell big despite it all.

[Ethel mermania]

That is an interesting question. At one point they definitely did know, I don't remember when they found out.

They always knew it was useless pap, that it was a product that sold because of the slogan as opposed to any real utility. But as to when they found out they were killing folks, I don't know.

It's still marketed. You can buy it today. Do a search on Amazon.
Also the same Wiki article says that the FDA overstepped their bounds on their demands to the makers of Geritol, and that it continued to sell big despite it all.

some of their bounds. quite a few restrictions were upheld.

i wonder if it is the same formula.

[Neanderthaland]

Sea Monkeys seems like a silly hill to die on.

Supplements that don't even necessarily contain what they say they do, or claim to be able cure diseases without medical evidence; that's far more worrisome.

[Des-Bal]

Sea Monkeys seems like a silly hill to die on.

Supplements that don't even necessarily contain what they say they do, or claim to be able cure diseases without medical evidence; that's far more worrisome.

Those are also very unpopular for large companies. Flat out lying to your customers only makes sense if you're playing the short con.

[Neanderthaland]

Sea Monkeys seems like a silly hill to die on.

Supplements that don't even necessarily contain what they say they do, or claim to be able cure diseases without medical evidence; that's far more worrisome.

Those are also very unpopular for large companies. Flat out lying to your customers only makes sense if you're playing the short con.

They seem to mostly get away with it though.

I mean, the amount of vitamin C that's sold as a cold and flu remedy is staggering.

[Des-Bal]

They seem to mostly get away with it though.

I mean, the amount of vitamin C that's sold as a cold and flu remedy is staggering.

They really don't.

I'm not seeing them. I shopped for cold and flu remedies then specified cold and flu vitamin c and the results were mostly citrus flavored headache medicine and antihistamines or vitamin C supplements that never actually said that they prevented or treated the cold or flu.

Vitamin C boosts your immune system, this is true. There are studies on it so you can make a product that's a vitamin C supplement and advertise it as boosting the immune system without testing and without saying anything untrue. If you say "this product will cure or prevent the cold and flu" you can have your ass nailed to the wall. This is what happened to Airborne who reigned in their claims because having your ass nailed to the wall isn't fun.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Person A buys product X from person B. Product X appears to be a scam. A sues B in a civil court, and gets his money back. No harm done by the end of it. I don't see what a criminal case could add that would make this situation better.

[Forsher]

Person A buys product X from person B. Product X appears to be a scam. A sues B in a civil court, and gets his money back. No harm done by the end of it. I don't see what a criminal case could add that would make this situation better.

But you just explained?

It's folly to imagine that everyone who falls victim to things like false advertising...

1. knows about their rights as a consumer
2. is able to engage legal representation to assess the merits of the case
3. is able to tide over the case prior to winning
4. is actually right that the firm has been caught red-handed and will win the case, thus earning costs which will retroactively compensate for (3).

However, it's quite remarkable how much of modern society is built on the premise that our folly is a castle. It's also somewhat perverse to argue that we should hope a charitable hand reaches out to fight these sorts of cases. What kind of inefficiency is that I ask? A lot I answer.

Were these criminal cases then none of the above applies... although (1) somewhat more so. However, what this actually concludes is that the real question is whether criminalising much of civil law is the best solution not that making false advertising criminal is right... all we have is an argument that the current system is deeply problematic.

[Des-Bal]

But you just explained?

It's folly to imagine that everyone who falls victim to things like false advertising...

1. knows about their rights as a consumer
2. is able to engage legal representation to assess the merits of the case
3. is able to tide over the case prior to winning
4. is actually right that the firm has been caught red-handed and will win the case, thus earning costs which will retroactively compensate for (3).

However, it's quite remarkable how much of modern society is built on the premise that our folly is a castle. It's also somewhat perverse to argue that we should hope a charitable hand reaches out to fight these sorts of cases. What kind of inefficiency is that I ask? A lot I answer.

Were these criminal cases then none of the above applies... although (1) somewhat more so. However, what this actually concludes is that the real question is whether criminalising much of civil law is the best solution not that making false advertising criminal is right... all we have is an argument that the current system is deeply problematic.

When we observe society we see that false advertising is not rampant. This leads to the assumption that something is fundamentally wrong with your theory or your understanding of the world in which that theory is founded. On closer inspection, every one of your points is based on fundamentally not understanding lawsuits.


