|
|
Posted by HoMoon115 on 10/05/09 11:40
>>Except that in this society we are bombarded by statements that claim to
>>deliver one thing yet we receive something else.
I couldn't agree more. We agree on this point. We disagree on what
standards to apply when determining which statements overstep the
bounds of legality. Derek touches on a reasonable standard.
> > time you drink it, and to which no patron has ever sued for false claims--
> > Sort of like an "unlimited rental" of coffee.) :)
No patron has sued b/c of the bottomless cup claim. I'm not a lawyer,
but I've heard of a legal term called something like the "common sense
principle". So if applied to this case, terms would be arguable
deceptive if a majority would interpret the claim contrary to what is
delivered. In questionable situations its up to the courts to laly
judgement.
In conjuction with Derek's statement, we arrive at a simple conclusion.
No patron has made claim against the bottomless cup advertisment.
Therefore it must not be misleading due to the common sense principle.
No court would hear such a case. However, Netflix's claims have drawn a
law suit that's been upheld by the superior court of CA and endorsed by
the FTC. Oh yes, Netflix was found guilty!
http://cdn.netflix.com/us/corporate/settlement/long_form_notice.pdf
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2006/01/fyi0602.htm
I have faith in the SuperiorCourt of CA that they understand
advertising laws. So, Netflix obviously violated both advertising laws
and the common sense legal principle. Accordingly, my argument stands;
Netflix is guilty of illegal advertising. Any subsequent alterations to
the TOS are irrelevent since they had a substantial customer base that
was drawn in based on the false claims prior to the amending the TOS.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|