NotesFAQContact Us
Collection
Advanced
Search Tips
ERIC Number: ED270811
Record Type: Non-Journal
Publication Date: 1986-Aug
Pages: 26
Abstractor: N/A
ISBN: N/A
ISSN: N/A
EISSN: N/A
Deceptive Advertising: Unprotected and Unknown.
Ducoffe, Robert Hal
The Supreme Court tentatively extended First Amendment protection to commercial speech, but left the issue of defining and regulating deceptive advertising to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which has employed tools such as the cease-and-desist order, affirmative disclosure, and corrective advertising. The FTC Act did not define deception, but the commission generally holds that deception exists "when an objectively ascertainable material fact is presented falsely, is ambiguous, or is misleading." Deception has been modeled, by Armstrong and Russ (1975), as a process involving exposure, perception, and belief. This implies that in order for deception to occur, it is not sufficient that claims be false; they must also be believed. The commissioners are not justified in acting on the basis of this model, because if they believe an ad to be deceptive they have not been deceived. Furthermore, they cannot interpret the beliefs of consumers solely on the basis of their own beliefs. Though research has not been able to define deception, it has developed techniques for detecting deception, two of which are the "normative belief technique" and the "salient belief technique." However, research has not been able to establish causality and thus has had little impact on policy, except in the case of "puffery," which is currently considered protected speech but may deserve the same consideration that deception is currently given by the law. Seventy-eight end notes are appended. (SRT)
Publication Type: Speeches/Meeting Papers; Opinion Papers
Education Level: N/A
Audience: N/A
Language: English
Sponsor: N/A
Authoring Institution: N/A
Identifiers - Laws, Policies, & Programs: First Amendment
Grant or Contract Numbers: N/A