1. Punitive damages often consider how likely a company is to get away with their inappropriate conduct but even if they didn't just by filing a complaint you're informing similarly situated people that you think the company's done something wrong and you think that it's worth legal redress.

2. Class Action Lawsuits are a thing and the strain they put on members of the class is much less than that faced by a singular plaintiff. The idea behind delaying is that if there's certainty you're going to waste their time and uncertainty that they're going to win they may give up and go away without you paying out a settlement. More importantly you don't have precedent on the books that in your exact situation you should lose. After the FIRST person succeeds on a cause of action there's no reason for a company to bother delaying when dealing with the exact same issue from a different person. They're not going away because they're definitely going to win and they're not going to settle for less than the previous award. Even worse, a judge may decide that because you're continuing to do this even MORE punitive damages are necessary to dissuade you.

3. Lawyers exist and their fee arrangements reflect all of these concerns. The way a contingent fee arrangement works is that if you don't win you don't pay. The idea is that the firm invests money into your case and then gets a payout after they win. They take the case because they think they can win or because they think they can secure a settlement that's just as good. If they don't take the case it's because they can't win or get a settlement which really just means the company isn't actually engaged false advertising.

Civil litigation is doing it's job.

[Imperium Sidhicum]

Person A buys product X from person B. Product X appears to be a scam. A sues B in a civil court, and gets his money back. No harm done by the end of it. I don't see what a criminal case could add that would make this situation better.

It would certainly make an example of the scammers and make any who might follow in their footsteps in the future think twice. I don't think some small-time crook who just wants to make some easy money would be overly keen on ending up in the slammer with a bunch of burly brutes looking to turn him out for company.

[Des-Bal]

It would certainly make an example of the scammers and make any who might follow in their footsteps in the future think twice. I don't think some small-time crook who just wants to make some easy money would be overly keen on ending up in the slammer with a bunch of burly brutes looking to turn him out for company.

It already makes people think twice. If you're motivated by making money then any system that makes what you're doing unprofitable makes you change your mind.

[Forsher]

When we observe society we see that false advertising is not rampant. This leads to the assumption that something is fundamentally wrong with your theory or your understanding of the world in which that theory is founded. On closer inspection, every one of your points is based on fundamentally not understanding lawsuits.

Not at all. As you somewhat seem to grasp, I'm not talking about false advertising, not really. In that specific case, the bad publicity is ruinous, the offence obvious enough and the victims need only be one and wealthy enough...

1. Punitive damages often consider how likely a company is to get away with their inappropriate conduct but even if they didn't just by filing a complaint you're informing similarly situated people that you think the company's done something wrong and you think that it's worth legal redress.

To my knowledge, punitive damages are neither desirable nor frequently awarded. They have absolutely nothing to do with paying costs, which is the theoretical "accessibility" mechanism. They have even less to do with anything I wrote.

2. Class Action Lawsuits are a thing and the strain they put on members of the class is much less than that faced by a singular plaintiff. The idea behind delaying is that if there's certainty you're going to waste their time and uncertainty that they're going to win they may give up and go away without you paying out a settlement. More importantly you don't have precedent on the books that in your exact situation you should lose. After the FIRST person succeeds on a cause of action there's no reason for a company to bother delaying when dealing with the exact same issue from a different person. They're not going away because they're definitely going to win and they're not going to settle for less than the previous award. Even worse, a judge may decide that because you're continuing to do this even MORE punitive damages are necessary to dissuade you.

Yes... I pretty obviously dismissed this argument. In fact, I called it perverse.

It's also somewhat perverse to argue that we should hope a charitable hand reaches out to fight these sorts of cases. What kind of inefficiency is that I ask? A lot I answer.

Have you commented on any of that? No. Therefore, it's still perverse.

3. Lawyers exist and their fee arrangements reflect all of these concerns. The way a contingent fee arrangement works is that if you don't win you don't pay. The idea is that the firm invests money into your case and then gets a payout after they win. They take the case because they think they can win or because they think they can secure a settlement that's just as good. If they don't take the case it's because they can't win or get a settlement which really just means the company isn't actually engaged false advertising.

Both problems with the above at once. It also completely fails to understand points 1, 2 and 3.

Shockingly I, too, know these basic talking points from literally every episode of any show with lawyers in it.

Civil litigation is doing it's job.

Your defence of it isn't.

[Des-Bal]

Not at all. As you somewhat seem to grasp, I'm not talking about false advertising, not really. In that specific case, the bad publicity is ruinous, the offence obvious enough and the victims need only be one and wealthy enough...


