Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The United States federal government regulates advertising through the Federal Trade Commission [49] (FTC) with truth-in-advertising laws [50] and enables private litigation through a number of laws, most significantly the Lanham Act (trademark and unfair competition). Specifically, under Section 43(a), false advertising is an actionable civil ...
A particular use for puff pieces may be in health journalism. Providers of alternative medicine may be unable to make claims due to laws against false advertising, but they may be able to place stories and testimonials with journalists who can write as they wish under press freedom laws. Recruiting health journalists to write puff pieces may be ...
Puffery is an exaggerated claim typically found in advertising and publicity announcements, such as "the highest quality at the lowest price", or "always votes in the best interest of all the people". Such statements are unlikely to be true – but cannot be proven false and so, do not violate trade laws, especially as the consumer is expected ...
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us
A Federal Communications Commission (FCC) commissioner has claimed that Vice President Harris’s recent appearance on “Saturday Night Live,” commonly known as “SNL,” violates the “equal ...
The Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation Act (H.R. 1084/S. 2847) (CALM Act) requires the U.S. Federal Communications Commission to bar the audio of TV commercials from being broadcast louder than the TV program material they accompany by requiring all "multichannel video programming" distributors to implement the "Techniques for Establishing and Maintaining Audio Loudness for Digital ...
Here's what to know about the controversy surrounding Lunchly, including allegations of mold and exaggerated marketing. Pictured are YouTubers MrBeast (L), Logan Paul (R) and KSI. Are Lunchly kits ...
Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld the right of lawyers to advertise their services. [1] In holding that lawyer advertising was commercial speech entitled to protection under the First Amendment (incorporated against the States through the Fourteenth Amendment), the Court upset the tradition against advertising ...