KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU (08/15/86)
[ Well, 'informed consent' depends on the point of view. Surely a
con-man gives a stilted picture of reality to the mark, but the
target considers him/herself to be well informed ...
All advertisers give a slanted view. Whether it is fraud depends on
just how slanted it is. If it is totally false, then it is fraud.
False advertising lawsuits must be applied with extreme care. Ten
years ago one product advertised that it 'kills flu viruses on
environmental surfaces'. This was true, but the government stopped
the advertisements on the grounds that it was misleading, that flu
viruses are spread through the air not via surfaces. Since then,
however, it has been discovered that flu viruses are in fact mostly
spread via surfaces!
Many advertisers are treading a thin line between fact and fiction.
Every week I get letters disguised as official government documents or
as telegrams, telling me that a fantastic prize has been awarded to me
and that I can pick it up at a convenient location in outer Appalachia
while listening to a sales pitch for worthless land. This is legit,
even if the 'solid gold ingot' listed as one of the possible awards
weighs 0.02 milligrams. Still, I think they would do better if they
came on straight.
I think the current fraud laws are mostly fair. It is interesting
to note that tobacco companies are using the mandatory warning labels
as a defense when they are sued for causing various vile diseases and
death. I think they would be wise to put similar labels on chewing
tobacco whether or not it is legally required. Thus no tobacco user
can claim he was uninformed as to the pros and cons of the product.
...Keith
[ Your anecdote about flu virus germs shows that the government did
the right thing, based on information available at the time. It seems
to me to be dirty pool to make fun of people based on hindsight.
- CWM]
-------