Only a Fool Would Believe Our Ads: Apple

rated by 0 users
This post has 8 Replies | 1 Follower

Top 10 Contributor
Posts 26,744
Points 1,210,040
Joined: Sep 2007
ForumsAdministrator
News Posted: Wed, Dec 3 2008 11:44 PM
William J. Gillis Jr. filed a lawsuit against Apple in September which alleged that Apple and AT&T had made overstated the performance of the iPhone ("twice the speed, half the price," remember?). Apple's interesting legal response says, in part, we're not lying about the performance, but honestly, you should know better than to believe us.

It's actually a legal term: "puffery," or in this case "puffing," in Apple's sixteenth affirmative defense on page five of Apple's legal reply (.PDF) which Wired obtained. Puffery means:
"A subjective, boastful claim that is so exaggerated or vague that a reasonable consumer would not take it seriously."
Apple's sixteenth affirmative defense states:
Plaintiff's claims, and those of the purported class, are barred by the fact that the alleged deceptive statements were such that no reasonable person in Plaintiff's position could have reasonably relied on or misunderstood Apple's statements as claims of fact.
Yep, puffery. Basically Apple is saying, you'd have to be an idiot to believe us. Despite the statement they make in their fifth affirmative defense on page 2:
Any statements made by Apple were truthful and accurate and were not misleading or deceptive.
Whoa, you can't have it both ways! But as far as puffery goes, this article has an excellent look at puffery, and makes one wonder if Apple's defense, at least in terms of puffery, holds water. One sentence in particular:
Instead, false advertising law defines the puffery defense categorically: claims “not capable of measurement” that “consumers would not take seriously.”
Not capable of measurement? Well, twice as fast is capable of measurement, as is half the price (which we already know was inaccurate; the 3G model is more expensive when you take into account the changes to the service plans).

Is this defense going to hold up? We'll have to see, but at least in the U.S. Apple hasn't had any ads banned; in the U.K. two have been banned.
 
 
  • Filed under:
  • | Post Points: 65
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 6,181
Points 90,135
Joined: Aug 2003
Location: United States, Virginia
Moderator

http://www.simpletoremember.com/what/stellaawards.htm

Well Apple wouldn't be the first time a fool won a court case.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 119
Points 1,405
Joined: Oct 2008
Jeremy replied on Thu, Dec 4 2008 9:50 AM

A company using patently misleading advertising (Apple) is way different than sueing a company for your own stupidity. Every consumer is obligated to check the details (if it's too good to be true . . .), but companies should not be able to use blatant falsehoods to sell a product.

If a car company claimed their new car was twice as fast as the old one or their competition, but it turned out they were only talking about how quickly a CD loads and plays, you know it wouldn't fly. I don't see this being any different.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 210
Points 2,845
Joined: Apr 2007
Location: Kansas
shanewu replied on Thu, Dec 4 2008 9:53 AM

Good luck to Mr. Gillis! I'm a very skeptical person, so I don't believe claims made in most ads, BUT I do believe that our regulations in the US don't stop misleading and false advertising enough. Let's hope David can slap Goliath around a bit. ;)

"Everyone always wants new things. Everybody likes new inventions, new technology. People will never be replaced by machines. In the end, life and business are about human connections. And computers are about trying to murder you in a lake. And to me, the choice is easy." - Michael Scott (The Office)

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Posts 19
Points 220
Joined: May 2008

It's long overdue that something be done about the blatant lies in Apple advertising. Microsoft should have slapped them with a lawsuit years ago, I'm glad a consumer finally is. Sure, only an idiot would believe their claims, but lets face it, that only rules out perhaps a quarter of the population.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 5,054
Points 60,735
Joined: May 2008
Location: U.S.
Moderator
3vi1 replied on Thu, Dec 4 2008 6:05 PM

I can't believe some idiot made up that award with no investigation beyond the mainstream media: http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm.

If, despite over 700 previous incidents you still insist on a company policy of keeping coffee at abnormally high, scalding temperatures, that causes spill victims to need eight days of skin grafts (whether you spill it on them, they spill it on themselves, or a customer spills it on someone else), you deserve to be sued.  You're giving this stuff to people in a flimsy cup with a flimsy lid - if she had taken a big swallow, it probably would have killed her from internal scalding.

The lady only wanted $20,000 for hospital bills she had to pay to not die, it was the jury that put McDonalds out to dry for their reckless, callous and willful (the judges words) neglect of public safety.  And the lady didn't receive the 2.7 million the jury picked - It's entirely possible she barely got any more than she originally asked for.

What part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

++++++++++++[>++++>+++++++++>+++>+<<<<-]>+++.>++++++++++.-------------.+++.>---.>--.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 6,181
Points 90,135
Joined: Aug 2003
Location: United States, Virginia
Moderator

I guess you guys no lika my jokeEmbarrassed

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 835
Points 11,255
Joined: Nov 2008
Location: New Zealand

I don't get it. Tongue Tied If Apple say that 'only a fool would believe our ads', it means they weren't expecting people to believe it. Then why were they still using that ad in the first place?

*New KILLER Rig!!* - Windows 7 Ultimate 64 Bit Build 7100 (RC)

Intel Core i7 920 OCed to 3.2GHz | CoolerMaster V8 | Patriot Viper 3x2GB DDR3-1333MHz | MSI Eclipse X58 | LG W2261V 22" 16:9 | Western Digital Caviar Black 640GB | MSI ATI 4870 1GB | Enermax Revolution 85+ 1050W PSU | CoolerMaster HAF 932 | ASUS DRW-22B1LT Lightscribe | Creative SB X-Fi Xtreme | Logitech X-540 |  Razer Carcharias | Razer Lachesis | Razer Destructor/ Razer Goliathus Speed/ Fnatic SteelSeries Qck+ XL | OCZ Alchemy Elixir |

*My OLD Killer PC* - Windows Xp Home Edition 32 Bit

Intel Pentium 4 2.6Ghz -1GB (2x512MB) Hynix DDR-400Mhz SDRAM - Micro ATX ECS L4S5MG/651+ - Acer AL506 15" Monitor - Seagate 2.5" ST380012A IDE 5200RPM 80GB - ASUS nVidia TNT2 M64 32MB AGP x4 - Hyena 300W PSU - *CoolerMaster Storm Scout*

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 6,181
Points 90,135
Joined: Aug 2003
Location: United States, Virginia
Moderator

tanka12345:

I don't get it. Tongue Tied If Apple say that 'only a fool would believe our ads', it means they weren't expecting people to believe it. Then why were they still using that ad in the first place?

Since I'm making bad jokes in this thread I'll say this. Apple is calling us all fools!

 

  • | Post Points: 5
Page 1 of 1 (9 items) | RSS