Anyone who has gone on dates with people who they matched with on a dating app could probably tell you about at least one time their date didn't quite line up to what they put in their profile.
Whatever it may be, I think it's safe to say people — for the most part — craft dating profiles based on what they think portrays the best version of themselves. And that makes it almost unreasonable to think that everyone on dating apps will look like they do in their profiles, especially if they use tech to alter their images.
Along those lines, it seems perfectly reasonable that ads cast products and services in — often quite literally — the best possible light, with the caveat that they can't flat out lie.
Unlike with people on datings apps that generously round up their heights, there are legal remedies for consumers who've been misled by deceptive or false advertising.
But it's not so simple to prove, especially when it comes to food.
People are having more beef with beef
Lawyers James Kelly and Anthony Russo, in particular, have been leading the charges against fast food companies, bringing cases against Taco Bell, Wendy's, McDonald's, Burger King and Arby's, my colleague Danielle Wiener-Bronner reported. These companies use ads that don't match up with their actual food, the suits allege.
As evidence, the complaints feature images of food marketing alongside shots of their real-life counterparts. In the ads, burgers look tall, heaped with meat and cheese, topped with golden, rounded buns. But in the photos of burgers bought from a real fast food location, they're flat, with meat and cheese barely peeking out of limp, white buns.
For a judge or jury to side with the plaintiffs in false advertising claims, lawyers have to successfully make the case that the ads would trick a "reasonable consumer," Tommy Tobin, a lawyer at Perkins Coie and Lecturer at UCLA Law, told Wiener-Bronner.
But Burger King claimed in a recent filing against it that "reasonable consumers" know that food in ads "has been styled to make it look as appetizing as possible."
That said, you'd think a reasonable consumer would recognize that drinking Red Bull won't actually give you wings. Yet the energy drink maker agreed to pay $13 million to settle a false advertising action suit brought against it over its slogan nearly a decade ago.
Now Red Bull doesn't give you wings. It does, however, give you wiiings.
A verdict is in
On Wednesday, a US District Judge dismissed a lawsuit that was filed against Wendy's and McDonald's food images saying they "are no different than other companies' use of visually appealing images to foster positive associations with their products."
My two cents
It's frustrating when you buy something because it looked enticing in an ad and you come to find out it's not exactly what it was made out to be. Feel free air your grievances out on social media, to you mother, your dog or anyone who might be willing to listen.
You can always file a lawsuit too, but just don't expect it to be a get-rich-quick scheme.
Comments
Post a Comment