To my knowledge, punitive damages are neither desirable nor frequently awarded. They have absolutely nothing to do with paying costs, which is the theoretical "accessibility" mechanism. They have even less to do with anything I wrote.


Yes... I pretty obviously dismissed this argument. In fact, I called it perverse.

It's also somewhat perverse to argue that we should hope a charitable hand reaches out to fight these sorts of cases. What kind of inefficiency is that I ask? A lot I answer.

Have you commented on any of that? No. Therefore, it's still perverse.


Both problems with the above at once. It also completely fails to understand points 1, 2 and 3.

Shockingly I, too, know these basic talking points from literally every episode of any show with lawyers in it.



Your defence of it isn't.

Punitive damages are always desirable because they are large sums of money offered to the plaintiff. Plaintiffs always want punitive damages. How common they are depends on the area of law, when you're talking about things that involve businesses and general public they are widely available because we don't want businesses fucking with the general public.

I assumed you misspoke because nothing about the system is perverse, inefficient, or charitable. Someone sues because they have been injured and they want compensation and/or to punish the party that wronged them.

Since this is apparently just me misunderstanding you why don't you go ahead and spell out your points?

[Katganistan]

Sea Monkeys seems like a silly hill to die on.

Supplements that don't even necessarily contain what they say they do, or claim to be able cure diseases without medical evidence; that's far more worrisome.

Geritol has in it, in part, iron. The claim was you'd feel less tired if you took it. Yes, you would -- if you had an iron deficiency.

So yes, that should have been made clear. And people should take the proper dosages, as well. The company has a responsibility to clearly state what it might interact with and who should check with their doctor if they have $condition/disease before taking it.

[Katganistan]

Person A buys product X from person B. Product X appears to be a scam. A sues B in a civil court, and gets his money back. No harm done by the end of it. I don't see what a criminal case could add that would make this situation better.

But you just explained?

It's folly to imagine that everyone who falls victim to things like false advertising...

1. knows about their rights as a consumer
2. is able to engage legal representation to assess the merits of the case
3. is able to tide over the case prior to winning
4. is actually right that the firm has been caught red-handed and will win the case, thus earning costs which will retroactively compensate for (3).

However, it's quite remarkable how much of modern society is built on the premise that our folly is a castle. It's also somewhat perverse to argue that we should hope a charitable hand reaches out to fight these sorts of cases. What kind of inefficiency is that I ask? A lot I answer.

Were these criminal cases then none of the above applies... although (1) somewhat more so. However, what this actually concludes is that the real question is whether criminalising much of civil law is the best solution not that making false advertising criminal is right... all we have is an argument that the current system is deeply problematic.

There are class action lawsuits, and they make themselves widely known and even make the companies being sued inform their customers of such so said consumers can join them.

[Valentine Z]

It's not exactly a felony. I mean, sure, it's falsely advertised, but do you realise that it does have a few good outcomes, to my knowledge.

1) They're novelty toys. Like, in its heydays, you can tell your friends that you have a X-ray glasses, before they realise that it's a fake. It's a practical joke, not so much as false advert.

2) Moral of the story? Don't believe everything you see on TV! Kids can learn this if they finally realised that the sea monkeys, instant money magic tricks, and X-ray glasses are load of baloney.

3) It's not big enough to be a felon, in my opinion. It's just $1 to $10 loss, nothing too big. If you're advertising a $1500 weight-loss pill that "promises 5 kg loss in 1 week" (but does nothing), then you will have trouble.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

It's not exactly a felony. I mean, sure, it's falsely advertised, but do you realise that it does have a few good outcomes, to my knowledge.

1) They're novelty toys. Like, in its heydays, you can tell your friends that you have a X-ray glasses, before they realise that it's a fake. It's a practical joke, not so much as false advert.

2) Moral of the story? Don't believe everything you see on TV! Kids can learn this if they finally realised that the sea monkeys, instant money magic tricks, and X-ray glasses are load of baloney.

3) It's not big enough to be a felon, in my opinion. It's just $1 to $10 loss, nothing too big. If you're advertising a $1500 weight-loss pill that "promises 5 kg loss in 1 week" (but does nothing), then you will have trouble.

1. Find some other practical joke, then.

2. You can make the point without some scammer cashing in on it in the process.

3. The issue isn't the dollars per customer. It's the customers per scam.