|
|
Posted by Justin on 10/05/15 11:40
HoMoon115 wrote on [20 Feb 2006 07:13:29 -0800]:
>> > 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!
Just because there's a settlement doesn't mean there's guilt, you
realise.
> 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.
Common sense with online services and common sense with offline services
have two different standards, as the courts have shown us.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|