The Wall Street Journal news-section A-hed tackles silly (sometimes deliberately so) disclaimers, such as IKEA’s gigantic sign portraying a hot dog with the disclaimer “*not actual size.” But it also notes the high costs that litigation or regulatory action can inflict when disclaimers are omitted. Our readers discussed the Red Bull case two years ago.
2 Comments
I don’t know. If I am considering buying something for the first time, I do want to know what I am getting. If I don’t get a product review, why should I not be able to rely on the advertising.
For example, there are strawberries that might fill up a small cup of yogurt for sale in the store. If there is a picture of a spoon of yogurt with a huge strawberry on it, might I not expect to find a whole strawberry inside with the yogurt? Maybe I would not expect it to be the size of a truck, but, still…
Then again, maybe I should know (not having ever bought yogurt before) that all strawberries are sliced before putting them in a yogurt cup.
I am a bit ambivalent. On the one hand, I don’t want frivolous litigation. On the other hand, I don’t want companies profiting from subterfuge.
I’ve certainly felt deceived by pictures on food packaging. So I simply didn’t buy that product again. It’s not as though wasting $2 were worth a lawsuit.