Truth in Advertising

Dominic Massa
dm968315@ohio.edu

There have been countless controversies related to advertising throughout the advancement of technology.  Whether it be a radio commercial from two decades ago, or a television commercial broadcast today, advertising plays a vital role in forming society's ideas and opinions on specific topics.  A critical issue that exists today is false advertising, the advertising of untrue information.

In 2010, Kellogg's agreed to pay $5 million for false immunity claims (Photo via www.nutraingredients-usa.com)

Lawsuits

Of course, the overall goal of a company is to make a profit.  In order to do that, they typically engage in advertising to a specific group of people, or a target audience.  Although this has proven to be an effective strategy, it can also sometimes backfire, particularly due to false advertising.

Because companies try to target an audience, they also strive to make their product the most recognizable, or the "stand-out" product of its kind.  Attempting to gain more recognition, a company may choose a specific slogan to use when advertising its product.  This was the case for Red Bull GmbH, the distributor of the energy drink Red Bull.  An organization known for targeting a rather young generation, Red Bull GmbH ran advertisements in which its slogan, "Red Bull gives you wings!" was utilized to positively publicize the drink.  This had been a slogan used by the company for years, until a lawsuit arose in 2014.  Although rather unlikely, Benjamin Careathers sued Red Bull GmbH for false advertising.  He argued that after drinking Red Bull for over ten years, he still did not have wings, nor did he gain any additional athletic or intellectual ability.  Fearing an expensive and long-lasting trial, the company instead settled the case outside of court, electing to refund $10 to any customer who purchased the drink after 2002 and agreed to amend future advertising.  In total, however, Red Bull GmbH was forced to pay $13 million to settle the suit, half of which would go to an estimated 1.4 million consumers.  Despite the company's effort to positively publicize the drink, they instead experienced a major difficulty due to false advertising.

Other Legal Instances

Other companies have also been culprits of false advertising.  For instance, consider the case of Dannon, the distributor of Activia yogurt.  In 2010, Dannon was attempting to promote its yogurt to consumers, claiming Activia was both "clinically" and "scientifically" proven to regulate digestion and improve immune systems.  However, a Cleveland judge ordered Dannon to pay consumers up to $45 million in damages under the terms of a class action settlement.  In addition, the agreement reached forced Dannon to change its health claims for Activia.  This instance has been common in advertising before, as companies claim to have a product that is somehow dominant or innovative over another in hopes that more people will purchase the product.

Conclusion

Although attempts have certainly been made to end false advertising, it is almost inevitable that the phenomenon will continue.  There are definitely ways to avoid it, and many companies have figured out alternatives to promote their product.  Ultimately, the consequences of using false advertising are far more critical to the company than the minor benefits they may bring.