On Thu, 2011-01-20 at 13:29 +0000, Michael Rigby-Jones wrote:
> > So, what I'm saying since obviously letting people understand what I
> say
> > once isn't enough in this case: is that if someone relies exclusively
> on
> > the marketing material released by the vendor, that the person who
> falls
> > for the marketing material deserves to be fleeced once in a while.
>=20
> What does the business who publishes the misleading marketing material
> deserve?

An obviously loaded question. The "issue" I see is the definition of
"misleading". This isn't as cut and dry as many people think it is.

Obviously, if public safety is at issue then some regulatory control is
necessary (even there though the lines are not clear). If no-one is
getting hurt, then things are a little more murky.

I'd go so far as to say that the definition of "marketing material" is
"misleading". ALL marketing trumps up it's product more then it should.=20

Look at hair shampoo ads for a great example. Is the fact that your hair
will NEVER look as good as the model's hair in the ad, no matter how
much of that shampoo you buy, reason enough to label the ad as
"misleading" and require government control? Where is the line drawn?
Weight loss ads? What about internet ads that claim certain speeds that
you KNOW you'll never get in real life?

So, to answer your question: it depends. If the business is malicious
about it's marketing, i.e. harming people in some way (like a product
promising to cure cancer that results in the patient forgoing proven
treatments), then I'd say criminal proceedings should occur. If there's
no harm (other then people buying something that might not work exactly
as stated) then I'd lean much more to no government intervention. I can
see that in some cases though things might get far enough to require
intervention, but that should be on a case by case basis.

TTYL

--=20
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.