Tunze - False Advertisement?
- Thread starter tkeracer619
- Start date
- Status
If you look at Klaus's post, 2 years ago.
vivek
New member
Rysher
I could not agree more. There are way too many folks out there who believe in milking the system is the way to go. Find a fault (hot coffee, slipping on spills etc....) and make money out of it. It is sickening that we have people and lawyers like that. Not everyone I am saying here who is complaining has that attitude but surely it is as widespread as cancer in our society.
that's a label on the box.must not have looked at the box either
next.
JG1
New member
Why? How many I own is irrelevant to the issue at hand.
JG1
New member
I suppose you missed the link I provided
why wont you give me a summarize version of it and we will take it from there, you seem to be knowledgeable about it.
iwishtofish
Active member
A lot of fussing about nothing, IMO. Different pumps push water differently, and perhaps we should make our pump purchases based on real-world recommendations from those who have experience with the pumps we are considering.
JG1
New member
Maybe you think wrong?
is there a standard way to advertise?
i see advertising as using the "tv, newspaper and radio" to broadcast its product.
tunze website to me is providing data of their product.
JG1
New member
Providing data and a price is called ADVERTISING.
JG1
New member
Are you my wife?
JG1
New member
Flawed and Insignificant Research Advertisements based on flawed and insignificant research are defined under section 43(a) of the Lanham Act as "representations found to be unsupported by accepted authority or research or which are contradicted by prevailing authority or research." These advertisements are false on their face.
Alpo Pet Foods v. Ralston Purina Co., 913 F.2d 958 (D.C. Cir. 1990), shows how basing advertising claims on statistically insignificant test results provides sufficient grounds for a false advertising claim. In this case, the Ralston Purina Company claimed that its dog food was beneficial for dogs with canine hip dysplasia, demonstrating the claims with studies and tests. Alpo Pet Foods brought a claim of false advertising against Purina, saying that the test results could not support the claims made in the advertisements. Upon looking at the evidence and the way the tests were conducted by Purina, the court ruled not only that the test results were insignificant but also that the methods used to conduct the tests were inadequate and the results could therefore not support Purina's claims.
Alpo Pet Foods v. Ralston Purina Co., 913 F.2d 958 (D.C. Cir. 1990), shows how basing advertising claims on statistically insignificant test results provides sufficient grounds for a false advertising claim. In this case, the Ralston Purina Company claimed that its dog food was beneficial for dogs with canine hip dysplasia, demonstrating the claims with studies and tests. Alpo Pet Foods brought a claim of false advertising against Purina, saying that the test results could not support the claims made in the advertisements. Upon looking at the evidence and the way the tests were conducted by Purina, the court ruled not only that the test results were insignificant but also that the methods used to conduct the tests were inadequate and the results could therefore not support Purina's claims.
- Status
Similar threads
